Ctin Ediscovery


Published on

Published in: Technology
  • 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

Ctin Ediscovery

  1. 1. Bridging the Gap Between Forensics and e-Discovery in Civil and Criminal Cases <ul><li>CTIN </li></ul><ul><li>November 8, 2007 </li></ul><ul><li>Chris Brown </li></ul><ul><li>Allison Goodman </li></ul>
  2. 2. Civil Discovery Rules <ul><li>Federal Rules </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Recently amended re: electronic data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Only applicable to cases in federal courts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>May be used as guidance for state courts </li></ul></ul><ul><li>State Court Rules </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Often similar to federal court rules </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>But some states VERY different (e.g., Oregon) </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Discovery Rules <ul><li>Rule 16 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Pretrial Conference </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Provisions for discovery of electronically stored information (ESI) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Agreements re: “privilege” claims </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Rule 26 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Overall definitions and scope of discovery </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Initial Disclosures and Meet and Confer </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Rule 33 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Interrogatories </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Can learn about systems </li></ul></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Additional Discovery Rules <ul><li>Rule 34 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Requests for Production or Inspection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Can get access to computers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Should specify production format </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Rule 36 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Requests for Admission </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Can also be used to learn about systems </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Rule 45 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Subpoena </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Can be issued by attorneys to non-parties (e.g., cell phone providers) </li></ul></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Significant Changes <ul><li>FRCP 26(b)(2) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“Not reasonably accessible” exemption </li></ul></ul><ul><li>FRCP 26(b)(5) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Inadvertent production not necessarily waiver </li></ul></ul><ul><li>FRCP 34(b) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Production format “reasonably usable” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>FRCP 37(f) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“Safe Harbor” </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Evolution of Criminal Practice and Rules
  7. 7. Who is tackling the technology issues? Joint Administrative Office/Department of Justice Working Group on Electronic Technology in the Criminal Justice System Source: www.fjc.gov
  8. 8. Joint AO/DOJ Working Group <ul><li>Formed by the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and the Attorney General of the United States </li></ul><ul><li>To address issues related to the control of criminal case costs </li></ul><ul><li>National and local groups </li></ul><ul><li>Participants at local level </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Judges, prosecutors, defenders, BOP </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Outcomes influence change to practices and “the Rules” </li></ul>
  9. 9. Joint AO/DOJ Working Group <ul><li>Recommendation Excerpts: </li></ul>
  10. 10. Federal Implementation Source: www.justice.gov
  11. 11. Case Differences <ul><li>Civil </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Average 1 million pages and growing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Email most common size influence </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Paper still very persistent </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Criminal </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sometimes multiple terabytes and growing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Audio/video files most common size influence </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Computer data secondary influence </li></ul></ul>
  12. 12. eDiscovery v. Forensics <ul><li>eDiscovery </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Acquiring and producing data in litigation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>May not require bit-stream images </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Often considered “consultant” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Forensics </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Determining computer user activity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Always requires bit-stream images </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Generally identified as testifying expert </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. <ul><li>FRCP 26(b)(3) – Work Product Protection </li></ul><ul><li>Subject to the provisions of subdivision (b)(4) of this rule, a party may obtain discovery of documents and tangible things otherwise discoverable under subdivision (b)(1) of this rule and prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party's representative (including the other party's attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent) only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of the party's case and that the party is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. In ordering discovery of such materials when the required showing has been made, the court shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation. </li></ul>Blah Blah Blah
  14. 14. File System vs. Document Metadata <ul><li>Civil </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Attorneys are just beginning to understand document metadata </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>File system metadata is almost unknown </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Document metadata is used mainly as an organization tool </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Sort and/or cull information by date, author, type, etc. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Document content rather than metadata still key focus </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Criminal </li></ul><ul><ul><li>File system metadata key focus </li></ul></ul>
  15. 15. Concordance Native File Metadata Accessed Date -Omitted
