We’ve all been there: a “reply all” that should have been just a “reply” or a “private” e-mail that was forwarded beyond your intent. In the modern workplace, where many employees send dozens—if not hundreds—of e-mails every day, it is very easy to make a careless mistake. 
Recently, Planet Fitness asked a court to intervene after an employee threatened to share a confidential e-mail he mistakenly received. The employer made an unusual request. It asked the court to seize the employee’s personal laptop and smartphone to make sure he did not share the confidential message. Did the court actually do it?
You’ve got mail
Jason Cole was a payroll manager at Planet Fitness, which had an attorney named Jason E. Cole. On June 3, the company’s chief administrative officer and general counsel intended to send an e-mail to the attorney but sent it to the payroll manager instead. Although there is a dispute regarding the contents of the e-mail, the parties agree that it contained confidential information about Planet Fitness’ business that was not intended to be shared with the outside world.
When he received the e-mail, Cole immediately forwarded it to an HR director and claimed he stopped reading as soon as he realized he was not the intended recipient. He told HR that he “completely deleted” the message from his in-box and computer. The IT department subsequently checked his computer and confirmed that he had deleted the e-mail.
No harm, no foul, right? Well, approximately two months later, Cole started bringing up the e-mail again. Apparently, he resided (and was possibly in a romantic relationship) with a recently terminated coworker. While conveying his displeasure about the coworker’s termination to a supervisor, Cole stated that he still had a copy of the confidential e-mail, threatened to release it, and claimed that the information in the e-mail would be damaging to Planet Fitness. Although the company stated that he did not accurately describe the nature and contents of the e-mail, it agreed that the information would be harmful to the company if shared with others.
Court grants limited TRO
If Cole were to share the e-mail with anyone, Planet Fitness could take legal action against him because he signed a confidentiality agreement stating that he would not misuse company technology or share confidential information with third parties. But at that point, the proprietary information would be out, and the damage would be done. It can take years to win a lawsuit but only seconds to forward an e-mail. Therefore, the company’s best option was to pursue a temporary restraining order (TRO).
A TRO enjoins (or prevents) a party to a lawsuit from taking a certain action before the lawsuit is actually decided. A court will grant a TRO if:
- The party seeking the TRO is likely to win the lawsuit.
- The party seeking the TRO is likely to suffer harm that cannot be repaired by monetary damages at a later date.
- The potential harm to the party seeking the TRO outweighs the hardship the other party may suffer in complying with the order until a final resolution is reached.
- Granting the TRO would benefit the public interest.
Planet Fitness asked the court to enjoin Cole from forwarding the confidential e-mail to other parties. However, its specific request was quite unusual. The employer asked the court to order Cole not to share the e-mail and seize any electronic device in his possession that he could use to forward the e-mail, including his personal computer and cell phone.
The court granted Planet Fitness’ first request and ordered Cole not to misuse any of the company’s data. That order was not burdensome to Cole because he was already obligated to refrain from sharing confidential company information under the confidentiality agreement he signed. In addition, the court found that based on Cole’s threats, it was likely that he would violate the agreement absent a court order and that doing so would cause “irreparable harm” to the company.
However, the court stopped short of confiscating Cole’s personal electronic devices. The court noted that in today’s world, it would be extremely burdensome and invasive to his privacy to take away his personal cell phone and computer.
Takeaways
Planet Fitness was aided by strong confidentiality and data security agreements that were signed by Cole. The company was able to point to the agreements and effectively argue that Cole had a contractual obligation to refrain from sharing the confidential e-mail. Therefore, his threat to do so was a threat to engage in illegal activity. However, at the end of the day, even a court cannot unsend an e-mail. The entire controversy may have been avoided if Planet Fitness’ executive had been more careful in sending the e-mail in the first place.
Connor Beatty is an attorney with Brann & Isaacson in Lewistonn, Maine. He may be contacted at cbeatty@brannlaw.com.