5 ms·

I've known companies that had pretty good email policies....until they got sued and every email debate was turned into the evidence that they knew X or consider

I've known companies that had pretty good email policies....until they got sued and every email debate was turned into the evidence that they knew X or considered Y or thought about Z and were therefore guilty. :-(

andrenotgiant 14y ago
I would imagine that this open email policy actually reduces the amount of lawsuit-relevant emails in one sense: If you want to talk about something sensitive or private you would probably pick up the phone or walk over to the person, knowing an email is shared with the entire company.
- Terretta 14y ago
  Shhhh.
- yajoe 14y ago
  Bingo. Full disclosure: I've worked on eDiscovery products and may be biased. This is a net good thing, I think, for a company to reduce its dependence on arbitrary communication that is written and backed up forever.
quasque 14y ago
This is a real risk. One company I worked for had me modify already sent and archived emails and Yahoo Messenger logs to remove incriminating evidence in preparation for an expected unfair dismissal trial. And also conveniently 'lose' the backup tapes for the period where the original data existed. Thankfully it was settled out of court. Mind you, the dishonesty was rife there. The boss had me scan in his cellphone bills and edit to remove all records of calls to his mistress, so he could print them out (as 'photocopies') and prove to his wife that he wasn't cheating on her. Kind of regret all that now, but payment alleviates conscience.
- pc86 14y ago
  > but payment alleviates conscience. That's disgusting.
  - quasque 14y ago
    "That's disgusting." I agree. This was years ago - I wouldn't do it now as I have financial freedom and (probably) a higher standard of morals. But back then, keeping my employers satisfied so my sole source of income was safe, was a large motivator.
    - gertef 14y ago
      Have you notified his wife and apologized for lying to her? If not, you are still hurting her today.
      - quasque 14y ago
        No, and I'm not going to. I can't see how it would help anyone involved, especially several years on. Anyway I don't even know who she is, or if they're even married any more.
- eli 14y ago
  Err, IANAL, but you may have committed a crime by tampering with evidence even though it was a civil case.
  - quasque 14y ago
    Quite probably. I was most relieved when it wasn't taken to court.
  - otterley 14y ago
    Definitely in California, if not most states: "Every person who, knowing that any book, paper, record, instrument in writing, or other matter or thing, is about to be produced in evidence upon any trial, inquiry, or investigation whatever, authorized by law, willfully destroys or conceals the same, with intent thereby to prevent it from being produced, is guilty of a misdemeanor." (Cal. Pen. Code. S. 135)
    - jessaustin 14y ago
      (I'm asking for a friend.) What if the paperwork in question isn't being used in an investigation, but rather as a way of proving residence in a particular area for the purpose of receiving services provided in that area?
      - hollerith 14y ago
        Pretty sure that the laws of all 50 states considers that to be fraud. If the person committing the fraud is poor however or very young, the will to prosecute the fraud is often absent, but you cannot count on that. For example, someone was prosecuted here in California for helping a friend without health insurance obtain medical care by trying to get the hospital to believe that his friend was him. IANAL though.
jzieger2 14y ago
Hi (I'm Stripe's lawyer). Litigation discovery is something that any company needs to think about when crafting its email policy. But whether an email goes to a few individual recipients or to a broader list won't impact whether it needs to be disclosed in discovery. The seemingly private email between two or three co-workers will almost always persist in someone's inbox for a very long time, and ultimately be discovered. In most cases, the kinds of emails you are talking about -- where someone says something that can be mischaracterized or otherwise damaging to the company in the future -- are a result of poor judgment. And that's where I think Stripe's policy has a distinct advantage. When people know they're sending things to a broader group of recipients they tend to be more thoughtful in how they communicate and just avoid saying many of the imprudent things that would be troublesome in future discovery.
- UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
  Random question relating to both e-mail and the law... So everyone puts these signatures/disclaimers on their e-mail now which say (paraphrasing): > This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. Please send us by fax any message containing deadlines as incoming e-mails are not screened for response deadlines. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet. Or similar. Do these things actually have a legal purpose/meaning? I mean can you really enforce a contract the other person hasn't agreed to? Can you really demand what THEY do with an e-mail YOU sent them? A few years ago I thought this stuff was silly but now a lot of big companies are doing it and I can only assume these companies have a legal department... PS - If you were to reply I wouldn't assume it was legal advice, I am asking you as a person who just happens to be a lawyer, not as a lawyer. :)
  - jzieger2 14y ago
    I think people do these things mainly to deal with inadvertent disclosure (e.g., an incorrectly addressed email) or further downstream distribution of an email. The idea is to have some indicator that the original sender meant the communication to remain in confidence (which may be required to maintain, for example, attorney client privilege, or to preserve trade secret protection). When they are affixed automatically to every email (as they are by many firms), I really doubt they work. I'm not aware of any case where the existence of this kind of disclaimer has been a factor, and I suspect most people put this in the "it couldn't hurt" category, rather than really thinking it'll be effective. Would be interested to hear if anyone is aware of evidence to the contrary.

andrenotgiant 14y ago

I would imagine that this open email policy actually reduces the amount of lawsuit-relevant emails in one sense: If you want to talk about something sensitive or private you would probably pick up the phone or walk over to the person, knowing an email is shared with the entire company.

