D. Connecticut | U.S. District Courts

Breadcrumbs

Home

CFD Google Search

Custom Search

CFD Site Search

FSL Social Networks

Facebook	LinkedIn
Plaxo	Pandora
Twitter

D. Connecticut

The following is a chronological list of opinions issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut that involve or touch on some aspect of computer forensics. Every effort is being made to locate relevant decisions; however, this list is intended as a research aid only, and should not be considered definitive. If you have any suggestions for decisions that should be added to this list, please email them to me using the contact form.

Reminder: These case digests are provided for informational purposes only, and do not constitute legal advice. Anyone conducting legal research on a particular topic or in a specific jurisdiction is advised to supplement these materials with their own efforts or those of a qualified attorney whom they have hired for that purpose.

2010

U.S. v. Perlitz, Criminal No. 3:09cr207 (JBA) (D. Conn. 7-14-2010) -- Defendant was charged with traveling in interstate commerce, i.e. Haiti, for the purposes of having sex with individuals under that age of 18. Defendant challenged the indictment, arguing inter alia that it failed to allege sufficient contact with Connecticut to support venue there. After a detailed analysis of defendant's activities in Haiti, including use of pornography on a laptop computer to help groom victims, the district court concluded that defendant's actions in Connecticut were all preparatory to the crime, but not elements of the crime itself. Defendant's motion to dismiss was granted.

Genworth Financial Wealth Management, Inc. v. McMullan, 267 F.R.D. 443 (D. Conn. 6-1-2010) — Plaintiff moved for an order compelling defendants to produce their computers and electronic media for imaging and examination by a neutral, court-appointed expert, and defendants objected. The Court relied heavily on the decision in Ameriwood Industries, Inc. v. Liberman, No. 4:06 CV 524-DJS, 2006 WL 3825291 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 27, 2006), amended by 2006 WL 685623 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 23, 2007), in which a three-stage process was devised to deal with situations such as this: 1) forensic imaging of media; 2) search and recovery of relevant material; and 3) disclosure, during which time the producing party's attorney can examine the recovered material and raise any objections to its production. Such a remedy is appropriate, the Court said, when there is ample evidence that defendants have resisted discovery, spoliated evidence, and in general attempted to frustrate both their opponents and the Court. Defendants were ordered to produce all electronic equipment and to bear 80% of the cost of imaging and recovery.