Are Virtual Office mail uploaded to the cloud fair game for subpoenas ?

[ApolloLordofSpace]

What is the name of your state? NV

Are Virtual Office mail information uploaded to an online system/dashboard ( the cloud) fair game for subpoenas or are they protected under the storage communications act ( SCA) ?

Company in litigation is representing themselves as located that virtual office. So it seem kind of unfair if you send the subpoena to a physical office then they would have to product the documents but a virtual office would be protected?

For those who don't know, a Virtual office is like a company which perform the Backoffice process for a company including receiving all their mail, scanning it in and provided it to the company pretending to have an office in that location.

The company in question will write the virtual office address as their own for legal documents, state filings ,regulators, etc... I am not sure if maybe since they are representing themselves as the company's office instead of a data storage center if that would make a different and allow the information to be subject to a civil subpoena.

I have asked around and no one seems to know the answer. Maybe this is uncharted legal waters?

Thanks.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state? NV

Are Virtual Office mail information uploaded to an online system/dashboard ( the cloud) fair game for subpoenas or are they protected under the storage communications act ( SCA) ?

Company in litigation is representing themselves as located that virtual office. So it seem kind of unfair if you send the subpoena to a physical office then they would have to product the documents but a virtual office would be protected?

For those who don't know, a Virtual office is like a company which perform the Backoffice process for a company including receiving all their mail, scanning it in and provided it to the company pretending to have an office in that location.

The company in question will write the virtual office address as their own for legal documents, state filings ,regulators, etc... I am not sure if maybe since they are representing themselves as the company's office instead of a data storage center if that would make a different and allow the information to be subject to a civil subpoena.

I have asked around and no one seems to know the answer. Maybe this is uncharted legal waters?

Thanks.

Anything can be subject to subpoena.

 

[ApolloLordofSpace]

Anything can be subject to subpoena.

What about the Stored Communications Act (SCA)?

Won't that override a subpoena?

For example, you could not get someone Gmail records in civil litigation even with a subpoena, right?

 

[quincy]

Gmail records are subject to subpoena.

Here is a link to Nevada’s Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 45, Subpoena:

https://casetext.com/rule/nevada-court-rules/nevada-rules-of-civil-procedure/trials/rule-45-subpoena

 

[Taxing Matters]

What about the Stored Communications Act (SCA)?

What about it? Nothing in it shelters electronic records from a subpoena or summons in litigation.

For example, you could not get someone Gmail records in civil litigation even with a subpoena, right?

Not correct. E-mail records are certainly subject to subpoena.

 

[ApolloLordofSpace]

What about it? Nothing in it shelters electronic records from a subpoena or summons in litigation.



Not correct. E-mail records are certainly subject to subpoena.

To be clear, we are talking about the subpoena being sent to Google or Yahoo and not the defendant themselves right?

Thanks.

 

[quincy]

If you read through Rule 45 that was previously linked, any party that is served with a subpoena (whether an internet service provider or an individual or whoever/whatever) must respond to the subpoena or be in contempt of court.

When a subpoena is served on an ISP for information held by the ISP on or for an individual (e.g., account information), the ISP will generally (depending on facts) notify the individual that they are subject of a subpoena and allow the individual time to file a motion to quash or modify the subpoena. And an individual who is personally served also can file a motion to quash or modify the subpoena. But the subpoena cannot be ignored.

There are a few legitimate reasons for filing a motion to quash or a motion to modify a subpoena. Without a legitimate define-able reason, however, the subpoena must be responded to in the manner ordered (e.g., production of documents x, y and z).

 

[Taxing Matters]

To be clear, we are talking about the subpoena being sent to Google or Yahoo and not the defendant themselves right?

Thanks.

Correct. Again, nothing in that Act shields electronic records from a subpoena or summons in litigation.

 

[FlyingRon]

Correct. Again, nothing in that Act shields electronic records from a subpoena or summons in litigation.

In fact, the section that bars google from giving out people's gmails in that act has a specific exemption in it for warrants and subpoenas issued by appropriate parts of the judiciary.

 

[quincy]

Here is a link to the Act, with amendments through 2018:

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter121&edition=prelim

For ApolloLordofSpace, the Wikipedia overview might be good enough.

 

[Taxing Matters]

In fact, the section that bars google from giving out people's gmails in that act has a specific exemption in it for warrants and subpoenas issued by appropriate parts of the judiciary.

The way the Act is structured, it does basically three things: (1) it makes unauthorized access of stored records a federal crime; (2) it sets limits on when a company providing stored communications may voluntarily disclose the electronic records it has, and (3) it sets rules for how and when a government entity (e.g. federal, state or local law enforcement agency) may obtain those records.

Disclosure pursuant to a subpoena is not voluntary and thus the limits to disclosure set in the Act do not apply to subpoenas. And, at least assuming that the party seeking the information is not a government agency, the restrictions on government access do not apply either. So the Act doesn't limit or restrict disclosure pursuant to a subpoena at all. The Act does, however, reinforce that by providing a defense to the company if it is sued under the Act when it made the disclosure pursuant to a subpoena, summons, warrant, statutory authorization, etc. 18 USC § 2707(e)(1).

 

[doucar]

Company in litigation is representing themselves as located that virtual office.
If I read this correctly, the company, not an individual, is representing itself? Not legal in Nevada, a company, that is not a sole proprietorship, must be represented by an attorney.

 

[quincy]

Company in litigation is representing themselves as located that virtual office.
If I read this correctly, the company, not an individual, is representing itself? Not legal in Nevada, a company, that is not a sole proprietorship, must be represented by an attorney.

Perhaps ApolloLordofSpace will return to clarify who or what is a party to the litigation and who or what is being served with the subpoena, if not one and the same.

More details about the legal action would be nice as well.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Company in litigation is representing themselves as located that virtual office.
If I read this correctly, the company, not an individual, is representing itself? Not legal in Nevada, a company, that is not a sole proprietorship, must be represented by an attorney.

I read that though as the company that is being sued is claiming that it is located at that virtual office, not that the company was representing itself in the litigation.

 

[quincy]

I read that though as the company that is being sued is claiming that it is located at that virtual office, not that the company was representing itself in the litigation.

I was reading it as two separate companies - the company (or individual) being sued and a data storage company that is being subpoenaed for production of documents.