Comments on: Bragg v. Linden Lab Update: Linden Lab Serves Discovery, Amends Counterclaim with Chat Logs

By: Virtually Blind - Virtual Law | Legal Issues That Impact Virtual Worlds » Blog Archive » Bragg v. Linden Lab Update - New Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims Filed; Complete Chat Logs Available

Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:22:44 +0000

[...] Plaintiff Marc Bragg has filed a new Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss (.pdf) regarding Linden Lab’s counterclaims against him, and a supporting brief (.pdf). Some readers will recall that Bragg already filed a 12(b)(6) motion but after he did, Linden Lab amended its complaint. The amendment added quotations from chat logs that shed light on Linden Lab’s claim that Bragg used an exploit to buy land in violation of a California criminal law prohibiting unauthorized computer access for fraudulent purposes. Bragg’s new motion amplifies points made earlier, and addresses this material. [...]

By: Benjamin Duranske

Benjamin Duranske — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 06:00:23 +0000

Untameable – let me know what you find. I’ve been digging the last twenty minutes because your comment made me curious, and I haven’t found anything yet, but I’ve seen crazier things codified. Have a good holiday.

By: Untameable Wildcat

Untameable Wildcat — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:42:21 +0000

Personally I’d archive most of the stuff I ever thought would be important onto DVDs. Compressed, there is a lot of room to store a lot of data on those things, and even serverside chat records might be manageable relatively cheaply doing it this way. But yes, I too would love clarification on their official document retention policy.

I did have notes on where I saw the two years, but can’t find them right now. My (sometimes poor) memory can’t remember if it was the PATRIOT act itself or some amendment proposed or passed to the Electronic Communication Transactional Records Act 1996. I’ll see if I can find my notes when I get back from the vacation I’m starting tomorrow, I did make extensive notes because of how it related to the age verification issue in Second Life that seems to have all but disappeared following the enormous user outcry.

By: Benjamin Duranske

Benjamin Duranske — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:22:32 +0000

Untameable - thanks for the comments. I hear you here. Litigation is really messy, and there are a lot of ways to approach it, some better, and some worse. I may be able to shed some light on doc request #110 (you're referring to this post). Like it or not, a lot of litigators send out doc requests that don't appear to really be realistic. I've always tried not to, but it's a judgment call, and the reality is that it happens all the time. What happens after a really broad request shows up is that the other side objects six different ways (too broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, overly burdensome, vague, violative of third party confidentiality agreements, irrelevant, and several others spring to mind here... and I'm rusty) and then that side sends over whatever documents it feels are actually relevant in response to the request. Then if the guy that sent the request really feels like he is entitled to more, he has to ask the court to make it happen (that's a "Motion to Compel.") This sounds absurd, I'm know, but it makes a certain kind of sense. The idea is that lawyers on both sides will take the strongest position they can even plausibly take, and then it'll work itself out. Here, Linden Lab will certainly argue that it only has to provide documents that are relevant to this case, and I'd be extremely surprised if, at the end of the day, they turned over anything even approaching the bredth of request 110. As for the PATRIOT act, I can't stand it, but I don't think it says what you said it does. I think it's one of the worst laws we've ever passed, but I can't find anything in it that says companies have to store computer records for 24 months. I could be wrong (it's a monster of an act) so if you have a citation let me know. But I just don't think that's accurate. You know, I'd really love to see what Linden Lab's document retention policy actually is, and I imagine a lot of other people would too. I've heard everything from "a few weeks" to "years" as to how long they keep chat logs. If I were them, I'd do what Cyn suggested above -- purge everything fairly quickly, but hang on to the logs of anybody they ban in case of litigation.

By: Untameable Wildcat

Untameable Wildcat — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 04:58:37 +0000

They’re required by the PATRIOT act to keep any and all records for a period of 24 months; all companies that store computer records about individuals are. It wouldn’t have been any problem to them to freeze any records relating to this even longer, though I must admit the section where Bragg requires Linden to produce (section 110): “Documents sufficient to identify each purchaser of virtual land from defendant Linden” boggles my mind, in that no start or finish period dates are given, and I therefore read that as asking for ALL documents, on ALL land purchase transactions since Second Life first entered release!

That’s a HELL of a mountain of paperwork for someone…

By: Tony

Tony — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:18:52 +0000

I’m guessing that they filed the logs as soon as they enforced their policy in case of a suit. I’m pretty sure people knew Bragg was going to file suit shortly after this occurred, and that is probably why they still have them on hand.

I agree with Cyn, if they were going to take action against someone, I’ll bet they file some kind of report with evidence in case a legal case comes up.

By: Buhbuhcuh Fairchild

Buhbuhcuh Fairchild — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:59:41 +0000

LL’s chat logs are purged after a few weeks, however, when a user enters a legal dispute with the company, they tend to hold on to what they have. The logs in question were not just pulled up now, but have been saved specifically because there was a reasonable chance they would be used in this dispute.

By: Eloise

Eloise — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:33:15 +0000

Although I can’t find a reference to it at the moment, I believe they normally keep records for a month. Certainly I’ve had an AR being declined on the grounds that “We don’t keep records for that long” before.

By: Cyn Vandeverre

Cyn Vandeverre — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:33:04 +0000

If I were a company that needed to ban people, I’d keep thorough records on those people, but probably purge all the random chatlogs from non-banned people on some schedule.

By: Benjamin Duranske

Benjamin Duranske — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:36:09 +0000

Yeah, I do find it creepy. It’s also, from a litigation perspective, not necessarily the best idea to just keep every scrap of data forever. Most companies have retention policies (that come from the legal department) for this kind of thing, and if there’s no business or legal reason to keep something, they get rid of it. It’s better for business (less money on storage space) and while maybe it worked out well for them this time in litigation (remains to be seen) there could well come a time when it didn’t.

I do wonder if they just kept Bragg’s though, since he was making lawsuit noises very quickly after they banned him.