What is a &quot;sealed&quot; document? When reading about T.J Miller, I noticed one sentence Student conduct proceedings were held, the results of which are sealed (...) What is the legal framework for such &quot;sealing&quot; of information? Can it be &quot;un-sealed&quot;? (in case an investigation was to be performed) Note: the Wikipedia article is just an example, I am not interested in that particular case but in the US concept of &quot;sealing&quot; some documents (legally speaking)
&quot;Sealing&quot; means ending access to the records of a proceeding, usually, in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. This generally means that the records can't be released without a court order. The most common circumstance in which records are sealed is under state statutes which are designed to have the practical effect of eliminating the collateral effects of a past criminal conviction, in a manner similar to a pardon issued after a sentence of the crime has been fully served.
&quot;Awaiting sentencing&quot; either remanded in custody or on bail. &quot;Sentence completed&quot; which may, or may not, after time become &quot;Spent&quot; (see here) and note that: It is against the law for an organisation to obtain information about an individual’s spent cautions or convictions unless the law specifically states that they can ask an exempted question; usually when someone is applying for a job or role that is exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 Source For completeness: checks are made with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS).
Mere ideas are not, as others have said, protected by copyright. However, the police officer in such a situation may have a duty of confidentiality, particularly if s/he is informed that the contents of the phone are confidential. For example the &quot;Officer's Code of Conduct&quot; of Canton Ohio, says: Whatever a Police Officer sees, hears or learns of that is of a confidential nature will be kept a secret unless the performance of duty or legal provision requires otherwise. Members of the public have a right to security and privacy, and information obtained about them must not be improperly divulged. Many police departments have similar codes of conduct or policies. Such a policy might apply in the circumstances described in the question. In this page on &quot;Confidential information&quot; posted by the TaylorWessing law firm, it is said that: There are three circumstances in which the disclosure of information gives rise to an obligation of confidence: An obligation imposed by contract – for example, non-disclosure agreements. An obligation implied because of the circumstances of disclosure – this is determined on the basis of whether a reasonable man standing in the shoes of the recipient of the information would have realised that the information was being given to him in confidence. An obligation implied because of the special relationship between the parties concerned – for example, employer/employee relationships. The best way of ensuring that confidential information is recognised and treated as such is by contract. If no express requirement for confidentiality is imposed, the manner in which the discloser treats the information can be held as indicative of its level of confidentially. Talking about information in public places, for example, would cause the recipient to assume it was not confidential in nature. An action for breach of confidence is based on the conscience of the recipient who must have agreed or known that the information is confidential. Thus an action for breach of confidence can be brought against the original recipient of the information and any subsequent recipient who becomes aware of the fact that the information is confidential. An action for breach of confidence may be brought against a person who has used or disclosed, or threatened to use or disclose, confidential information without permission. A police officer engaged in a search of confidential documents, whether found on a phone, on a computer, or in a filing cabinet, is in a &quot;special relationship&quot; with the sub ject of the search, and the &quot;circumstances of disclosure&quot; are unusual. Use of such information for private, personal gain unrelated to any police function might be held to violate an implied duty of confidentiality, particularly if the officer is informed of the confidential nature of the documents. If the documents contain or constitute trade secrets, unauthorized use will give grounds for a lawsuit. This would not apply to proper use within a police investigation or criminal case, but it would apply to private use or disclosure by the officer. in &quot;Release of personal information to police: your privacy rights&quot; from the Government of Ontario it is said that: Ontario public sector organizations, such as provincial ministries and agencies, municipalities, schools, and transit systems, are required by law to protect your personal information and to follow certain rules when collecting, using, and disclosing your personal information. This document is primarily about when other governnment agencies can release personal information to law enforcement, but it might be taken to imply a similar obligation to respect privacy being imposed on law enforcement officers. In this page and other linked pages the UK metropolitian police indicate that they are subject to the Data Protection Act 2018 This is closely related to the GDPR. This restricts processing of personal data to lawful purposes. In the absence of the consent of the person searched, I doubt that use of information for personal gain having no connection with a police investigation would constitute a lawful purpose. I have not found an authoritative source, nor a court case, in which the situation described in the question, nor any closely similar situation, is addressed or decided.
Plagiarism is an academic category about the thoughts from another scholar/author. Copyright is a legal category about the words of another writer. When a student or a degree candidate present a paper or a thesis, they implicitly or explicitly claim that it is their original work, except for sections which are marked as the work of others. With a thesis for a degree, there may be a form where the candidate confirms this in writing, which brings the law back into the academic sphere. There are many situations in a school or even university context where there is no such claim of originality. Imagine the exam question &quot;what is the third law of thermodynamics?&quot; There would be no need for the student to give a source, because nobody asked for it and nobody could possibly believe that the student just invented that law. If the question was about who discovered the third law, they should say so. Schools which prepare their students for academic work should introduce both concepts and train their students in proper citation at some point. But not too early.
