On April 29, 2016, Judge Ross issued his ruling on Ashley Madison’s motion for a protective order, prohibiting Plaintiffs from using the leaked documents, reports quoting the leaked documents, and information “stolen from Avid” in drafting their consolidated class action complaint. The result was largely policy driven, with Judge Ross stating broadly, “the Court cannot and will not allow Plaintiffs to take advantage of the work of hackers to access documents outside the context of formal discovery. To do so would taint these proceedings and, if left unremedied, potentially undermine the integrity of the judicial process.” The Court also ruled that it had inherent authority to issue a protective order with respect to documents obtained outside the course of normal discovery, and distinguished cases cited by the Plaintiffs in opposition. Rejecting Plaintiffs’ First Amendment argument, Judge Ross notes, “[j]ournalists … are in a completely different position than parties involved in private litigation. No doubt exists that the news media enjoy the freedom of ‘the press;’ however, the conduct of attorneys is informed by their ethical responsibilities as officers of the Court.” The amici briefs submitted by other Ashley Madison users made an impact on the Court as the Court found that the leaked information could not truly be considered “readily available to the public” due to the efforts of the other users to protect their privacy following the leak, as asserted in their briefs. Ultimately, Judge Ross emphasized the need to “protect the integrity of the internet and make it a safer place for business, research and casual use.”
Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.
Questions? Please contact email@example.comRegister
Ashley Madison Update: Hacked Data Is Off-Limits
Internet & Social Media Law Blog
Popular articles from this firm
If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email firstname.lastname@example.org.
Related topic hubs
Librarian, Group Legal Division
The Standard Bank of South Africa Limited
" I find Lexology highly relevant and have registered other firms for whom I provide a library service to receive Lexology, as I think it is a very worthwhile legal resource."