Metadata: Technolo gg,ical, Ethical and Legal Consequences

transcript

Presenting a live 90‐minute webinar with interactive Q&A

Metadata: Technological, Ethical g ,and Legal ConsequencesUnderstanding the Hidden Threat ‐ Best Practices to Manage the Risks

T d ’ f l f

1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 8, 2011

Today’s faculty features:

Robert D. Brownstone, Technology & eDiscovery Counsel; Co-Chair EIM Group, Fenwick & West,Mountain View, Calif.

Kris Haworth President The Forensics Group Petaluma CalifKris Haworth, President, The Forensics Group, Petaluma, Calif.

The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10.

Conference Materials

If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please complete the following steps:

• Click on the + sign next to “Conference Materials” in the middle of the left-hand column on your screen hand column on your screen.

• Click on the tab labeled “Handouts” that appears, and there you will see a PDF of the slides for today's program.

• Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open. Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open.

• Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.

Continuing Education Credits FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

For CLE purposes, please let us know how many people are listening at your location by completing each of the following steps:

• Close the notification box

• In the chat box, type (1) your company name and (2) the number of attendees at your location

• Click the blue icon beside the box to send

Tips for Optimal Quality

S d Q litSound QualityIf you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet connection.

If the sound quality is not satisfactory and you are listening via your computer speakers, you may listen via the phone: dial 1-866-871-8924 and enter your PIN when prompted Otherwise please send us a chat or e mail when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or e-mail sound@straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem.

If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance.

Viewing QualityTo maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key againpress the F11 key again.

Metadata: Technological, Ethical and Legal Consequences

Understanding the Hidden Threat –Best Practices to Manage the RisksBest Practices to Manage the Risks

Webinar – June 8, 2011

Kris HaworthKris HaworthRobert D. BrownstoneRobert D. Brownstone

Agendag

I. INTRODUCTION

II. Day-to-Day Issues for Lawyers and Others

UP • A. Basics/Definitions

• B. Demos of file-system data & embedded dataE y

• C. Track Changes

• D. Mitigation – scrubbing/cleaning . . . mining

• E. Redactions

Agendag

III. Lawyer Ethics of Inadvertent Disclosures

• A. Day-to-Day

UP • B. In Litigation

IV. eDiscovery – Client-Created Files in Native

• A. Overview of Law

• B. Demos of frequently arising issuesB. Demos of frequently arising issues

1. Altered or misleading metadata

2. Warnings re: production stipulations

I. INTRODUCTIONTo Scrub or Not To Scrub?To Scrub or Not To Scrub?

E© © ©

II. Day-to-Day Issues –A Basics/DefinitionsA. Basics/Definitions

What is Metadata?

• Data About Data Contents

• Dates and People Associated with Documents

• Can be Helpful or Damaging

Example . . .

II(A). Day-to-Day Issues –What is Metadata?

Data 65. Document Name: revenue.xls

What is Metadata? (c’t’d)

Workbook Format:

UP Built-in file properties:

Built-in properties containing metadata: 5

Application name: Microsoft ExcelE Application name: Microsoft Excel

Last print date: 4/30/2007 1:22:24 PM

Creation date: 4/30/2007 9:47:22 AM/ /

Last save time: 5/3/2007 11:49:58 AM

Company: TFG

II(A). What is Metadata? (c’t’d) –It’s Only a Pointer

When a user opens a new document –

It’s Only a Pointer

creation date of January 1, 2001 assigned

When a user opens an existing file and saves it t l ti d t i d!

UP it to a new location – new date assigned!

After every print operation the user must “save” the file to have the operating system E save the file to have the operating system and application reflect this metadata change

What happens whenat appe s e

• duplicates are removed?

• a document has been copied and moved?

a document has been copied and moved?

II(A). What is Metadata? Metadata? (c’t’d) –

E© © ©

II(A). What is Metadata?

