| D. New York [W.D.] |
|
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.2010Sun v. Tjepkema, 09-CV-35A (W.D.N.Y. 10-15-2010) — Plaintiff was ordered to undergo a secondary inspection while crossing into the United States from Canada across the Rainbow Bridge. During the secondary inspection, Plaintiff was observed taking photographs on a cell phone. His phone was seized by Customs officials and when it was later returned, Plaintiff discovered that the photographs and certain personal information had been deleted. He sued, alleging discrimination during the border crossing and an illegal search and seizure of his cell phone. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The Court noted that Customs officials do not need to articulate any reason, beyond national security, for conducting primary or secondary inspections of individuals entering into the United States. Moreover, Customs officials are authorized to prevent the dissemination of photographs that could compromise the conduct of secondary inspections. The complaint was dismissed in its entirety.Piccone v. Town of Webster, 09-CV-6266T (W.D. N.Y. 9-3-2010) — Plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging a hostile work environment due to age and gender, and termination based on her age. During discovery, both sides filed motions alleging spoliation of electronic evidence. In addition, the defendant filed a motion seeking to compel production of plaintiff's home computer and electronic storage devices. After reviewing the fact surrounding the handling of electronic evidence, the court denied both motions for spoliation. To preserve any potential evidence, plaintiff was ordered to produce her home computer and storage devices for forensic imaging at the expense of defendant, with the images to be held by plaintiff's attorney. The court held that defendant would be given access to the mirror images if further discovery suggested inconsistencies or omissions in plaintiff's production of evidence. U.S. v. Howe, 09-CR-6076L (W.D. N.Y. 7-1-2010) -- Following detention on March 20, 2009, as a danger to the community, defendant moved for his release. District Court continued the detention, noting defendant's prior convictions for sexual abuse of minors, statements he made during his arrest indicating an on-going interest in sexual contact with minors, and images of child pornography recovered from his computers. |
Please Donate
If you find the resources on this site interesting, or if they have saved you and your client time and money, please support CFD with a donation.