  16. 16. Document Metadata <ul><li>Attorneys, staff, and client IT need to be educated on proper native file handling to preserve metadata </li></ul><ul><li>Common native file handling mistakes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Client produces documents with Autodate feature enabled </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Email deleted from PST then archive produced rather than creating new archive of relevant email (i.e, deleted email accidentally produced) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Native files scrubbed of metadata then produced </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Excel spreadsheets converted to TIFF or PDF (loss of formulae, etc.) </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. Litigation Support Software <ul><li>Law Firms </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Summation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Concordance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Casemap </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Vendors/Consultants </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fios </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Amici </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Stratify </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cataphora </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>iconect </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Steelpoint </li></ul></ul>
  18. 18. eDiscovery Production <ul><li>FTK or EnCase Reports </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Emails in HTML or MSG format </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Attachments may be separated </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Files can be difficult to load into litigation support software </li></ul></ul></ul>
  19. 19. DEMOS
  20. 20. TIFF and PDF Conversion <ul><li>Original e-discovery method so attorneys are most familiar with this rather than native files </li></ul><ul><li>Used when redaction is needed </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Civil </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Redaction of attorney-client privilege, non-relevant trade secrets, HIPPA (medical) protected info, other privacy concerns, etc. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Criminal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Witness/informant identification, other SSN and privacy issues, etc. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Generally processed by service bureaus using specialized software </li></ul><ul><ul><li>iPro, LAW, Doculex, etc. </li></ul></ul>
  21. 21. TIFF and PDF Conversion <ul><li>Scan/OCR paper documents </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Manual coding required because metadata is not available </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can require manual “unitization” to organize documents by parent/child, document breaks, etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>“Endorse” with unique Bates number for easy identification </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Often based on source (i.e., “GWB00001” for documents produced by George W. Bush) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Attorney hot button! </li></ul></ul>
  22. 22. Load Files <ul><li>Used with TIFF or PDF files </li></ul><ul><li>Based on “unique key” for database importing/linking </li></ul><ul><li>Formats specific to software (i.e., Concordance or Summation, etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>Image Log (“Imagebase”) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Links TIFF or PDF image in viewer to database record and identifies boundaries (i.e., document breaks, box level breaks, etc.) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Data (.Dat) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Loads captured metadata or manual coding to database fields </li></ul></ul><ul><li>OCR (.Txt) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Contains OCR that imports to database record </li></ul></ul>
  23. 23. Image Log .Dat
  24. 24. .Txt
  25. 25. .Dat Unique Key (Image Link) .Txt
  26. 26. iPro Native File to TIFF/PDF Conversion
  27. 30. Concordance Specs x 128
  28. 31. Concordance Demo Start Video
  29. 32. Web-based Options <ul><li>Useful for multi-reviewer remote access </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Can benefit collaboration among law enforcement, prosecution, multi-party cases, etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Requires limited infrastructure </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Good first entrance into automated case management </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Recommend using only proven product hosts (i.e., Concordance FYI or Summation CaseVault) </li></ul>
  30. 33. Web-based Options <ul><li>Recommend building database on external drive then shipping to vendor for hosting </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Improved quality control </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Allows for experimentation and quick modification </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Demo to end-users, revise per feedback, demo again, etc. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Anticipates download of web-based work to external drive for use at trial </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Audio/video review requires specialized hosting services (i.e., bandwidth) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Consider entertainment industry sources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Very secure to prevent movie and music piracy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Some used by DOD, SEC, Homeland Security, and others </li></ul></ul>
  31. 34. E-Discovery Best Practice Suggestions <ul><li>Fewer People = Better Project </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Use technology self-starters (other than end-users) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Speak directly with vendor tech staff </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Best source of information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Inability to reach technical staff may be indicator your project is being outsourced </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Anticipate End-User Technical Capacities and Use at Trial </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Use most commonly available formats </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Think ahead as reprocessing increases costs and frustration dramatically </li></ul></ul>
  32. 35. Best Practice Suggestions <ul><li>Stay updated on changes to the rules and case law </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Federal Judicial Center ( www.fjc.gov ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>National Center for State Courts ( www.ncsconline.org ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>K&L Gates Case Summary Database ( www.ediscoverylaw.com ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Federal Rules ( www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Washington Court Rules ( www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules / ) </li></ul></ul>
  33. 36. THANKS CTIN FOR ALL YOU DO! Chris Brown – [email_address] Allison Goodman – [email_address]