Spam Filter Excuse Doesn't Fly With Court [Again]

Not surprisingly (Stewart v. Avaya, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71207, 4-5 (D.N.C. 2008, Sept. 19, 2008)):
Stewart's counsel also contended that she did not have notice of Avaya's motion to compel, or the court's order granting the same, because her email account regarded all email messages coming from the court's electronic filing system as "spam," and placed the email messages in a junk file folder where the messages are deleted after two weeks. Thus, according to counsel, she did not have notice of Avaya's motion to compel or the court's order allowing the motion to compel until June 12, 2007, when she discovered that her email was regarding federal court filings as spam.
I think that excuse has officially worn out its welcome.  (Earlier post here.)
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.

  • 9/24/2008 9:28 AM William Silverstein wrote:
    Of course it would have been terribly ironic if it was a spam case.

    I was under the impression that every federal court requires a meet and confer filing a motion, if not motion to compel discovery. A meet and confer typically requires at least a telephone discussion.

    You failed to mention that this was a terminating sanction.
    Reply to this
Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Name (required)

 Email (will not be published) (required)


Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.