• CRIMINAL

U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

United states v. Crist

Hash Value Analysis of Computer Constitutes Search and Requires a Warrant Under the Fourth Amendment

In the present criminal action, the defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence recovered from his computer, claiming its search was warrantless, in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The court granted the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the forensic search of his computer holding that subjecting the computer to a hash value analysis constituted a search and as such requires warrant under the Fourth Amendment, reasoning that instead of the hard drive being analogous to an individual item, it constitutes multiple items as it is comprised of many platters with multiple data storage units.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Almarri v. Gates

Court Declines to Order Government to Preserve Evidence

In this case, the plaintiff, an enemy combatant in military custody, requested the court impose a preservation order to preserve documents related to his detention and determine if spoliation occurred. The plaintiff claimed the government destroyed relevant evidence, did not have a preservation policy and that a preservation order was necessary to prevent further evidence destruction. The defendants claimed they had issued several preservation directives calling for the retention of evidence pertaining to the plaintiff and that the loss or destruction of certain records was inadvertent. The court denied plaintiff's motion and held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that there was significant risk that relevant evidence would be destroyed in the absence of preservation order and that the defendant had not acted in good faith.

• CONTRACT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF EASTERN WISCONSIN

Metavante Corp. v. Emigrant Savings Bank

Court Orders Production of Source Code

In this contract litigation suit, the defendant filed a motion to compel the discovery of the plaintiff's source code, claiming that such information was essential to the defendant's counterclaim as the source code was the only evidence that may have revealed the quality of the product the plaintiff produced under the contract. The plaintiff however, contended that the production of the source code was an undue burden on it as it would cost both finance and time. Court however held that the potential value of the source code outweighed the burden claimed by the plaintiff and therefore, ordered its production.