PogoWasRight.org

Menu
  • About
  • Privacy
Menu

Attorney-Client Privilege Waived by Imputed Knowledge of Employer E-Mail Monitoring

Posted on December 7, 2009 by pogowasright.org

Jeff Neuburger writes:

In August, we wrote about the ruling of a New Jersey appellate court in Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., in which the court took a very narrow view of the ability of employers to monitor the e-mail communications of employees over its computer networks. In that case, which is now on appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court, the appellate court held that an employee did not waive her attorney-client privilege with respect to e-mails that she sent to her attorney while using the employer’s computer network, but via her personal Web mail account, despite the existence of a broadly worded communications policy giving the employer the right to access all communications occurring over its network. The appellate court court ruled that even if the employer’s policy applied to the employee (she disputed its applicability), the employer’s right to access to such communications pursuant to that policy was limited by the employer’s “legitimate business interests.” Such interests did not extend, the court concluded, to the employee’s communications with her attorney.

In contrast to the New Jersey court’s narrow view of the applicability of such policies, the district court judge in Alamar Ranch, LLC v. County of Boise, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101866 (D. Idaho Nov. 2, 2009), held that knowledge of employer monitoring of employee communications over its network could be imputed, not only to the employee but to the employee’s attorney as well. As a result, the court held, the attorney-client privilege had been waived with respect to messages sent by the employee to the attorney using her employer-assigned e-mail account, and to messages sent to the employee at her employer e-mail address by the attorney.

Read more on Proskauer Rose Privacy Law Blog.

Category: CourtOnlineU.S.Workplace

Post navigation

← HIPAA’s role in liability cases tested in Mich.
AU: Contractors should not have access to police files →

Now more than ever

Search

Contact Me

Email: [email protected]

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Categories

Recent Posts

  • Rules Proposed Under New Jersey Data Privacy Act
  • Using facial recognition? Three recent articles of interest.
  • India publishes consent management rules under Digital Personal Data Protection Act
  • Republicans Move A Step Closer To Repealing Protections For Abortion Clinics
  • Democrats introduce bill that aims to protect reproductive health data
  • Don’t Mind If I Do: Montana Says Hands Off Neural Data
  • 23andMe leadership grilled by lawmakers demanding answers about data security amid bankruptcy sale

RSS Recent Posts on DataBreaches.net

  • School Districts Unaware BoardDocs Software Published Their Private Files
  • A guilty plea in the PowerSchool case still leaves unanswered questions
  • Brussels Parliament hit by cyber-attack
  • Sweden under cyberattack: Prime minister sounds the alarm
  • Former CIA Analyst Sentenced to Over Three Years in Prison for Unlawfully Transmitting Top Secret National Defense Information
©2025 PogoWasRight.org. All rights reserved.