From: Michael Froomkin <mfroomki@umiami.ir.miami.edu>
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 95 07:08:41 PDT
To: Greg Broiles <greg@ideath.goldenbear.com>
Subject: Re: Scientology/Wollersheim as test case for key disclosure
In-Reply-To: <199509090742.AA15129@ideath.goldenbear.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.PMDF.3.91.950909100445.541100226A-100000@umiami.ir.miami.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Sat, 9 Sep 1995, Greg Broiles wrote:

> 
> the pleadings" (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)). I don't see why
> Wollersheim couldn't comply with the discovery rules by providing 
> plaintext copies of all relevant information, unless for some reason
> the passphrase is itself relevant.
> 
Ah.  but if there is no plaintext, the question is whether you comply 
with the rule by providing the encrypted text rather than plaintext.  I 
would say you have to provide the plaintext in the absence of a legitimate 
privilege claim, but I don't recall a case to this effect (there is 
precedent for requiring translation of foreign language documents when 
the request is covered by an evidence conention; I don't recall if there 
are any such cases that fall purely under domestic US rules).  Anyone have 
chapter and verse?


A. Michael Froomkin        | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)
Associate Professor of Law | mfroomki@umiami.ir.miami.edu
U. Miami School of Law     | 
P.O. Box 248087            | It's hot here.  And humid.
Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA |
See (soon to move to its real home): http://www.law.miami.edu/~mfroomki