• by Wendy Davis  @wendyndavis, September 27, 2009

Google and the Rocky Mountain Bank have asked a judge to vacate a controversial order directing the deactivation of a Gmail account that was mistakenly sent confidential data.

The companies said in a joint motion that Google had complied with the order. They also said they lodged a separate report to the court showing that the bank's original request was now "moot." Therefore, they argued, Google should be allowed to restore the user's access to the Gmail account.

Information about the report given to the court was not available as of Sunday.

Despite the companies' request, U.S. District Court Judge James Ware in the Northern district of California adjourned the case until Oct. 5, leaving the deactivation order in place. Until the order is vacated, the Gmail user will not have access to the account.

The court proceedings stemmed from a mistake made by the Rocky Mountain Bank. In mid-August, a bank employee inadvertently sent names, addresses, social security numbers and loan information of more than 1,300 customers to a Gmail address. When the bank realized the error, it sent an email to the same address asking the recipient to contact the bank and destroy the file without opening it. The bank did not get a response, so it contacted Google to ask for data about the account holder.

Google told the bank it would not provide information about a Gmail user without a court order, as per its privacy policy. The bank then filed a lawsuit asking a judge to order Google to disclose details about the Gmail user and deactivate the account. The account holder was not accused of wrongdoing.

On Wednesday, Ware directed Google to cut off the user's access to the account. Ware also ordered Google to state whether the account was active or dormant, and if active, to provide information that could be used to identify the holder.

Some lawyers condemned that ruling on the grounds that it infringed on the email account holder's right to privacy as well as his or her First Amendment right to communicate. In addition, the judge was criticized for not notifying the account holder in advance, which would have allowed the user to appear in court and argue against deactivation.

It wasn't immediately clear why Google complied with the temporary restraining order rather than seeking a stay.