Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Amcto presentation final
Amcto presentation final
Amcto presentation final
Amcto presentation final
Amcto presentation final
Amcto presentation final
Amcto presentation final
Amcto presentation final
Amcto presentation final
Amcto presentation final
Amcto presentation final
Amcto presentation final
Amcto presentation final
Amcto presentation final
Amcto presentation final
Amcto presentation final
Amcto presentation final
Amcto presentation final
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Amcto presentation final

2,320

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,320
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  1. Sedona Canada Principles ofE-Discovery and Privacy Protection<br />Municipal Information Access & Privacy Forum <br />Developing a Culture of Access & Privacy in Ontario’s Municipalities <br />October 18, 2011 <br />Alex Cameron<br />Fasken Martineau LLP<br />Dan Michaluk<br />Hicks Morley<br />
  2. Overview<br /><ul><li>Privacy and e-discovery
  3. Sedona Canada
  4. Pre-litigation
  5. Discovery</li></li></ul><li>Privacy and e-discovery<br />“e-discovery refers to discovery in civil litigation which deals with the exchange of information in electronic format (often referred to as Electronically Stored Information or ESI). Usually (but not always) a digital forensics analysis is performed to recover evidence. A wider array of people are involved in eDiscovery (for example, forensic investigators, lawyers and IT managers) ....<br />Data is identified as relevant by attorneys and placed on legal hold. Evidence is then extracted and analysed using digital forensic procedures, it is usually converted into PDF or TIFF form for use in court.” (wikipedia)<br />
  6. Privacy and e-discovery<br />Longstanding tension between privacy rights and the need for full disclosure in litigation<br />Scope of implied consent?<br />Privacy issues arising with increasing frequency in e-discovery context<br />Proliferation of electronic information<br />E-discovery requires the gathering and processing of irrelevant records<br />Blurring between business and personal purposes<br />Non-party, internet and social media issues<br />
  7. Privacy and e-discovery<br />FIPPA (s. 64) & MFIPPA (s. 51) <br />These laws expressly state that they do not limit the information otherwise available by law to a party in litigation<br />Does that mean that privacy restrictions are irrelevant?<br />Pre-litigation?<br />Relevance/redaction?<br />What is “personal information”?<br />
  8. Sedona Canada<br />The Sedona Canada Principles Addressing Electronic Discovery<br />Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure<br />The Sedona Canada Commentary on Proportionality in Electronic Disclosure and Discovery (Public Comment)<br />The Sedona Canada Commentary on Practical Approaches for Cost Containment<br />Other commentaries to come:<br />Privacy <br />
  9. Sedona Canada Principles<br />2. In any proceeding, the parties should ensure that steps taken in the discovery process are proportionate, taking into account … (iv) the costs, burden and delay that may be imposed on the parties to deal with electronically stored information.<br />Non-monetary costs and other factors may include possible invasion of individual privacy as well as the risks to legal confidences and privileges.<br />
  10. Sedona Canada Principles<br /><ul><li>9. During the discovery process parties should agree to or, if necessary, seek judicial direction on measures to protect privileges, privacy, trade secrets and other confidential information relating to the production of electronic documents and data.
  11. Datatreasury Corporation v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2008 FC 955
  12. Innovative Health Group Inc. v. Calgary Health Region, 2008 ABCA 219</li></ul>2<br />
  13. Pre-litigation<br /><ul><li>Access to employee stored communications</li></ul>A labour-relations issue given the employment exclusion and litigation caveat<br />The case law is very management friendly<br />But expectations are rising<br />Best practices<br />Make personal use conditional on employer rights<br />Put controls on the right of audit and investigation<br />Consider express reference to e-discovery and e-FOI<br />6<br />
  14. Pre-litigation<br /><ul><li>The impact of City of Ottawa</li></ul>About public right of access to personal e-mails<br />Not about government’s access to stored communications on its systems<br />Not about “custody or control” under civil rules<br />Raises questions though<br />FOI coordinators should think about managing expectations<br />Next case – University of Alberta<br />8<br />
  15. Pre-litigation<br /><ul><li>The impact of R. v. Cole</li></ul>The sky is not falling<br />Privacy expectation precluded collection by the police<br />Court recognized an implied management right (given a gap in policy)<br />Does highlight the need for proportional steps in accessing stored information on employer systems<br />8<br />
  16. Pre-litigation<br /><ul><li>Vendors may extract, process and review docs
  17. Over-collection will be “necessary” to conduct e-discovery
  18. But this is an outsourcing/data security issue – apply due diligence
  19. Are retainers through external counsel exposing your institution to risk?</li></ul>11<br />
  20. Pre-litigation<br />Regulation of surveillance<br />Necessary for its purpose?<br />Limit collection (especially of third parties)<br />Common law tort?<br />Watch for Jones v. Tsige (ONCA)<br />
  21. Pre-litigation<br />Social media issues<br />What is in the user’s control vs. non-party social media service?<br />Public vs. private pages<br />
  22. Discovery<br /><ul><li>Your institution’s lawyers need documentation to prepare, but for sensitive docs…
  23. What’s really necessary for preparation?
  24. Should identifiers should be redacted?
  25. Should security expectations be express?</li></li></ul><li>Discovery<br /><ul><li>Producing party traps
  26. A subpoena duces tecum is not the same as a legal requirement to produce
  27. A power to inquire is not the same as a power to compel – e.g., CAS powers
  28. Sensitive discreet PI in otherwise producible records – e.g., DOB, SIN, credit card #s
  29. Receiving party takes information pursuant to an undertaking not to use for collateral purpose. But what about information security?</li></li></ul><li>Questions?<br />Alex Cameron<br />acameron@fasken.com<br />twitter @a_cameron<br />http://www.fasken.com/acameron<br />Daniel Michaluk<br />daniel-michaluk@hicksmorley.com<br />twitter @danmichaluk<br />http://danmichaluk.wordpress.com<br />
  30. Sedona Canada Principles in E-Discovery<br />Municipal Information Access & Privacy Forum <br />Developing a Culture of Access & Privacy in Ontario’s Municipalities <br />October 18, 2011 <br />Alex Cameron<br />Fasken Martineau LLP<br />Dan Michaluk<br />Hicks Morley<br />

×