La corte sud di NY il 5 agosto 2021, Case 1:19-cv-05758-DLC, Rossbach c. Montefiore ed altri, decide la lite iniziarta da una dipendente per preteso harassment.
La prova principale consisteva in un SMs (se ben capito) al suo IPhone5. si v. il messaggio riprodotto nella sentenza.
La corte accerta che la prova è falsa e costruita ad arte dalla ricorrente: si basa anche sulla differenza degli emojis allegati da quelli originali.
la sentenza è interessante per i dettagli informatici che portano il giudice ad accertare il falso e a rigettare la domanda
PS: sentenza e link dal blog di Eric Goldman il quale trae i seguenti insegnamenti:
<<This ruling provides some helpful lessons for e-discovery (beyond the obvious advice not to fabricate evidence):
Lesson #1: Emoji depictions in litigation should always come in pairs–what the sender actually saw, and what the recipient actually saw. Never assume they are the same!
Lesson #2: You need to see the emojis as the sender and recipient saw them in, not as they appear on current devices. Thus, in document production, watch out for processing the evidence using current technology because often discovery takes place years after the evidence was initially generated and things could have changed in the interim.
Lesson #3: If you can’t replicate the evidence in its native format, you can do what this defense team did: get declarations from your litigation opponent about the purported hardware/OS versions where the evidence was generated and then use variations in emoji versions like carbon dating to double-check the timeline.>>