D.Mass.: Def had no REP in his employer’s information he was accused of taking

Defendant is charged with accessing and taking his employer’s information for the purpose of setting up a rival company doing the same thing. His motion to suppress the information is denied because he has no reasonable expectation of privacy in it. United States v. Yu, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187575 (D. Mass. Oct. 9, 2020):

Yu had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the data searched. This is for two reasons. First, he had no right to privacy in the actual information ADI reviewed, which consisted of only the names and access-times of various files. ECF No. 67 at 5. This information belonged to ADI, not Yu. These logs collected recordings of his ADI-owned computer’s access to ADI-owned documents and could not sweep in the contents of his personal information. Cf. O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 718 (1987) (holding a public employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his personal desk and filing cabinet). Second, ADI had in place a “Technology Resource Policy” that warned employees that they “should have no expectation of privacy” and that ADI could “search, monitor, inspect, review, access and/or disclose” all data on its technology platforms. ECF No. 67-1 at ADI-YU-0000162, 165. These type of policies constitute strong evidence that employees lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in the covered activities. See Vega-Rodriguez v. Puerto Rico Tel. Co., 110 F.3d 174, 179-180 (1st Cir. 1997) (collecting cases); see also Muick v. Glenayre Electronics, 280 F.3d 741, 743 (7th Cir. 2002); United States v. Simons, 206 F.3d 392, 398 (4th Cir. 2000); Am. Postal Workers Union v. U.S. Postal Serv., 871 F.2d 556, 560 (6th Cir. 1989). This Court does not require further evidence to rule that Yu had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the information that ADI uncovered.