Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Papers can be served via e-mail
The Las Vegas Review-Journal ^ | Thursday, March 21, 2002 | CHRIS DI EDOARDO

Posted on 03/21/2002 4:18:34 PM PST by Willie Green

For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.

Ruling will make tracking down defendants easier

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday became the first appellate court in the nation to allow attorneys to serve legal documents via e-mail.

The ruling in Rio Properties vs. Rio International Interlink hands a victory to the off-Strip Rio hotel in its battle with a Costa Rica-based online sports book. Attorneys for the Rio hotel had claimed the Costa Rican company infringed on the hotel's trademark by operating gambling Web sites at www.riosports.com and www.betrio.com.

But it also gives lawyers across the West a new way to bring defendants with no physical address into court.

"We acknowledge that we tread upon untrodden ground," U.S. Circuit Judge Stephen Trott wrote in the court of appeals opinion. "(But) when faced with an international e-business scofflaw playing hide-and-seek with the federal court, e-mail may be the only means of effecting service of process."

Local legal experts say that reasoning could become increasingly prevalent in a wired world where commerce -- and commercial disputes -- frequently span international borders.

"This is an important decision, which, if it is followed by other courts outside the 9th Circuit, will make it easier for lawyers to find elusive defendants," said professor Ann McGinley, who teaches civil procedure at the William S. Boyd School of Law at UNLV. "I think right now it will not be applied absent exceptional circumstances, but I think we are moving in the direction of service by e-mail."

Wednesday's case began in 1998, when the Rio found an ad for Rio Interlink's Web site, www.riosports.com, in the Nevada edition of the Daily Racing Form. Rio Interlink also ran radio ads in the Las Vegas area promoting its offshore betting service.

After the hotel complained, Rio Interlink shut down the site and replaced it with www.betrio.com. At that point, attorneys for the Rio hotel sued the Costa Rican company for trademark infringement.

According to the opinion, Rio International's Miami address actually belonged to another company, which wasn't authorized to accept service for Rio International. After a search of corporate listings in Costa Rica failed to locate a physical address for the company, attorneys for the Rio hotel asked U.S. District Judge Philip M. Pro to allow them to serve Rio International via e-mail.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Government; US: Nevada
KEYWORDS: computersecurityin; nevada; techindex

1 posted on 03/21/2002 4:18:34 PM PST by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Um ... don't you have to be able to PROVE papers were served? Email disappears into the ether all the time.
2 posted on 03/21/2002 4:20:33 PM PST by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: Timesink
There are ways to audit email trails. If it got all the way to a user's INBOX and was deleted by the user, then papers were served.
4 posted on 03/21/2002 4:22:35 PM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
There are ways to audit email trails. If it got all the way to a user's INBOX and was deleted by the user, then papers were served.

There are ways to create fraudulent trails too ... that's what worries me.

5 posted on 03/21/2002 4:25:16 PM PST by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
The work to create fraudulent trails is a lot MORE than the work involved in physically tracking down and serving the miscreant with real paper.

You worried about a process server, perchance?

6 posted on 03/21/2002 4:26:25 PM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
There are ways to audit email trails. If it got all the way to a user's INBOX and was deleted by the user, then papers were served.

This is a bad precedent. What happens if your're sharing an email account and your wife or one of your kids receives the mail -- and deletes it?!? Were you served -- or not?
7 posted on 03/21/2002 4:27:05 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
The work to create fraudulent trails is a lot MORE than the work involved in physically tracking down and serving the miscreant with real paper.

I disagree. Practically any teenage geek capable of tracking down proof that a given email reached its destination would be equally capable of faking said "proof," at least to the extent that the average law enforcement officer, attorney or juror wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

You worried about a process server, perchance?

The "What's the problem, unless you got something to hide?" argument rarely works well on FR.

8 posted on 03/21/2002 4:32:32 PM PST by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
The 9th Circuit enjoys being overturned.
9 posted on 03/21/2002 4:34:57 PM PST by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
If it got all the way to a user's INBOX and was deleted by the user, then papers were served.

How would they know if it made it to the INBOX without automaticly being filtered to the garbage bin as spam???

10 posted on 03/21/2002 4:40:28 PM PST by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Oh, then you're talking about the RECIPIENT's responsibility here.

It's like claiming you threw those important documents in the trash because they were stuck between a catalog and a "YOU MAY HAVE ALREADY WON" mailer from Publisher's Clearinghouse.

11 posted on 03/21/2002 4:44:17 PM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
I disagree. Practically any teenage geek capable of tracking down proof that a given email reached its destination would be equally capable of faking said "proof," at least to the extent that the average law enforcement officer, attorney or juror wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

The "teenage geek" would be limited to ASKING sysadmins for a trace report, rather than hacking in--not to mention that hacking in wouldn't exactly be considered legal.

I don't see this happening much now, but by the year 2020, it will be considered legal to serve papers via email with a public key signature and certification stamps from each server.

12 posted on 03/21/2002 4:48:48 PM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: Jim Robinson
bump FYI
14 posted on 03/21/2002 5:31:18 PM PST by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
We acknowledge that we tread upon untrodden ground," U.S. Circuit Judge Stephen Trott wrote in the court of appeals opinion. "(But) when faced with an international e-business scofflaw playing hide-and-seek with the federal court, e-mail may be the only means of effecting service of process."

'Necessity' is the plea for every infringement of human liberty; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. -- William Pitt

15 posted on 03/21/2002 5:42:55 PM PST by jimkress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
But judge, lightening got my computer two week ago, and I can't afford to get it fixed.
16 posted on 03/21/2002 6:09:48 PM PST by chainsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EricOKC
Eric,

Your right about the 9th....was present when the court wanted to play games.....to serve wife they handed the papers to the husband.....who then took them to the person who served the papers and told them to serve her. The court considered her served in a location covered by the 9th district.

17 posted on 03/21/2002 6:10:46 PM PST by Issaquahking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

To: EricOKC
No I don't. Then again, normally don't tangle with the law unless they are in the wrong.
19 posted on 03/21/2002 8:19:46 PM PST by Issaquahking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Oh man, this opens up Pandoras Box.What if you have the same E-Mail at your home as you have at work?When you open your E-Mail and see it's there,that doesn't mean they've clicked on it and read it.No one's going to know where (work or home) it landed are they?What if they back-up their info? Creating another H.D. is a piece of cake.They could always swap out their hard-drive in a few seconds or dispose of it and put another in,w/ the same IP's and passwords.These are the types of things they're going to have to deal with,unless they change the law.I still think people should have to hand it to the people.
20 posted on 03/21/2002 8:20:53 PM PST by Pagey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson