Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Quahog who wrote (1058)	2/12/2001 11:30:37 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

From what I have been told by a Plaintiff's cybersmear attorney, AOL is one of the most difficult services to get to cooperate with a subpoena. This is because AOL and Netscape have been sued for violating the privacy rights of their subscribers. It's cheaper to be careful than to pay damages. I have been told that the courthouse in Virginia has several employees that ONLY handle AOL subpoenas, This is probably a joke. and that AOL generally will not comply without a court order entered in the Virginia courts. This is probably true. I haven't researched this issue before now but that's what the law appears to require. Federal subpoenas are just issued by lawyers and signed by clerks, they aren't court orders signed by judges. This raises another interesting question: Why would a company sitting in Washington comply with a subpoena issued from another state? They shouldn't. In this case, the discovery subpoena was issued from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The discovery is taking place in the same district that Infospace/Silicon Investor is located in. Basically, the lawyers filed a miscellaneous action or auxillary action in Washington for the purpose of discovery. This can be done for all litigation if you cross the t's and dot the i's. I have a physician client that frequently receives subpoenas from other states seeking medical records. Aside from confidentiality issues, I always refuse to comply based on the fact that these subpoenas have no power after crossing a state line. I know that some states have enacted Uniform Laws relating to interstate discovery (and maybe Washington is such a state) but without such a Uniform law it is, IMO, irresponsible to comply with a subpoena issued from a court in another state. In Virginia, where I practice, your license is in jeopardy if you send a state subpoena to another state unless you tell the recipient that it has no legal effect, because to act as if it does have legal effect is fraudulent. But a federal Rule 45 subpoena is a little different - the subpoena is valid within the district of the court or within 100 miles of the place of the deposition, trial, production, or inspection, so depending on the location the subpoena power could reach over a state or two in the northeast, e.g., from Alexandria, Virginia to the District of Columbia and Maryland.