The Sedona Canada Panel on Privacy and E-Discovery


Published on

This is a 45 minute presentation to Ontario access and privacy professionals about privacy and e-discovery.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

The Sedona Canada Panel on Privacy and E-Discovery

  1. 1. The Sedona Canada Panel on Privacy and E-Discovery<br />Information Management Access Privacy Symposium<br />March 11, 2011<br />Alex Cameron<br />Fasken Martineau LLP<br />Dan Michaluk<br />Hicks Morley<br />
  2. 2. Overview<br /><ul><li>Privacy and e-discovery
  3. 3. Sedona Canada
  4. 4. Pre-litigation
  5. 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. 6. Privacy and e-discovery<br />Longstanding tension between privacy rights and the need for full disclosure in litigation<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 />Devices and services used for business and personal purposes<br />Non-party, internet and social media issues<br />
  7. 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 />
  8. 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 />Other commentaries to come:<br />Privacy <br />Cost containment<br />
  9. 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 include possible invasion of individual privacy as well as the risks to legal confidences and privileges.<br />
  10. 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. 11. Datatreasury Corporation v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2008 FC 955
  12. 12. Innovative Health Group Inc. v. Calgary Health Region, 2008 ABCA 219</li></ul>2<br />
  13. 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. 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. 15. Pre-litigation<br /><ul><li>Vendors may extract, process and review docs
  16. 16. Over-collection will be “necessary” to conduct e-discovery
  17. 17. But this is an outsourcing/data security issue – apply due diligence
  18. 18. Are retainers through external counsel exposing your institution to risk?</li></ul>11<br />
  19. 19. Pre-litigation<br />Regulation of surveillance<br />Necessary for its purpose?<br />Limit collection (especially of third parties)<br />Beware common law tort<br />Somwar v. McDonalds<br />Shred-Tech v. Viveen<br />
  20. 20. 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 />Leduc v. Roman<br />Schuster v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada<br />
  21. 21. Discovery<br /><ul><li>Your institution’s lawyers need documentation to prepare, but for sensitive docs…
  22. 22. What’s really necessary for preparation?
  23. 23. Should identifiers should be redacted?
  24. 24. Should security expectations be express?</li></li></ul><li>Discovery<br /><ul><li>Producing party traps
  25. 25. A subpoena ducestecumis not the same as a legal requirement to produce
  26. 26. A power to ask is not the same as a power to compel – e.g., CAS powers
  27. 27. Sensitive discreet PI in otherwise producible records – e.g., DOB, SIN, credit card #s
  28. 28. Receiving party takes information pursuant to an undertaking not to use for collateral purpose. But what about information security?</li></li></ul><li>Discovery<br /><ul><li>Production and the Ontario Student Record
  29. 29. “Not admissible in evidence” in civil proceedings and witness can’t be compelled to testify to content
  30. 30. Admissibility is a different concept than production
  31. 31. Arbitrators have been unwilling to read the bar to admissibility as a bar to production
  32. 32. Though they have created a balancing test
  33. 33. Is this open to challenge given Middleton v. Sun Media Corp., where Div. Ct. held that “not admissible” means “not capable of use” under the RHPA?</li></li></ul><li>Questions?<br />Alex Cameron<br /><br />twitter @a_cameron<br /><br />Daniel Michaluk<br /><br />twitter @danmichaluk<br /><br />
  34. 34. The Sedona Canada Panel on Privacy and E-Discovery<br />Information Management Access Privacy Symposium<br />March 11, 2011<br />Alex Cameron<br />Fasken Martineau LLP<br />Dan Michaluk<br />Hicks Morley<br />