E Discovery Presentation Nov 19 2008

594 views

Published on

eDiscovery

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
594
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • E Discovery Presentation Nov 19 2008

    1. 1. Anthony Wong LLB (Monash), LLM (UNSW), BSc in Computer Science (Monash), MACS +61 2 9262 9488 0414881171 [email_address] www.aequitas.com.au New Playing Field for Discovery of Electronic Information & Litigation – new Court guidelines in the changing landscape
    2. 2. Presentation at Enterprise Ireland Cocktail Reception with Documatics Anthony Wong LLB (Monash), LLM (UNSW), BSc in Computer Science (Monash), MACS +61 2 9262 9488 0414881171 [email_address] www.aequitas.com.au 19 November 2008
    3. 3. New Playing Field for Discovery of Electronic Information & Litigation:
    4. 4. My Background
    5. 5. Australian Legal System: <ul><li>A Commonwealth judicial system working alongside 6 States and 2 Territories </li></ul><ul><li>Separately administered legal systems </li></ul><ul><li>Guidelines, rules and practice notes for the exchange and reception of electronic evidence vary from one jurisdiction to another </li></ul>
    6. 6. Definition of Document: <ul><li>Commonwealth Acts Interpretation Act section 25 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ Document‘ defined as including “any article or material from which sounds, images or writings are capable of being reproduced with or without the aid of any other article or device”. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ Writing' is defined as including 'any mode of representing or reproducing words, figures, drawings or symbols in a visible form' </li></ul></ul><ul><li>New South Wales Evidence Act (and Commonwealth Evidence Act) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ Document' is defined as including: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>anything on which there is writing; or </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>anything on which there are marks, figures, symbols or perforations having a meaning for persons qualified to interpret them; or </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>anything from which sounds, images or writings can be reproduced with or without the aid of anything else; or </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>a map, plan, drawing or photograph </li></ul></ul></ul>
    7. 7. What is Computer Forensics? <ul><li>Computer forensics is an emerging discipline that focuses on the gathering of evidence from computers and computer networks. Finally, and critically, all evidence gathering must proceed in a manner that ensures that the evidence is admissible in a court of law * </li></ul>* Url http://www.scm.uws.edu.au/computerforensics/
    8. 8. What is Computer Forensics? * Url http://www.scm.uws.edu.au/computerforensics/
    9. 9. Computer Forensics Process * Chun Ruan, Formalising Computer Forensics Process With UML , UWS 30 th Oct 2008 Computer Forensics Seminar
    10. 10. Actors * Chun Ruan, Formalising Computer Forensics Process With UML , UWS 30 th Oct 2008 Computer Forensics Seminar
    11. 11. Identification of eEvidence <ul><li>Anton Piller&quot; order developed in 1975 in Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd   </li></ul><ul><li>Early use of the order for infringement of intellectual property rights eg. in pirate and counterfeit goods </li></ul><ul><li>When first devised, the form of search and seizure was for hard copy documents and other physical evidence </li></ul>
    12. 12. Search Orders or Anton Piller Orders <ul><li>Anton Piller order is a form of discovery usually sought at, or prior to the commencement of proceedings </li></ul><ul><li>Used in Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman Licence Holdings Ltd (Kazaa) litigation to intercept digital information </li></ul><ul><li>'Peer to Peer‘ software used to 'swap' MP3 music files on the internet, in breach of copyright </li></ul><ul><li>Anton Piller orders granted to search, identify, observe, monitor, examine, and copy or capture certain 'electronic materials’ </li></ul>
    13. 13. Search Orders or Anton Piller Orders * Federal Court Rules Order 25B Search Orders & Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd
    14. 14. Search Orders from two Australian jurisdictions
    15. 15. Extract from a Sample Search Order for “COMPUTERS” - NSW Supreme Court & Federal Court
    16. 16. Preservation – Document Retention: <ul><li>Depends upon nature of business activities and regulatory environment in which the business operates </li></ul><ul><li>No single record retention requirements will be the same for all businesses </li></ul><ul><li>It has been asserted there are over 450 separate Acts of Parliament in Australia contain provisions dealing with retention of records </li></ul><ul><li>Specific legislation covering various areas including corporate records (Corporations Act s286), tax records (Income Tax Assessment Act s262A), privacy, security, freedom of information and archives </li></ul><ul><li>Taxpayers are generally required to keep records for a minimum of five years </li></ul>
    17. 17. Preservation and Destruction: <ul><li>Cases: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>McCabe v British American Tobacco Australia </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>McCabe became the first person in Australia to successfully sue a tobacco company, after BAT's defence was struck out on finding it had destroyed documents pursuant to a company policy, which it referred to as a ‘Document Retention Policy’ </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Awarded $700,000, but BATA appealed successfully, and the family was forced to pay back the money </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>R v Ensby, the Queensland District Court </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>convicted a person of attempting to pervert the course of justice for shredding papers knowing they ‘might’ be required in judicial proceedings </li></ul></ul></ul>
