Ohio Supreme Court to Hear Digital Public Records Case

The Ohio Supreme Court on Tuesday grappled with the realities of the computer age as it weighed the question of when a “deleted” public record becomes a “destroyed” public record.

At issue is a lawsuit by The Blade seeking to force the Seneca County commissioners to hire a forensic computer expert at county expense to recover deleted e-mails from an 18-month period, some of which the newspaper contends may contain illegal private communications related to the proposed razing of the county’s historic courthouse.

“We’re talking about a very finite amount of time here, and we’re talking about e-mails from two or three people to one another,” said Justice Maureen O’Connor. “It just doesn’t seem to me to be that overwhelmingly burdensome or such a huge task here for the county to not even attempt to comply.”

Fritz Byers, The Blade’s attorney, told the court that the newspaper made a request under the Ohio Public Records Law seeking all e-mails sent, received, or deleted for an 18-month period beginning Jan. 1, 2006. The county provided a “smattering” of e-mails initially, he said, but then, after the paper sued, the county produced 700-plus pages of additional e-mails.

He noted that the commissioners have admitted that some records were deleted.

“If the court doesn’t rule fully in our favor, then it will mean that any official will be able to legally cover his tracks and misdeeds by a simple click on the computer's delete button,” said John Robinson Block, The Blade’s co-publisher and editor-in-chief.

Computer Forensics Foils RIAA Lawsuit

One of the most closely-watched copyright infringement lawsuits brought by the RIAA appears to be coming to a screeching halt, much to the music industry's delight. A judge ruled Monday that a defendant had willfully and intentionally destroyed evidence of his P2P activities after being notified of pending legal action by the RIAA. Furthermore, since it was done in bad faith, it "therefore warrants appropriate sanctions."

The order in Atlantic v. Howell was issued at the end of a pretrial conference held in an Arizona courtroom. Jeffery Howell, the defendant who represented himself throughout the case, was accused of copyright infringement for sharing music over the KaZaA P2P network. Howell denied the charges, saying that the music MediaSentry saw in his shared folder was for his own private use.

Howell won a major victory against the RIAA this past April, when a judge rejected the RIAA's cornerstone legal theory that simply making a file available on P2P network constituted copyright infringement. Judge Neil V. Wake denied the RIAA's motion for summary judgment, ruling that "a distribution must involve a 'sale or other transfer of ownership' or a 'rental, lease, or lending' of a copy of the work. The recording companies have not proved an actual distribution of 42 of the copyrighted sound recordings at issue, so their motion for summary judgement fails as to those recordings."