*Metadata? (c’t’d) – * L. Stuart Ditzen, " ’You've got

evidence,’ " Phila. Inquirer (1/11/04)

E© © ©

II. Day-to-Day –B Demos RecapB. Demos Recap

File system data

Embedded data

II. Day-to-Day Threats –C Tracked Changes

The Problem

C. Tracked Changes

• Embedded data can track/capture changes made, reviewers’ name and order in which changes made

UP order in which changes made

• Especially in Word when creator/modifier did not accept/

reject tracked changes

• Embedded data’s biggest threat –"90[%] of documents in circulation 90[%] of documents in circulation began as something else" <http://news.com.com/2102-7344_3-5170073.html?tag=st.util.print> (citing Vanson Bourne study, "Cost of Sharing“)

II(C). TrackedChanges Changes (c’t’d)

Hot button issue because recipient can manipulate Hot button issue because recipient can manipulate files to peel back onion layers by using either:

• 1) low-tech

UP basic tools (drop-down-menus & tabs) in Word,

Excel, PowerPoint and/or Adobe Acrobat

• 2) higher-techE

scrubbing/cleaning software, by clicking on “analyze” or “content risk”

• 3) highest-tech• 3) highest-tech

eDiscovery software to extract – from one file or a batch of files – metadata in searchable form

II(C). Tracked Changes –Lawyers

Lawyers (c’t’d)

LAWYER-created files . . . concerns:

• Documents drafted by one side

UP • Documents drafted by both sides

Proposed Order e-mailed to Judge in W d W dP f f

Word or WordPerfect format

Written discovery and/or discovery responses might (HAVE TO BE) be responses might (HAVE TO BE) be exchanged in Word or WordPerfect

II(C). Tracked Changes –L

E-mail attachment to client

Lawyers (c’t’d)

• Draft of pleading or agreement

• Bill for services rendered

Confidentiality Concerns for Legal and Sales:

• Identity of other client/buyer/seller

• Fees charged other client/buyer

M i i liti Municipalities• Publicly posted Agenda,

Minutes or Ordinance

II(C). Tracked Changes (c’t’d) –Cautionary TalesCautionary Tales

UN (Lebanese PM assassination), British PM’s Office ("Downing Street Memo"), Republican Social Security Administration, Democratic National Committee, California AG’ Offi MPAA d SCO G

UP AG’s Office, MPAA and SCO Group. . .

• Gene Koprowski, Networking: Not-so-secret documents, UPI (2/6/06) <http://www.physorg.com/news10567.html>

• Brian Bergstein, Bigger efforts made against embarrassing E Brian Bergstein, Bigger efforts made against embarrassing 'metadata', AP (2/3/06) <http://Bergstein-2-3-06.notlong.com>

• Dennis Kennedy, et al., Mining the Value from Metadata, (1/1/06) www.discoveryresources.org/featured-articles/from-the-experts/thinking-e-discovery-mining-the-value-from-metadata/print/

• Tom Zeller Jr., "Beware Your Trail of Digital Fingerprints," NYT (11/7/05) <http://Metadata-NYT-11-7-05.notlong.com> (quoting <http://www.un.org/news/dh/docs/mehlisreport>)

• Stephen Shankland, Hidden text shows SCO prepped lawsuit against BofA (c/net 3/18/04)

g ( / / / )

II(C). Tracked Changes (c’t’d) –Mitigating RisksMitigating Risks

DO any or all of these steps:y p• properly accept/reject tracked

changes one by one or all at once

UP • use metadata scrubbing software

• scrub before or during conversion to portable document format (.pdf)

DON’T• hide them by choosing "Final" from hide them by choosing Final from

Word’s "Display for Review" toolbar

II. Day-to-Day Threats –D Mitigating Risks

Microsoft menus and the like are inadequate

D. Mitigating Risks

• See Brownstone Bibliography linked here

So, especially for e-mail attachments, use ft th t k f t k d h d

UP software that works for tracked changes and

other metadata. Examples:

• Payne Consulting Group's (PCG's) Metadata E Payne Consulting Group s (PCG s) Metadata Assistant <www.payneconsulting.com/products>

• Workshare Professional 5.2 suite; or Workshare Protect 6.2 <www.workshare.com/products/wsprofessional>Protect 6.2 <www.workshare.com/products/wsprofessional>

• Esq Inc.’s Iscrub <esqinc.com/section/products/2/iscrub.html>

• Litéra’s Metadact <www.litera.com/products/metadact.html>

II(D). Mitigating Risks (c’t’d) –Other Soft /Hard ware

Other Soft-/Hard- ware

• 3BView’s 3BClean <www.3bview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62:technical-overview&catid=6:product-articles&Itemid=93>

W dP f t’ b ilt i f t

UP WordPerfect’s built-in features

• Sharon D. Nelson, SCRUBBING A MAC'S METADATA: A BIT OF A PUZZLER, Ride the Lightning (7/23/09) <ridethelightning senseient com/2009/07/scrubbingE <ridethelightning.senseient.com/2009/07/scrubbing-a-macs-metadata-a-bit-of-a-puzzler.html>

