Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLCScarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLC

Firm Insights

Microsoft Corporation Lawsuit Tests Reach of Federal Government

Author: Robert E. Levy

Date: August 8, 2014

Key Contacts

Back

Microsoft Corporation is currently fighting a search warrant to produce customer e-mails that are stored on a server located in Dublin, Ireland.

The New York data privacy case could dramatically impact U.S. businesses as well the ability of U.S. law enforcement to obtain digital information stored overseas, all because of this case regarding the Microsoft Corporation.

The Facts of the Case

On December 4, 2013, federal prosecutors obtained a search warrant to obtain information associated with a specified web-based e-mail account that is “stored at premises owned, maintained, controlled, or operated by Microsoft Corporation, a company headquartered at One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA.” The warrant was issued under the Stored Communications Act (SCA).

The Microsoft Corporation complied with the search warrant to the extent of producing the non-content information stored on servers in the United States. However, after it determined that the target account was hosted in Dublin and the content information stored there, it sought to quash the warrant to the extent that it directs the production of information stored abroad. The motion argued that federal courts are not authorized to issue warrants for the search and seizure of property outside the territorial limits of the United States. Rather, they must rely on the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) process.

The Stored Communications Act

The SCA is part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. The statute authorizes law enforcement agents to obtain information from Internet service providers (ISPs) through subpoenas, court orders, or warrants. Each legal process allows the government to obtain a specific level of data.

A warrant entitles the government to the most information, including basic customer information, opened emails, records or other information pertaining to a subscriber or customer, and unopened e-mails stored by the provider for less than 180 days. In order to obtain an SCA Warrant, the government must demonstrate probable cause. The relevant section of the statute provides in pertinent part:

A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication, that is in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for one hundred and eighty days or less, only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure . . . by a court of competent jurisdiction.

The Court’s Decision

In April, U.S. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV denied Microsoft’s motion to quash the warrant. “Even when applied to information that is stored in servers abroad, an SCA Warrant does not violate the presumption against extraterritorial application of American law,” he ruled.

In his decision, Judge Francis noted that SCA Warrants are “hybrid: part search warrant and part subpoena.” As he further explained, “The ‘warrant’ requirement of section 2703(a) cabins the power of the government by requiring a showing of probable cause not required for a subpoena, but it does not alter the basic principle that an entity lawfully obligated to produce information must do so regardless of the location of that information.”

Judge Francis also concluded that SCA Warrants do not require the same protections from government overreach, particularly because it is the service provider who conducts the search. The court also highlighted that it is difficult to believe that Congress intended to limit the reach of SCA Warrants to data stored in the United States.

Most recently, U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska upheld the decision, although her ruling will be stayed in order to give Microsoft the opportunity to appeal. “Congress intended in this statute for ISPs to produce information under their control, albeit stored abroad, to law enforcement in the United States,” Preska stated. “As Judge Francis found, it is a question of control, not a question of the location of that information.”

The Potential Impact

The court’s interpretation of the SCA will not only impact email providers, but also cloud-based service providers, which also frequently store data abroad. If the decision stands, these businesses could be forced to produce data to law enforcement regardless of where in the world it resides. We will be closely monitoring this case throughout the appeals process, and we encourage you to check back for updates.

Do you have any legal insights or thoughts on this case regarding the Microsoft Corporation. If so, feel free to leave a comment below.

No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLC

Related Posts

See all
Rule 26 Expert Discovery: When an Expert Witness Uses AI, Is It Discoverable? post image

Rule 26 Expert Discovery: When an Expert Witness Uses AI, Is It Discoverable?

Case law following the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 offers guidance on how courts are likely to address whether an expert witness’s AI records are subject to discovery. Key Takeaways Rule 26 Expert Discovery After the 2010 Amendments This article addresses the question courts and lawyers have faced in recent cases: […]

Author: Chris Seelinger

Link to post with title - "Rule 26 Expert Discovery: When an Expert Witness Uses AI, Is It Discoverable?"
How Expert Witness AI Use Ends Up in Discovery post image

How Expert Witness AI Use Ends Up in Discovery

“Show how 3M is 0% at fault.” The absurd tale of how a 350-page ChatGPT history for 3M’s expert witness was produced during a deposition is more likely than you think. It’s an inevitable trend, and an unsettled question for federal courts as experts make generative AI part of their workflow. Key Takeaways Expert Witness […]

Author: Chris Seelinger

Link to post with title - "How Expert Witness AI Use Ends Up in Discovery"
The Screenshot Problem: Why Nothing Is Really Private Anymore post image

The Screenshot Problem: Why Nothing Is Really Private Anymore

Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]

Author: Sean M. Pena

Link to post with title - "The Screenshot Problem: Why Nothing Is Really Private Anymore"
BESS Project Agreements: Allocating Risk Among Developers, EPC Contractors, and Equipment Suppliers post image

BESS Project Agreements: Allocating Risk Among Developers, EPC Contractors, and Equipment Suppliers

Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]

Author: Nicholas Wall

Link to post with title - "BESS Project Agreements: Allocating Risk Among Developers, EPC Contractors, and Equipment Suppliers"
IP Infringement: What Steps Can You Take If You're Affected? post image

IP Infringement: What Steps Can You Take If You're Affected?

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]

Author: Michael Mietlicki

Link to post with title - "IP Infringement: What Steps Can You Take If You're Affected?"
Public Allegations, Unfinished Investigation: What New Jersey Businesses Should Do Next post image

Public Allegations, Unfinished Investigation: What New Jersey Businesses Should Do Next

When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]

Author: Sean M. Pena

Link to post with title - "Public Allegations, Unfinished Investigation: What New Jersey Businesses Should Do Next"

No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!

Explore What Matters Most to You.

Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.

Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.

Let`s get in touch!

* The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form. By providing a telephone number and submitting this form you are consenting to be contacted by SMS text message. Message & data rates may apply. Message frequency may vary. You can reply STOP to opt-out of further messaging.
“If you would like to submit a file, please email it directly to info@sh-law.com.

Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!