Obligation to respond to written interrogatories requesting personal information I received a letter form an attorney, resembling this template. (Header of that template for posterity): SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF BLAH PLAINTIFF'S NAME ) Case No.: #### Plaintiff(s) ) vs. ) WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES DEFENDANT'S NAME ) TO RESPONDING PARTY Defendant(s) ) SET 1 ______________________) No clerk signature, no judge signature, only signatures I see are the attorney's and the signature of someone, who I assume is from his office, on a "proof of service by mail." The questions are requesting a lot of personal information including driver's license #, social security #, bank account #, savings account #, employer information, etc. For background information: I had a bad split with my previous employer who is being petty. Made the man millions of dollars and he can't let $5,000 go. A small claims verdict was entered in his favor in 2010. What I am trying to determine is: Am I required to respond to this?
If what you show is correct and above-board then you are being sued in superior court. However it sounds unlikely that the plaintiff could have served you with notice of such a lawsuit without you realizing it, so if I were you I would first call the court to see if they do in fact have a case with the docket number listed. Then ask: When and who served the original notice in the case (because if you really didn't get it then whoever said you did majorly screwed up and is probably in trouble) Who the plaintiff's counsel is If the letter was from a real lawyer on the California Bar, and that case really is open in the superior court with you as a defendant, then you really are being sued, and you should either get a lawyer or negotiate a settlement, because if you don't answer and defend then you're just going to have more judgments against you. If any of the above does not check out then whoever sent that letter is in big trouble if you report it to the DA, postal inspector, and (if they are a real lawyer) the Bar.
Hope you have a good prosecutor and a sympathetic judge "They asked repeatedly how much she had to drink ..." Objection: Asked and answered "how she could claim not to remember certain details" Objection: Calls for a conclusion/speculation. The witness is not a brain scientist, she cannot speculate as to why people remember some details and not others. She is testifying as to what she does remember, not as to why she doesn't remember things. "asking if she had not been flirting with him in the days before the incident" Objection: Relevance. Is the defense seriously suggesting that flirtation, if it happened, in the preceding days amounts to consent at the time of the incident? "asked her why she had not chosen a more modest one" Objection: Relevance. Is the defense now suggesting that what the witness wore amounts to consent?
In all likelihood, the judge's order related to data collection and reselling is not legally enforceable. They weren't parties to the expungement action, so the judge doesn't have jurisdiction over them. And, the First Amendment protects the right to say truthful things pretty absolutely. Arguably, if the sites provided the information without making clear that it might not be current because records were expunged or corrected, there might be a claim for negligent misrepresentation, false light, or even defamation, but I seriously doubt that even those claims would hold up. The language in the order might cause sites to comply out of not legally justified concern, or just a desire to be accurate, even if it is not enforceable. So, it doesn't hurt to bring that information to the attention of such sites and ask them to take down the information. But, when push comes to shove, I very much doubt that you would prevail in court enforcing that order against them. Certainly, if you do nothing, they will do nothing, because they are not psychic and have no idea that the court order related to those records has been entered. Even a valid and enforceable order directed at a party over whom a court has jurisdiction is not effective until the person ordered to comply with it has notice of the order. And, there is no system that gives sites like that notice without you taking action to inform them of an order.
You could probably hire a Pennsylvania lawyer to intervene in the case on your behalf and file a motion to seal the evidence in the case, and there is a good chance that it would be granted, and quite possibly, unopposed by the parties. But, the fact that it has already been made available to the public on the Internet could cause the court to deny your request on the grounds that it is futile to do so.
Hacking into a computer owned by someone else and accessing the data stored on it without permission is a misdemeanor according to StGB 202a (de|en). But only if it's successful. So a failed attempt isn't a misdemeanor yet. When you notice that someone might have committed a criminal offence (regardless of whether you are a victim or just a witness), then the usual procedure is to report it to the police. If they consider the crime serious enough to investigate, then they will request the identity from the ISP. But the copyright lawsuits which are filed in bulk by law firms working with media companies are not crime reports. They are civil lawsuits. A civil lawsuit is when someone had a tangible damage because of something someone else did, and now they want money in compensation. When there is no damage, then there is nothing to sue for. So when you want a judge to file an injunction to force an ISP to give them the identity of one of their users, then you would first have to explain to them how much financial damage you had because of that person and that this is enough damage to make it worth everyone's time. That might be quite challenging for nothing but a failed SSH login attempt. But it might be possible if a single person made so many login attempts that it incurred you non-negligible bandwidth cost or even caused a denial-of-service.