• Laura Acklen, Saving WordPerfect Files Without Metadata, Corel (last visited 7/28/10) <http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Corel3/Section/Displ<http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Corel3/Section/Display&sid=1047024315119&gid=1047024331836&cid=1144159894033>

• Richard M. Georges, Saving WordPerfect Files Without Metadata, FutureLawyer (7/23/10) <http://futurelawyer typepad com/futurelawyer/2010/07/saving-

<http://futurelawyer.typepad.com/futurelawyer/2010/07/saving-wordperfect-files-without-metadata.html>

II(D). Tracked Changes –Mitigating Risks

Goalkeeper Prompts – Example:

Mitigating Risks (c’t’d)

Goalkeeper Prompts Example:

See generally “A Guide to Managing Metadata in

Today’s Law Firms,” Osterman (7/26/10)

<workshare.com/collateral/researchstudies/A-Guide-to-Managing-Metadata-in-Todays-Law-Firms.pdf>

II(D). Mitigating Risks (c’t’d) –Goalie Prompts Goalie Prompts (c’t’d)

Also, “Reply to All” warnings

• See, e.g., <www.sperrysoftware.com/outlook/Reply-To-All-Monitor.asp>

See also ARMA, “Blind Copy” Can Reveal Too Much, ARMA Newswire (12/1/10); AND auto-complete problem in Greg Mitchell, Email 'Oops' Ends with Gordon & Rees Being Booted

from Case, LegalPad (12/29/10)

II(D). MitigatingRisks

CAVEAT: "Mind the [Mobile] Gap"

Risks (c’t’d)

• Attachments created and sent – or forwarded – via: smartphones/ PDA’s; OR web access to e-mail, e g Outlook Web Access (OWA)

UP e.g., Outlook Web Access (OWA)

See generally these Microsystems items:• Filling the Metadata Gap; The Next GenerationE g p;

of Metadata Risks & Solutions (3/31/10)

• Cathy Brode, The Often Overlooked

Mobile Security Gap, 3BView (12/15/09)y p, ( / / )

See also• Neil Squillante, Workshare Protect Server: Read Our

Exclusive Report, TechnoLawyer Blog (4/15/10)

II(D). Mitigating Risks (c’t’d) –Conversions into PDF

1. The Problem

Conversions into .PDF

• Some metadata migrates

J st p ess Ct l+D to

UP • Just press Ctrl+D to

see pre-conversion:

TitlE Title

Author, etc. . . . .

• For court warnings, see, e.g., Sharon D.

Nelson, Court Warns Lawyers to Scrub Metadata Before PDF Conversion, Ride The Lightning (2/25/10)

II(D). Mitigating Risks (c’t’d) –PDF Conversions

Alabama Ethics Opinion < l b / /PDF/2007 02 df>

.PDF Conversions (c’t’d)

<www.alabar.org/ogc/PDF/2007-02.pdf>

Corn Growers letter<http://politechbot.com/docs/corn.growers.google.congress.061008.pdf>

UP • Declan McCullough, Corn farmers take anti-Google fight to

Washington, c/net (6/11/08) <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9965555-38.html?hhTest=1>

• Declan McCullagh, Secretive D.C. firm says corn growers‘ anti-Google letter is legit c/net (6/12/08)E Google letter is legit, c/net (6/12/08)<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9966971-38.html?hhTest=1>

• CNET, Daily Debrief: Corn farmers vs. Google (video re: "Farm lobbyist [sic] oppose Yahoo-Google ad deal")<http://video.techrepublic.com.com/2422-13792 11-205590.html><http://video.techrepublic.com.com/2422 13792_11 205590.html>

See also UK Register, Greek police cuff Anonymous spokesman suspect (12/16/10)

II(D). Mitigating Risks (c’t’d) –PDF Conversions ( ’t’d).PDF Conversions (c’t’d)

Best to scrub metadata Best to scrub metadata BEFORE or DURING conversion to .PDF

Or AFTER. Some help is here in Adobe 8, 9 or X("Examine Document")E ( Examine Document )

• <http://blogs.adobe.com/acrolaw/category/metadata-issues/>

• <http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Acrobat/8.0/3D/help.html?content=WS7E9FA147-10E3-4391-9CB6-6E44FBDA8856.html>

• <http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Acrobat/9.0/Professional/WS7E9FA147-10E3-

4391-9CB6-6E44FBDA8856.w.html>

II. E. ElectronicRedactionsRedactions

"Hidden" text may be search-able and copy-able for pasting

"Under seal" information or PII b d b f i d

UP may be exposed by a friend,

foe or neutral (court, e.g.) See generally Workshare, Meeting Regulatory E g y , g g y

