In the age of the digital signature, attorneys can find themselves in the following predicament: facing a tight deadline to serve interrogatory responses and having access to the client’s electronic signature. What if, for the sake of expediency, an attorney used the digital signature to sign the client’s interrogatory responses? Should he or she?
A recent case out of the Southern District of New York—alleging copyright infringement of a picture of oysters—provides a few pearls of wisdom. Wisser v. Vox Media, 19 Civ 1445 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2020).
Bill Wisser sued Vox Media alleging that the company used his photo of oysters without permission. Wisser’s counsel, LLF, served responses to Vox’s interrogatories. The verification attested that Wisser had read the interrogatory responses and that they were true and accurate. At his deposition, however, Wisser testified that he had never seen the interrogatory responses and that the signature on the verification page was not his.
In actuality, LLF never had Wisser review the interrogatory responses nor asked him to review his records. After completing the discovery responses, LLF took Wisser’s digital signature from a letter and signed the interrogatory responses.
Vox moved for sanctions, and the court determined that the verification was entirely misleading. Despite indicating otherwise, Wisser had not read the interrogatory responses and did not verify he knew the contents to be true and accurate. LLF did not attempt to rectify the error by having Wisser review the response retroactively. The district court imposed sanctions.