    18. 18. Preservation and Destruction: <ul><li>Victorian legislation: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Crimes (Document Destruction) Act 2006 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Evidence (Document Unavailability) Act 2006 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Creates a new criminal offence in relation to the destruction of documents that is, or is reasonably likely to be required in legal proceedings </li></ul><ul><li>If found guilty, the maximum penalty is 5 years imprisonment for individuals and approximately $300,000 for companies </li></ul>
    19. 19. Analysis of eEvidence <ul><li>Review </li></ul><ul><li>Examine & Analyse </li></ul><ul><li>Undertake computer forensics of “shredded electronically stored information (ESI)” </li></ul><ul><li>Digital footprints are nearly impossible to obliterate or obscure </li></ul>
    20. 20. Use of Technology: <ul><li>Technology — A Two Edge Sword: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Upside — Business are taking up new technologies to gain competitive edge and efficiency– turning physical cabinets into electronic folders </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Downside — eDiscovery issues are getting complicated with growth of electronic documents — emails, web pages …with disparate retrieval systems with different information formats and standards </li></ul></ul>
    21. 21. The Changing Landscape: <ul><li>Increasing volume of electronically stored information (ESI) </li></ul><ul><li>Disparate technology - Proliferation of devices for creating, accessing, managing and storing electronic information eg. backup tapes, CDs, thumb drives, Blackberrys, servers, iPods, PDAs and laptops </li></ul><ul><li>Challenge of electronic formats eg. PDF Text, PDF Image, TIFF, PST, PPT, SMS, MMS, Instant Messaging, Emails, GPS data, databases, Word, Voice Mails </li></ul><ul><li>Ongoing evolution of standards </li></ul>
    22. 22. The Changing Landscape : <ul><li>The biggest challenge for legal departments over the next five years will be unmanageable volumes of ESI for both the U.K. and U.S* </li></ul>* Second Annual ESI Trends Report - An international survey of in-house counsel and their practices for managing electronically stored information (ESI) in litigation and internal investigations, Kroll Ontrack Inc.
    23. 23. The Changing Landscape: <ul><li>Litigation is like fast food in one respect — size. Some cases are super-sized, requiring help from service providers for scanning, coding, etc. But other cases are small enough to manage internally. * </li></ul><ul><li>  Evidence now available in its “native” or original state </li></ul><ul><li>“ Paper” paradigm around the central concept of “scanned images” of paper evidence and then manually objectively coding each document have rendered litigation cost prohibitive </li></ul>* TechnoLawyer by ABBYY USA October 22, 2008
    24. 24. Example of a “Mega-litigation” litigation Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd : <ul><li>  Number of Parties:  In addition to Seven Network and C7, there were 22 respondents </li></ul><ul><li>Outcome from discovery and documents tendered as evidence:  85,653 documents were discovered, comprising 589,392 pages. 12,849 documents, comprising 115,586 pages, were ultimately admitted into evidence </li></ul><ul><li>  Other statistics:  Pleadings = 1,028 pages </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Statements of lay witnesses admitted into evidence = 1,613 pages </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Expert reports in evidence = 2,041 pages of text, plus many hundred pages of appendices, calculations etc </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Parties’ final written submissions = 4,962 pages </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transcript of the trial = 9,530 pages </li></ul></ul><ul><li>  Number of Hearing Days - 120 sitting days </li></ul><ul><li>  Estimated Costs – $200 million </li></ul>* THE SEVENTH WORLDWIDE COMMON LAW JUDICIARY CONFERENCE  ”New Technology Developments in the Courts Usages, Trends and Recent Developments in Australia”, paper by The Hon M E J Black AC, Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia
    25. 25. Discovery – Definition* * Kyocera Mita Australia Pty Ltd v Mitronics Corp Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 242
    26. 26. Discovery
    27. 27. Discovery – Practice Notes <ul><li>Federal Court of Australia Practice Note 17 (new draft in formulation) </li></ul><ul><li>NSW Supreme Court Practice Notes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>General No SC Gen 7 (Aug 2008) http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/practice_notes/nswsc_pc.nsf/a15f50afb1aa22a9ca2570ed000a2b08/19ae2d221b09c4fbca257483001d0781?OpenDocument </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Supreme Court Equity Division - Commercial List and Technology and Construction List (July 2007) http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/practice_notes/nswsc_pc.nsf/a15f50afb1aa22a9ca2570ed000a2b08/275aca41db3044e8ca25731e00254943?OpenDocument </li></ul></ul>
    28. 28. Review of Practice Note No 17 Federal Court <ul><li>In 2007 the Federal Court commenced review of Practice Note No 17 - Guidelines for the Use of Information Technology in Litigation in Any Civil Matter </li></ul><ul><li>Draft documents are now being reviewed by the Court National Practice Committee </li></ul><ul><li>Final versions expected in early 2009 </li></ul>
    29. 29. Review of Practice Note No 17 Federal Court