Challenges: Metadata in Court Submissions (Apr. 2010) <www.workshare.com/collateral/researchstudies/MeetingRegulatoryChal

lenges-Metadata-in-Court-Submissions.pdf>

NEW! Debra Cassens Weiss, Tens of Thousands of Pacer Documents Could Have Failed Redactions, Study Suggests, ABA J. (5/31/11)

y gg , ( / / )

II(E). Redactions (c’t’d) –Cautionary Tales

TSA redaction gaffe

Cautionary Tales

• PDF Itself with black boxes removed <http://cryptome.org/tsa-screening.zip>

UP • Articles:

<http://www.betanews.com/article/The-PDF-redaction-problem-TSA-may-have-been-using-old-software/1260466899>E software/1260466899>

<www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9142141/Analysis_TSA_document_release_show_pitfalls_of_electronic_redaction?taxonomyName=Security&taxonomyId=17>

<www wanderingaramean com/search/label/Screening% <www.wanderingaramean.com/search/label/Screening%20Management%20SOP> (linking to related posts)

• Satirical Video

II(E). Redactions –SNAFUS

25 Things Facebook Couldn't Keep Secret In

SNAFUS (c’t’d)

Court, Information Week (2/12/09)<www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=PVULRFVJRLOT0QSNDLRSKHSCJUNN2JVN?articleID=214000046>

UP • linking to <http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-

courts/california/candce/5:2007cv01389/189975/474/0.pdf>

GE Suffers a Redaction Disaster, Conn. L.

Trib. (5/28/08) ("sensitive information easy to access behind black veil")<www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202421717785>

Error by FTC Reveals Whole Foods' Trade Secrets, AP (8/15/07) <www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401784_pf.html>

AT&T leaks sensitive info in NSA suit, c/net (5/30/06)

SNAFUS (c’t’d)

• Linking to <www.politechbot.com/docs/att.not.redacted.brief.052606.pdf>

• IRONY . . . .

• See <www nsa gov/ia/ files/support/I733 028R 2008 pdf>

• See <www.nsa.gov/ia/_files/support/I733-028R-2008.pdf>

More PDF Blackout Follies, Slashdot (6/22/06)

SNAFUS (c’t’d)

<http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=06/06/22/138210>

linking to <www.sfgate.com/c/acrobat/2006/06/22/BALCO_quash_subpoena_sfchronicle.pdf>

Copy, Paste and Reveal, Legal Times (1/30/06) (U.S.

UP report re: fatal shooting of Italian intelligence officer;

secret details revealed re: manning of security checkpoints) <http://Lesemann-1-30-06.notlong.com>E p )

See R. Brownstone, et al., Exposing Redaction, 9 No.

10 E-Commerce L. Rep. 7 (West Oct. 2007)f i k /d /P bli i /IP/IP b ll i /IP B ll i F ll 2007 df<www.fenwick.com/docstore/Publications/IP/IP_bulletins/IP_Bulletin_Fall_2007.pdf>

• Expanded version – Secrets Easily Leaked by Friend or Foe In Publicly Filed .PDF Documents, 13 No. 1 Cyberspace Lawyer 1 (West Jan./Feb. 2008) – available from presenter

1 (West Jan./Feb. 2008) available from presenter

II(E). Redactions (c’t’d) –Risk MitigationRisk Mitigation

DO’s:

• High Tech:

MS Word 2003 redaction tool [2007 tool

UP MS Word 2003 redaction tool [2007 tool

not per MS; see <http://redaction.codeplex.com>]; OR

Acrobat Pro 8.0, 9.0 or X redaction toolE ,

• Low Tech:

print then black-out (or vice versa) print then black-out (or vice versa)

then scan

then OCR

II(E). Redaction –Mitigating Risks

DON’T’s:

Mitigating Risks (c’t’d)

DON T s:

• Microsoft Word’s borders/shading

• Microsoft Word’s highlighter

[UNLESS YOU THEN PRINT, SCAN & OCR]E [UNLESS YOU THEN PRINT, SCAN & OCR]

“PDF Redaction: What Every Business Should Know ” DocsCorp (Aug ‘10) Should Know, DocsCorp (Aug. 10) <docscorp.com/public/downloadTrial/RedactionWhitepaperPDFT.cfm>

II(E). Redaction –Mitigating Risks Mitigating Risks (c’t’d)