This is a civil case in Texas. See Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 193.3(d) and guidance. In the current PDF May 1 2022 those are on pages 199 and 121 respectively and I reproduce them below. My understanding is that defense counsel (D) could have asserted privilege when Plaintiffs' counsel (P) originally told him about the link. In doing so, D would have identified the inadvertently produced material and the privilege asserted. Then P would be obliged to promptly return (or delete as it's digital) that material and any copies. Inevitably in this case P would object to the claim of privilege over any material potentially or apparently 'responsive' to discovery (e.g. a folder called &quot;digital copy of defendant's phone&quot; or texts mentioning keywords). The judge would hear from both parties and make a ruling on the material. In reality, D did not do that. Also, D made no contemporaneous objections to P's request to admit particular material in court (note P did not request the admission of the entire trove, only particular pieces of it). Instead, the day after the &quot;Perry Mason moment&quot;, D filed an 'emergency motion of protection' and a request for a mistrial. The judge denied both. D asked for another ten days to review the material. The judge said no to ten days but said D could have a D a day to make a start and then they could discuss whether more were needed. She said she would not make a blanket protection order over the entire trove without knowledge of what was in it. hearing here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKbAmNwbiMk Incidentally, P claimed there was an earlier inadvertent production of some other material and in relation to that material rule 193.3(d) was followed by both parties. (from 7mins in that clip.) Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 193.3(d) Privilege not waived by production. A party who produces material or information without intending to waive a claim of privilege does not waive that claim under these rules or the Rules of Evidence if - within ten days or a shorter time ordered by the court, after the producing party actually discovers that such production was made - the producing party amends the response, identifying the material or information produced and stating the privilege asserted. If the producing party thus amends the response to assert a privilege, any party who has obtained the specific material or information must promptly return the specified material or information and any copies pending any ruling by the court denying the privilege. (guidance) Rule 193.3(d) is a new provision that allows a party to assert a claim of privilege to material or information produced inadvertently without intending to waive the privilege. The provision is commonly used in complex cases to reduce costs and risks in large document Page 122 productions. The focus is on the intent to waive the privilege, not the intent to produce the material or information. A party who fails to diligently screen documents before producing them does not waive a claim of privilege. This rule is thus broader than Tex. R. Evid. 511 and overturns Granada Corp. v. First Court of Appeals, 844 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. 1992), to the extent the two conflict. The ten-day period (which may be shortened by the court) allowed for an amended response does not run from the production of the material or information but from the party’s first awareness of the mistake. To avoid complications at trial, a party may identify prior to trial the documents intended to be offered, thereby triggering the obligation to assert any overlooked privilege under this rule. A trial court may also order this procedure. This rule imposes no duty to supplement or amend deposition testimony. The only duty to supplement deposition testimony is provided in Rule 195.6. Any party can request a hearing in which the court will resolve issues brought up in objections or withholding statements. The party seeking to avoid discovery has the burden of proving the objection or privilege.
A cease and desist letter is basically a formal way of them saying, &quot;stop what you are doing, and please don't do it again.&quot; It is not proof of tortious conduct by you, nor is it proof of illegal conduct by you. It does not open up an avenue for the university to sue you, nor does it open up an avenue for the university to have you committed to a mental institution. Your behaviour after receiving such a letter does matter however. What is most likely their next step should you continue emailing members of the university, is to apply for an injunction. It is possible that should the injunction be granted, you may be liable to pay fees. Breaching an injunction can have serious consequences, including jail. I would recommend against writing a letter apologizing. You are doing the very thing they asked you not to do. If you do feel in inclined to apologize, you should write the letter to the general counsel and ask them to forward it along. They probably won't. Obviously you have to be quite careful with the content of the letter. You are almost certainly within your rights to continue to email their general counsel. In addition, they almost certainly cannot stop you from communicating with the state agency responsible for the university.
Anything that somebody writes is copyrighted, even if you call it a &quot;press release&quot;. That means that nobody can copy it without permission. If you hand it out to a bunch of people and write &quot;press release&quot;, the only reasonable interpretation of the designation &quot;press release&quot; is that you are granting permission to copy (as well as paraphrase).
To what degree are such emails admissible in court as evidence, and what weight do they carry? Your own statement, when offered by you as evidence, is hearsay, unless it comes within an exception to that rule. Recorded recollection might be one of the better exceptions. There is also a chance that you could get it in as a business record of the company if you were using a company email account and the company stores all of its email communications. The documents also sometimes come in to provide fair context for a conversation with a party-opponent's statements that are admissible. It appears that Canada does not follow the modern British rule (which repealed the hearsay rule in civil cases in 1995), which if it were available, would come in without any difficulty at all. But, Canada does have what it calls a "principled exception" (which is somewhat broader than the parallel U.S. residual hearsay exception) that is generally available if the document can be shown to be reliable and there is an unavailable witness, or if there proponent of the document can show that it is reliable and necessary for other reasons. Even if the document itself is not admissible since it is hearsay, you could still testify as to what the boss said from your own recollection, and then have your lawyer ask you why you are sure that this is what was said. You would answer that you contemporaneously wrote a confirming letter to the boss spelling out what was said and you reviewed it to refresh your recollection before testifying at the hearing or trial. These kinds of confirming letters are used quite frequently in business and employment litigation. And, in my experience, these statements tend to be surprisingly effective and persuasive, because, while they do not foreclose the possibility that the person writing it was lying or inaccurate in the confirming email account, it does rule out the possibility that you forgot exactly what was said, and you provided the boss with an opportunity to dispute you which the boss didn't feel an obligation to correct. If one party has a coherent account in confirming emails of what was said, and the other party is trying to remember what happened a year or two earlier without notes from the witness stand, the person with the coherent, documented account is almost always going to come across as more credible unless the other side can show that your confirming emails are not infrequently gross misrepresentations of what really occurred. (I've also dealt with witnesses like that now and then.)