You are here: / / ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE DID NOT APPLY TO INFORMATION ON A COMPANY OWNED...
,

ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE DID NOT APPLY TO INFORMATION ON A COMPANY OWNED COMPUTER, HOWEVER ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE MAY APPLY.

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff could not assert attorney-client privilege to protect information on a company-owned laptop, but could assert the attorney work product privilege subject to court review of the log:

​

Application of the factors set forth in In re Asia Global Crossing, Ltd. (322 BR 247, 257 [Bankr, SD NY 2005]) indicates that plaintiff lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy in his personal use of the laptop computer supplied to him by defendant Zara USA, Inc. (Zara), his employer, and thus lacked the reasonable assurance of confidentiality that is foundational to attorney-client privilege … . Among other factors, Zara’s employee handbook, of which plaintiff, Zara’s general counsel, had at least constructive knowledge… , restricted use of company-owned electronic resources, including computers, to “business purposes” and proscribed offensive uses. The handbook specified that “[a]ny data collected, downloaded and/or created” on its electronic resources was “the exclusive property of Zara,” emphasized that “[e]mployees should expect that all information created, transmitted, downloaded, received or stored in Zara’s electronic communications resources may be accessed by Zara at any time, without prior notice,” and added that employees “do not have an expectation of privacy or confidentiality in any information transmitted or stored in Zara’s electronic communication resources (whether or not such information is password-protected).”

Plaintiff avers, and defendant does not dispute, however, that, while reserving a right of access, Zara in fact never exercised that right as to plaintiff’s laptop and never actually viewed any of the documents stored on that laptop. Given the lack of any “actual disclosure to a third party, [plaintiff’s] use of [Zara’s computer] for personal purposes does not, standing alone, constitute a waiver of attorney work product protections” … . Miller v Zara USA, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 04407, 1st Dept 6-6-17

 

ATTORNEYS (PRIVILEGE, ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE DID NOT APPLY TO INFORMATION ON A COMPANY OWNED COMPUTER, HOWEVER ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE MAY APPLY)/PRIVILEGE (ATTORNEYS, ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE DID NOT APPLY TO INFORMATION ON A COMPANY OWNED COMPUTER, HOWEVER ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE MAY APPLY)/ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE (PRIVILEGE DID NOT APPLY TO INFORMATION ON A COMPANY OWNED COMPUTER, HOWEVER ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE MAY APPLY)/ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE (PRIVILEGE DID NOT APPLY TO INFORMATION ON A COMPANY OWNED COMPUTER, HOWEVER ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE MAY APPLY)

You might also like
DISAGREEING WITH THE THIRD DEPARTMENT, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THAT A PREHEARING DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR RESENTENCING UNDER THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (DVSJA) IS APPEALABLE; HERE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SUFFICIENT NEXUS BETWEEN THE ABUSE HE SUFFERED WHILE LIVING WITH HIS FAMILY AND THE STABBING OF A STRANGER AFTER HE HAD LEFT HOME (FIRST DEPT).
BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD TO STAND ON THE GUARDRAILS OF THE MANLIFT TO REACH WHAT HE WAS WORKING ON, THE MANLIFT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE EQUIPMENT; PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE A TESTIMONIAL HEARING BEFORE THE REMOVAL OF A GUARDIAN FOR AN INCAPACITATED PERSON (FIRST DEPT).
PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED THE RAPE KIT AND BLOOD AND SALIVA EVIDENCE RELATED TO A 1988 PROSECUTION HAD BEEN DESTROYED AND DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AVAILABILITY OF THE EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE CHANGED THE VERDICT, MOTION FOR DNA TESTING AND MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
POLICE OFFICER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS PULMONARY HYPERTENSION WAS RELATED TO HIS SERVICE AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 9-11.
DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE FACED A 45-YEAR SENTENCE AFTER TRIAL WHEN THE ACTUAL SENTENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN CAPPED AT 20 YEARS; DEFENDANT’S DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY WAS NOT KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY MADE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S ONLY CONNECTION TO THE CORPORATION WHICH HAD CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK WAS HIS SALARY; THEREFORE THE CORPORATION’S NEW YORK CONTACTS COULD NOT BE IMPUTED TO DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).
THE FLOOR OF THE ELEVATOR WHERE PLAINTIFF’S ACCIDENT OCCURRED IS NOT A “PASSAGEWAY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE (FIRST DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

INSURER’S MOTION TO STAY ARBITRATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS... BRIEF MENTION OF AN OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE INTERROGATING DETECTIVE KNEW DEFENDANT...