-----------
Protect Yourself, Your
Firm and Your Clients
with RPost
Registered E-mail®
(news article below)
Most people pay little attention to the risks of using plain e-mail
to conduct important business or personal transactions, until they or a
colleague are directly impacted. Since RPost is in the business of
protecting e-mail senders through a Registered E-mail®
service that provides verifiable proof of delivery, content and official
time stamps of e-mail (and all attachments) sent to any Internet
address, the company hears many horror stories about the damages caused
by e-mail content alterations and disputes arising over delivery and /
or the timing of the delivery.
Until
reading the AP story below, the most egregious example of e-mail content
alteration that RPost knew of involved the alteration of a court
transcript that was sent electronically, as an attachment to an e-mail
from the court reporting agency. Unfortunately, the Best Buy story that
follows takes the art of changing electronic documents to a new high.
-----------
June 5, 2007 - A lawyer for Best Buy Co. has
acknowledged that he falsified e-mails and a memo before turning them
over to plaintiffs in a nationwide class-action lawsuit a development
that could prompt the judge to find the company liable for tens of
millions of dollars in damages.
King County Superior Court Judge Douglass A. North
Jr. has previously scolded Best Buy for not being forthcoming with
documents related to the case, so last month's revelations about the
actions of Minneapolis attorney Timothy Block do not bode well for the
company.
The lawsuit, filed in 2003, accuses Best Buy of
signing up at least 100,000 customers for trial subscriptions to
Microsoft Corp.'s MSN Internet service from 1999 to 2003, in many cases
without their knowledge. Once the trial period ended, the customers
began incurring credit card charges they had not approved.
Microsoft, which paid Best Buy for each customer it
signed up, is accused of allowing Best Buy's practice to continue even
after receiving complaints. The lawsuit aims to hold Best Buy, Microsoft
or both financially liable; if the judge enters a default judgment
against Best Buy, Microsoft would essentially be off the hook, said Beth
Terrell, a Seattle-based attorney for the plaintiffs.
For now, the case has been stayed while Best Buy
finds new outside counsel. Block's firm, the prominent Minneapolis firm
of Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi, asked to withdraw after he
admitted May 23 to redacting or otherwise altering the documents. A
hearing on the withdrawal motion is set for June 22.
"Mr. Block confirmed that no other person at RKMC,
and no person at Best Buy, were aware that he had changed documents,"
the firm said in a court filing the next day. "RKMC has begun its
investigation into the number of documents that were altered and is
attempting to locate the original (pre-alteration) documents."
Block reported his wrongdoing to Minnesota's Board
of Professional Responsibility as well as the three other states where
he is licensed to practice, and is on medical leave for stress and
depression, said his attorney, Richard Thomas.
The altered documents are limited to two e-mails
and one memo, Thomas said. The documents have not been publicly
released.
Asked why Block falsified the documents, Thomas
said, "I don't know that even he can tell you that. ... I don't think he
is going to claim his actions were motivated by Best Buy."
But given the extent of Best Buy's foot-dragging
regarding document production in the case, Terrell and another attorney
for the plaintiffs, Dan Girard of San Francisco, wondered aloud whether
Block felt pressured by the company to withhold or redact documents that
could prove damaging. A senior partner at Block's firm, Elliott Kaplan,
is a director at Best Buy.
"Best Buy has been violating court orders
willfully. This is sort of the last step," Terrell said.
Steven Schumeister, managing partner at Robins Kaplan, said it is
clearly a case of individual wrongdoing by someone going through a
difficult time. The firm remains concerned for Block and his family, he
said.
"We and Best Buy have acted promptly and properly
to make all of the required disclosures and to work to resolve this
matter," Schumeister said.
Best Buy spokeswoman Dawn Bryant emphasized that
the company "had absolutely no knowledge of the inappropriate and
unethical actions the attorney took."
At a hearing in March, the judge scolded Best Buy and its lawyers for
failing to follow orders directing them to turn over documents requested
by the plaintiffs, and to identify and log any documents they believed
were not subject to disclosure. North said he was hoping to avoid
entering a default judgment against the company, but that he would have
little choice if Best Buy didn't start playing ball.
"I don't know and I don't really care at this point
whether it's you, some functionary in your firm, or your legal team, but
I do know that somebody in your camp is interfering with discovery in
this case," North said, according to a transcript.
In response, Block said Best Buy spent more than
$250,000 to create an electronic system to search documents. He told
North that he felt "great trepidation" and "almost a feeling of personal
failure" that the judge still believed Best Buy was not cooperating.