TO LEARN MORE:• Rick Borstein, Rick’s Acrobat X Redaction Guide

http://blogs.adobe.com/acrolaw/2010/12/ricks-acrobat-x-redaction-guide/ (12/27/10)

• Rick Borstein, Acrobat for Legal Professionals,

Rick Borstein, Acrobat for Legal Professionals, Redaction segment (last updated 6/27/10) <http://blogs.adobe.com/acrolaw/redaction/>

• Kim Walker, How to Keep Sensitive Data Blacked Out, Pa. Legal Intelligencer (3/19/10) <http://www law com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticE <http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleFriendlyLTN.jsp?id=1202446452557>

• Free White Paper: PDF redaction: what every business should know, DocsCorp (12/11/09) <http://www.docscorp.com/public/downloadTrial/Reda

i hi fctionWhitepaperPDFT.cfm>

• Summary of changes from Acrobat 7; Top Features for Legal Professionals, Adobe (9/8/08)<http://blogs.adobe.com/acrolaw/A9_7-8-9-comparison.pdf>

comparison.pdf>

III. Ethics – Inadvertent Disclosure in General

Metadata ethics = subset of broader area of

Disclosure in General

Metadata ethics subset of broader area of

inadvertent disclosure in general . . .

Ethical duty of RECIPIENT attorney on receipt from

ca du y o C a o ey o ece p o

opposing party of confidential information he/she

knows/should-know inadvertently sent

• Ex. ABA Formal Op. No. 05-437 (10/1/05)

(applying Model Rule 4.4(b)(2002))

Onl d t is to notif sende Only duty is to notify sender

Replaced ABA Op. No. 92-368 (duty to notify

sender AND to follow sender’s instructions)

III. RecipientDuty ( ’t’d)Duty (c’t’d)

≈ 19 “States” (incl. D.C.): Follow the ABA rule( )

≈ 8 States: Notify sender and

follow his/her

UP follow his/her

instructions

≈ 10 States: Various other

approaches

≈ 3 (e.g., Maryland): No duty to notify

≈ 10 States: Silent on this issue

III. Sender – PotentialWaiver for Clienta e o C e t

Potential consequences . . . 3 approaches:q pp

LENIENT Rarely ever waives Ex: Texas

STRICT Always waives Ex: D.C.E y

MIDDLE C b b l i M t t t E CAMIDDLE Case-by-case balancing Most states. Ex. = CA

Waiver might expand to SUBJECT MATTER

Waiver might expand to SUBJECT-MATTER

III. Metadata in Lawyer-Disseminated eDocsDisseminated eDocs

Chart of nationwide metadata ethics ops : Chart of nationwide metadata ethics ops.:

<abanet.org/tech/ltrc/fyidocs/metadatachart.html>

In sum CANNOT UN-RING BELL:

UP In sum, CANNOT UN-RING BELL:

• "[W]ill have learned confidential information that cannot simply be erased from memory" E p y y

Formal Op. 2003-04, 2004 WL 837937 (NYC Ass’n B. Comm. Prof. Jud. Eth. 4/9/04) <www.abcny.org/Ethics/eth2003.html>y g

Magnified consequences of inevitable human error . . .

III. MetadataExaminationExamination

RECIPIENTS RECIPIENTS . . .

One view – “Anti-Mining” = Treat

UP confidential information in metadata

like "inadvertently" disclosed i f i hi l i

information – unethical to examine without consent of opposing counsel

III. MetadataRecipient ( ’ ’d)

Anti-Mining View

Recipient (c’t’d)

Anti-Mining View

Examples:

• N.C. 2009 Formal Ethics Op. 1 (Jan. 2010) <ncbar.com/ethics/ethics.asp?page=4&from=6/2009>

• W. Va. Bar Ass’n L.E.O. 2009-01 (June 2009) E ( )(no mining only if actual knowledge of inadvertence) <http://www.wvlawyer.org/leo1.php>

• N.H. Bar Ass’n Ethics Comm. Op. 2008-2009/4 (April 2009) <nhbar.org/uploads/pdf/EthicsOpinion2008-9-4.pdf>

• Az. Bar Ethics Op. 07-03 (Nov. 2007) <www.myazbar.org/Ethics/opinionview.cfm?id=695>

III. MetadataRecipient

Other view – Metadata can be viewed

by opposing counsel; scrub it if you don't want it read. Examples:

Minn Op 22 (Mar 2010)

UP • Minn. Op. 22 (Mar. 2010)

(but a fact-specific question)

• Vt. Bar Ass’n Prof’l Resp.

