It is generally unwise to use private email accounts for company business. Clark v. Council of Unit Owners of the 100 Harborview Drive Condominium Association, 2024 WL 2155021 (D. Md..
Not surprisingly, the Musk-Twitter fast-track Delaware case generated privilege issues. One predictably recognized Musk's unique role in his varied revolutionary enterprises. .
Delaware Rule of Evidence 502(b) codifies the attorney-client privilege and insulates from discovery “confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of.
In re Asia Global Crossing, Ltd. held that company employees lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy when using a company laptop (in the case of
Zara) or email system (in the case of
Peerenboom) under applicable company computer/email policies, which, among other things, restricted use of company systems for personal purposes and warned users of the company’s ability to access their accounts.
While acknowledging the similarity between the law firm’s computer/email policy and those in
Peerenboom and
Zara, the Supreme Court noted that the law firm’s policy invoked by Theroux had an important distinguishing factor. The computer/email policy expressed an expectation that firm “employees” would adhere to the firm’s policy on computer and email usage. This is in contrast to other policies in the firm’s policy manual which specifically stated that “they are addressed to (or include) firm partners or attorneys” or firm “personnel” more broadly, rather than f
In
In re WeWork Litigation, the Delaware Court of Chancery has held that a company’s communications with outside directors are not protected by attorney-client privilege. The directors had used outside email accounts for the communications.
The case has some unusual facts. But it stresses protecting communications with outside directors. In particular, companies should be alert to the potential exposure of confidential corporate communications to outside directors who use their own email accounts.
WeWork is suing SoftBank for alleged breach of a stock purchase agreement. A discovery dispute arose over documents that SoftBank withheld, claiming attorney-client privilege. The documents at issue were emails to or from SoftBank personnel. The personnel were also Sprint executives. They used their Sprint email accounts. Sprint is not party to the litigation. But some executives were simultaneously employed by both Sprint and SoftBank