Pure Power Boot Camp v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an employer was not authorized to access a former employee’s Hotmail account because “the employee … did not store any of the communications which his former employer now seeks to use against him on the employer’s computers, servers, or systems …
• stating that accessing an account on Microsoft’s Hotmail system without authorization to obtain another party’s emails “while they were in storage” “would be a violation of the SCA”
• issuing a sanction excluding evidence except for impeachment purposes in response to plaintiff’s unlawful access and use of defendant’s confidential emails in drafting a complaint
• issuing a sanction excluding evidence except for impeachment purposes in response to plaintiff’s unlawful access and use of defendant’s confidential emails in drafting a complaint
• “[A] party who seeks to uphold the privilege must take affirmative measures to maintain the confidentiality of attorney-client communications.”
• “The fact that the e- mails contain a warning indicating they contain ‘PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION,’ does not transform them from non-privileged communications into privileged communications.” (internal citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).