Section Op. 2009-1 (Aug. 2009)

• Pa. Bar Ass'n Comm. on Legal Ethics & Prof Resp Formal Op 2009-100& Prof. Resp., Formal Op. 2009 100(June 2009) (but must notify sender)

III. MetadataRecipient

OK to Mine (FUGHETABOUTIT!) (c’t’d)

More Examples:

• Maine Bd. of Bar Overseers Prof'l

Ethics Comm'n, Op. 196 (Oct. 2008)

• Md.S.B.A. Ethics Op.

No. 2007-09 (2006)

• ABA Formal Op. No. 06-442 (2006)

III. MetadataSender

ALL OPINIONS AGREE . . . Example:

Sender

• “[D]uty . . . to use reasonable care when transmitting documents by e-mail to prevent the disclosure of metadata containing client

fid t ”

UP confidences or secrets.”

NYSBA Op. 782, Comm. on Prof’l Ethics (12/8/04)

• “Reasonable care” factors:E • Reasonable care factors: subject matter

based on “template” used for other client

multiple drafts multiple drafts

comments from multiple sources

client has commented on document

Identity/ies of intended recipient/s

IV. eDiscovery of Client-CreatedDocs. – Metadata Disclosed

A Overview of Law

Docs. Metadata Disclosed

A. Overview of Law

• Preservation/Spoliation

• Discoverability

• Inadvertent disclosure law

• Scope-of-Production

stipulations/agreements

IV(A). Discoverability (c’t’d) –Older Case Law

When needed/relevant:

Older Case Law

• Ex: definitive eEvidence regarding alleged fabrication or back-dating

alleged fabrication or back dating

Munshani v. Signal Lake Venture Fund II, 2001 Mass. Super. LEXIS 496 (10/9/01) < i ll k /liti ti / d h h i df>E <www.signallake.com/litigation/ma_order_munhshani.pdf>,

aff’d, 2004 Mass. App. LEXIS 323 (3/26/04) <www.signallake.com/litigation/Dismissal-of-Munshani-Appeal.pdf>

Premier Homes & Land v. Cheswell, Inc., 240 F. Supp. 2d 97 (D. Mass. 2002) <http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/neiman/pdf/premierhomes%2012%2002.pdf>

IV(A). Discoverability (c’t’d) –Later Decisions

FRCP Vague

Later Decisions

FRCP Vague

NEED to show NEED as to particular:

• eDocument(s)

• format(s), e.g., spreadsheetsE format(s), e.g., spreadsheets Williams v. Sprint/United Mgmt., 230 F.R.D. 640 (D. Kan. 9/29/05)

(analyzing 12/1/06 version of FRCP; contrasting FRCP 26(b)(2)(B))

<http://Williams-9-29-05.notlong.com> (free via PACER)

Typically, NO DO-OVERS

IV(A). Discoverability (c’t’d) –Case Law Developing

TO LEARN MORE

Case Law Developing

• Separate Brownstone slide deck available on request

• Libraries/Newsletters:

<applieddiscovery.com/ws_display.asp?filter=Native%20Production%20Required>

<www.krollontrack.com/case-summaries/>

<https://extranet1.klgates.com/ediscovery/>

Compare EU Developments

• New Legal Metadata Standard: European Case Law Identifier (ECLI), Legal Informatics Blog (11/30/10) <http://legalinformatics.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/new-legal-metadata-standard-european-case-law-identifier-ecli/>

metadata standard european case law identifier ecli/>

IV(A). Inadvertent DisclosureStipulations QC etcStipulations, QC, etc.

FRCP & States’ Clawback Procedures

FRE 502, including collateral estoppel

Three ways to exert best efforts to try to avoid a waiver finding:

• Stipulated Protective Orders

• QC/QA

• Claw-Backs

IV. B. Demos of Frequently Arising Issues Arising Issues . . .

1. Metadata could have been altered

and/or otherwise be misleading . . .

2. When, up front, you negotiate to

exchange in native, be aware of E exchange in native, be aware of

what you are getting into . . .

Conclusion/Q&A/C I fQ&A/Contact-Info. One last scary thought:

• “alternate data streams (ADS)”

See, e.g., <informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=413685>

Robert D. Brownstone, Esq. Kris Haworth President Robert D. Brownstone, Esq.

Fenwick & West LLP

<rbrownstone@fenwick.com>

Kris Haworth, President

The Forensics Group

<kris@theforensics-group.com>

<fenwick.com/attorneys/4.2.1.asp?aid=544> <theforensics-group.com/about.html>