This sort of thing is very common. Particularly in the tax context, the IRS seeks to compel lawyers to reveal their clients all the time, and the courts are pretty much all in agreement that attorney-client privilege generally does not protect the identity of a client. For example: United States v. Goldberger &amp; Dubin, P.C., 935 F.2d 501, 505 (2d Cir. 1991) United States v. Servin, No. 17-1371 (3d Cir. Feb. 1, 2018) Matter of Grand Jury Empanelled Feb. 14, 1978, 603 F.2d 469 (3d Cir. 1979) In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 680 F.2d 1026 (5th Cir. 1982) In re Grand Jury Investigation No. 83-2-35, 723 F.2d 447 (6th Cir. 1983) In re Grand Jury Witness (Salas), 695 F.2d 359, 361 (9th Cir.1982) More typically, the disclosure happens in front of the grand jury or in response to a subpoena, but it also can happen in open court like it did with Cohen. That happened in the second Third Circuit case above, where federal officials were investigating the source of 42,000 pounds of pot they'd found on a boat off the coast of New Jersey. There were disputes as to who owned the ship -- and might therefore be liable for the drugs -- so the DOJ needed to nail that down. There was some reason to believe that Attorney Markowitz was involved in transactions that would shed light on the ownership, so they subpoenaed Markowitz to appear before the grand jury. He showed up and refused to answer basically anything or produce any records, so the prosecutors asked a judge for a ruling on whether he was permitted to withhold his clients' identities based on attorney-client privilege. This is where the case starts to look sort of like the Cohen situation. The attorney was asserting privilege, and the judge said he would need to review the records in camera to see if the privilege applied. But he couldn't say if attorney-client privilege applies if he didn't know who the clients were, so he ordered him to identify his clients. He refused, so the judge told him to take a moment and think about it before he held him in contempt. Unlike Cohen's attorneys, the guy still refused, so the judge held him in contempt and ordered him to jail. On appeal, the Third Circuit agreed that attorney-client privilege generally does not protect the identity of a client. There are exceptions when there's already enough information known about the client that revealing the identity would expose them to criminal prosecution, but that was not the case here. The court still reversed the contempt finding, holding that Markowitz had a Fifth Amendment right not to identify the clients because doing so might expose him to criminal prosecution, but that element doesn't seem to exist in the Cohen situation. (Interesting side-note: The government was represented in this case by a 29-year-old Samuel Alito.) The weird thing about this, to me, is that the courts have a procedure to avoid making the disclosure public: "A well recognized means for an attorney to demonstrate the existence of an exception to the general rule, while simultaneously preserving confidentiality of the identity of his client, is to move the court for an in camera ex parte hearing." In re Grand Jury Investigation No. 83-2-35, 723 F.2d 447, 454 (6th Cir. 1983). Why Cohen's guys didn't go that route is beyond me.
As I understand it, you can pretty much sue anybody for anything. The question, of course, is would you win the suit? All the lawyers here can correct me, but I believe in order to win, you would have to Show standing, that is, they're your comments and not someone else's Show that it's a deliberate act, and not just someone accidentally clicked the wrong checkbox. Show that it was an act by the agency and not by Facebook, for example. Show that you've been singled out for your viewpoint (they allow some people's comments) Show that there is no other reason to delete your comments (they're obscene, or advocate for an illegal act, for example). I'm probably missing something else. The real question is, even if you could demonstrate all these things, would it be worth it? You may spend $1,000's and you might not recover your legal fees. The case might take years.
In a deposition, attorneys are supposed to keep their objections short and refrain from making an objection that indicates to the witness how he should answer. A question might be objectionable because it lacks foundation, because it is compound, because it calls for speculation, etc. Example 2, for instance, could be said to assume that Ms. Redacted was involved, and I might not want my client to discuss how he would act in that situation. Some attorneys in that situation might say, "Objection, assumes that Ms. Redacted had anything to do with this, which you haven't proved, and it's impossible to say what would have happened under circumstances that never happened." This gives my client a pretty clear signal that he ought to make clear that Ms. Redacted wasn't around, and that he should try to avoid getting pinned down on any questions about what he would have done if she had been. This practice -- known as "a speaking objection" -- can be used to signal to the witness how best to answer, and it leads to huge fights in a deposition. To avoid those fights, courts have developed a practice of requiring lawyers to simply "object to the form," rather than coaching the witness. That puts the objection on the record so it isn't waived, and if it's truly problematic, the parties have an opportunity to explain in greater detail after the deposition is concluded.