Terretta 14y ago
Shhhh.
yajoe 14y ago
Bingo. Full disclosure: I've worked on eDiscovery products and may be biased. This is a net good thing, I think, for a company to reduce its dependence on arbitrary communication that is written and backed up forever.

quasque 14y ago

This is a real risk. One company I worked for had me modify already sent and archived emails and Yahoo Messenger logs to remove incriminating evidence in preparation for an expected unfair dismissal trial. And also conveniently 'lose' the backup tapes for the period where the original data existed. Thankfully it was settled out of court. Mind you, the dishonesty was rife there. The boss had me scan in his cellphone bills and edit to remove all records of calls to his mistress, so he could print them out (as 'photocopies') and prove to his wife that he wasn't cheating on her. Kind of regret all that now, but payment alleviates conscience.

pc86 14y ago
> but payment alleviates conscience. That's disgusting.
- quasque 14y ago
  "That's disgusting." I agree. This was years ago - I wouldn't do it now as I have financial freedom and (probably) a higher standard of morals. But back then, keeping my employers satisfied so my sole source of income was safe, was a large motivator.
  - gertef 14y ago
    Have you notified his wife and apologized for lying to her? If not, you are still hurting her today.
    - quasque 14y ago
      No, and I'm not going to. I can't see how it would help anyone involved, especially several years on. Anyway I don't even know who she is, or if they're even married any more.
eli 14y ago
Err, IANAL, but you may have committed a crime by tampering with evidence even though it was a civil case.
- quasque 14y ago
  Quite probably. I was most relieved when it wasn't taken to court.
- otterley 14y ago
  Definitely in California, if not most states: "Every person who, knowing that any book, paper, record, instrument in writing, or other matter or thing, is about to be produced in evidence upon any trial, inquiry, or investigation whatever, authorized by law, willfully destroys or conceals the same, with intent thereby to prevent it from being produced, is guilty of a misdemeanor." (Cal. Pen. Code. S. 135)
  - jessaustin 14y ago
    (I'm asking for a friend.) What if the paperwork in question isn't being used in an investigation, but rather as a way of proving residence in a particular area for the purpose of receiving services provided in that area?
    - hollerith 14y ago
      Pretty sure that the laws of all 50 states considers that to be fraud. If the person committing the fraud is poor however or very young, the will to prosecute the fraud is often absent, but you cannot count on that. For example, someone was prosecuted here in California for helping a friend without health insurance obtain medical care by trying to get the hospital to believe that his friend was him. IANAL though.

jzieger2 14y ago

Hi (I'm Stripe's lawyer). Litigation discovery is something that any company needs to think about when crafting its email policy. But whether an email goes to a few individual recipients or to a broader list won't impact whether it needs to be disclosed in discovery. The seemingly private email between two or three co-workers will almost always persist in someone's inbox for a very long time, and ultimately be discovered. In most cases, the kinds of emails you are talking about -- where someone says something that can be mischaracterized or otherwise damaging to the company in the future -- are a result of poor judgment. And that's where I think Stripe's policy has a distinct advantage. When people know they're sending things to a broader group of recipients they tend to be more thoughtful in how they communicate and just avoid saying many of the imprudent things that would be troublesome in future discovery.

UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
Random question relating to both e-mail and the law... So everyone puts these signatures/disclaimers on their e-mail now which say (paraphrasing): > This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. Please send us by fax any message containing deadlines as incoming e-mails are not screened for response deadlines. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet. Or similar. Do these things actually have a legal purpose/meaning? I mean can you really enforce a contract the other person hasn't agreed to? Can you really demand what THEY do with an e-mail YOU sent them? A few years ago I thought this stuff was silly but now a lot of big companies are doing it and I can only assume these companies have a legal department... PS - If you were to reply I wouldn't assume it was legal advice, I am asking you as a person who just happens to be a lawyer, not as a lawyer. :)
- jzieger2 14y ago
  I think people do these things mainly to deal with inadvertent disclosure (e.g., an incorrectly addressed email) or further downstream distribution of an email. The idea is to have some indicator that the original sender meant the communication to remain in confidence (which may be required to maintain, for example, attorney client privilege, or to preserve trade secret protection). When they are affixed automatically to every email (as they are by many firms), I really doubt they work. I'm not aware of any case where the existence of this kind of disclaimer has been a factor, and I suspect most people put this in the "it couldn't hurt" category, rather than really thinking it'll be effective. Would be interested to hear if anyone is aware of evidence to the contrary.