Police blotter: Ex-employee faces suit over file deletion

TalkBack 15 of 38:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Read more closely.

He's being asked not just to avoid deleting files whose loss is "detrimental to the company", but also those files which might be detrimental to him personally.

He has to be certain that the laptop includes all incriminating information when he returns it.

Why? Because this is supposed to be the most reasonable interpretation of a clause in his employment contract which only authorizes him to destroy information, without limitation.

You wrote:
4) deleting files *before* termination could be a stickier place to be, because then you have to prove intent, and content of the files comes into play. If a person deletes files, and they believe that deletion of these files would be in some way detrimental to the company, that's malicious intent and can get you in all sorts of trouble.
EoQ

But the Court held far more broadly:

Quoting:
Citrin points out that his employment contract authorized him to "return or destroy" data in the laptop when he ceased being employed by IAC (emphasis added).
EoQ

He is authorized to destroy data. There are no specific limits on this ability.


Continuing the quote:
But it is unlikely, to say the least, that the provision was intended to authorize him to destroy data that he knew the company had no duplicates of and would have wanted to have--if only to nail Citrin for misconduct.
EoQ

The Court introduces provisions into the contract, asserting what the company would have written if someone had thought of it.

It's a reasonable assertion that the company would not have wanted him to delete irreplaceable information of business value.
It's also reasonable to think that the defendant could have realized that the information had business value.
Though I wonder how many unwritten expectations which contradict the plain text are allowed in interpretting a contract.

But this goes further. The defendant must look for items of no business value, but which might help his former employer in litigation against him.

Think about that decision: No, I can't delete this because it would help them nail me. But I can't see any way they can get me for this, so I can delete it.
He's being asked to try himself in advance.


Back to quoting:
The purpose of the provision may have been to avoid overloading the company with returned data of no further value, which the employee should simply have deleted.
EoQ

The question is What has no further value(?), and the defendant has to answer it with scrupulous regard for assuring that he has incriminated himself as much as possible.

Yup. Sounds reasonable to me.

Posted by: Anton Philidor   Posted on: 03/10/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Three Steps You Need to Know to Stop Data Loss Varonis Sensitive data exposed to misuse or loss... it is the stuff of nightmares ... Download Now
• Reducing Server Total Cost of Ownership with VMware Virtualization Software VMware VMware virtualization enables customers to reduce their server TCO and ... Download Now
• Busting the myths about QuickBooks Enterprise Solutions and IBM Smart Business IBM So you already know there aren't actually any alligators in the New York ... Download Now