In Byrne v. Byrne, 168 Misc.2d 321 (Kings Cty. 1996) the defendant argued that the computer was not a family computer and thus his wife was not entitled to access the hard drive. The court held that since defendant permitted his children to use the computer for their homework, it was a "family" computer. Id. at 322. The court held that the real issue was not who possessed the computer, but rather, who had access to the computer's memory, analogizing the computer memory to a "file cabinet". Id. The Court found that a laptop computer used by the Husband, which was in the marital residence and confiscated by the Wife was akin to a filing cabinet and allowed discovery. The court permitted discovery of stored information regarding the husband's finances and personal business records and made access subject to privilege and any applications for a protective order. Justice William Rigler held that a portable computer which belonged to the employer of defendant husband, but which he kept and used in the marital residence, was akin to a filing cabinet and could be confiscated by plaintiff wife without his consent. Information stored in the computer regarding the husband's finances and personal business records was discoverable, subject to the attorney-client privilege and any applications for a protective order (Id. at 322-323). The court's rationale was that a home computer, similar to a file cabinet, could have been accessed by either party (Id. at 322).