    30. 30. Pre-Discovery Checklist Includes: <ul><li>Pre-Discovery Conference Attendees </li></ul><ul><li>Agreed strategies to exchange relevant information only </li></ul><ul><li>Agreed strategies on “Reasonable Search” to locate Discoverable Documents”? </li></ul><ul><li>Agreed Preservation strategies </li></ul><ul><li>Discovery Scope, Time Schedule and Cost estimates </li></ul><ul><li>Agreed strategy for management of privilege claims </li></ul><ul><li>Agreed Document Management Protocol </li></ul><ul><li>Engagement of Service Providers </li></ul><ul><li>“ Potential sources of Discoverable Documents may be considered reasonably inaccessible”? What is “reasonably inaccessible”? </li></ul>
    31. 31. Document Management Protocol <ul><li>Agreement on document exchange protocols </li></ul><ul><li>Summarises the terms under which information will be exchanged between the parties in electronic format </li></ul><ul><li>Addresses issues such as the format and structure of the information, the “fields” to be captured, the medium to be used and imaging standards </li></ul><ul><li>Metadata will be lost during conversion to pdf from Native ESI </li></ul>
    32. 32. NSW Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen 7 (Aug 2008) <ul><li>Practitioners must advise opponents at an early stage of potentially discoverable ESI and meet to agree upon matters including: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>format of the electronic database …noting that metadata, mark-up or other &quot;hidden&quot; data will be automatically discovered if native format is used. Because of potential costs, the Court would ordinarily expect it should only be discovered where the relevance outweighs the cost </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Protocol for the electronic discovery </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Type and extent of ESI </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How legacy or deleted data is to be dealt with. The existence of ESI that is not reasonably or readily accessible should be disclosed, but the Court would ordinarily expect that it would not need to be retrieved unless necessary for the conduct of the proceedings … </li></ul></ul>
    33. 33. Document Formats
    34. 34. Costs vs Benefit <ul><li>Costs of recovering deleted data </li></ul><ul><li>Costs of searching and retrieval of relevant emails and data </li></ul><ul><li>Relevance vs Undue Burdens or Costs </li></ul><ul><li>Weight of the evidence </li></ul>
    35. 35. International Conflicts on eDiscovery <ul><li>Lawyers are representing organisations and companies with interests and employees in Australia and overseas </li></ul><ul><li>Selected countries have “blocking statutes” (eg. Swiss banking laws) </li></ul><ul><li>Conflicts of different legal systems and incidents mounting due: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Globalisation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Particularly where ESI containing personal information out of EU is required for ediscovery </li></ul></ul>
    36. 36. Where is the location of client’s data? LAN NAS LAN SAN LAN SAN LAN SAN LAN VPN LAN SAN LAN NAS Shanghai Rome Bangkok Seoul Taiwan Sydney LAN NAS LAN SAN Los Angeles Frankfurt London Osaka Tokyo HK Singapore Auckland LAN SAN LAN SAN LAN SAN LAN NAS LAN SAN LAN Corporate Head Office Which laws and jurisdiction apply?
    37. 37. Closing Remarks
    38. 38. Who is responsible - IT or Legal Counsel? <ul><li>eDiscovery impacts the whole organisation </li></ul><ul><li>Moving beyond the legal counsel’s office </li></ul><ul><li>Who should be responsible for developing and enforcing policies in this area of concern? </li></ul><ul><li>Trend to involve IT in eDiscovery </li></ul><ul><li>CIOs and IT Departments will need to take more active role </li></ul>
    39. 39. Responsibility for Developing and Enforcing ESI Strategy* <ul><li>Organizations are giving more responsibility for both ESI policy development and ESI policy enforcement to the IT department. </li></ul><ul><li>The percentage of respondents placing primary responsibility with Risk/Compliance/Information Security, In-house Counsel and the CEO/Board has all fallen in 2008. </li></ul>* Second Annual ESI Trends Report - An international survey of in-house counsel and their practices for managing electronically stored information (ESI) in litigation and internal investigations, Kroll Ontrack Inc.
    40. 40. Formulate a Plan <ul><li>Developing a litigation response team to include legal, IT and business </li></ul><ul><li>Recognise how ESI flows through your organisation and locations of ESI </li></ul><ul><li>Names of people in charge of maintaining respective ESI datasets </li></ul><ul><li>Policies, procedures and systems to be followed by response team when litigation appears likely or when orders issued </li></ul><ul><li>Take a proactive approach as f ailure could mean unsuccessful defence or prosecution </li></ul>
    41. 41. Formulate a Plan <ul><li>Create appropriate policies for retention and management, procedures and systems in relation to your business for: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>email </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>internet </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>business records </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>other document and information </li></ul></ul><ul><li>How future trends in IT will affect your ediscovery plans including standards and formats for ESI on an ongoing basis </li></ul>
    42. 42. In-House ESI Strategies <ul><li>Most companies, both in the U.K. and the U.S., now have an ESI policy in place, although the U.K. is still behind </li></ul>* Second Annual ESI Trends Report - An international survey of in-house counsel and their practices for managing electronically stored information (ESI) in litigation and internal investigations, Kroll Ontrack Inc.
    43. 43. <ul><li>Thank you Anthony Wong </li></ul>Anthony Wong LLB (Monash), LLM (UNSW), BSc in Computer Science (Monash), MACS +61 2 9262 9488 0414881171 [email_address] www.aequitas.com.au

    ×