This document outlines the United States' proposed plan for reviewing and returning electronically stored information (ESI) seized from the plaintiff's computer during a 2007 search. The plan involves identifying files to be reviewed, conducting an automated keyword search for classified information, manually reviewing any files flagged, and returning non-classified files to the plaintiff on portable media such as a CD or DVD. The government proposes reviewing common file types like documents, images, emails and videos within the plaintiff's user profile for return. The declaration provides details on the reviewer's qualifications and experience conducting similar reviews.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on Oct 9, 2015 issued a stay on the odious and overreaching Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/Army Corps of Engineers' (ECA) so-called update that redefines Waters of the United States (WOTUS) to include just about everything, including mud puddles. Some 13 states sued to stop the new rule. This action keeps the rule from being adopted in any of the 50 states until a lawsuit, brought by the 13 states, has a chance of playing out in court.
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge William Cassidy 01/01/2014-05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
EOIR FOIA ID # 2016-23184. Also, see acknowledgment letter at following link: http://www.slideshare.net/abogadobryan/eoir-acknowledgment-letter-for-201623284
In The United States District Court Defendant “Antoine L. Freeman J.D. (Attor...Louis Charles Hamilton II
To: Defendant “Antoine L. Freeman J.D. (Attorney at Law)” and His Counsel of Record filed herein,
Pro Se Plaintiff Louis Charles Hamilton II Propounded “First Set” of Interrogatories.
Pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, it is hereby requested and demanded of Defendant “Antoine L. Freeman J.D. (Attorney at Law)”
responds to this “First Set of Interrogatories” within 30 days after the service of the interrogatories.
Answers and Objections.
(1) Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it is objected to,
in which event the objecting party shall state the reasons for objection and shall answer to the extent the interrogatory is not objectionable.
(2) The answers are to be signed by the person making them, and the objections signed by the attorney making them.
(3) The party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall serve a copy of the answers, and objections if any, within 30 days after the service of the interrogatories.
A shorter or longer time may be directed by the court or, in the absence of such an order, agreed to in writing by the parties subject to Rule 29.
(4) All grounds for an objection to an interrogatory shall be stated with specificity.
Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the party's failure to object is excused by the court for good cause shown.
Explain in full expert Attorney at Law details, and Supply in full details also any and all legal court documents, letters, faxes, text, memos, emails, in support from the date of December 18th 2007 throughout the dates of October 14th 2009 you
Defendant “Antoine L. Freeman, J.D. Texas Bar No. 24058299 herein was (Only) acting in the “legal capacitates” as a Attorney at Law to file a General Denial (Only)
to reply in the Complaint made against Co-Defendant(s) Joyce M. Guy and Edward McCray( herein )
In a civil suit in the 58th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County Texas filed in Cause No. A-180805 that you were retain to for such services from said time frame of December 18th 2007
and still remaining (Acting) Attorney of record throughout the dates of October 14th 2009, up till the dates November 13th 2009 10:22 AM when you file a “Motion for Withdrawal” in cause No. A-180805
The Dr. Roth Case: Impact and ImplicationsJohn Priecko
The US Department of Justice case against University of Tennessee Professor Dr. John Reese Roth and co-conspirator Daniel Max Sherman continues to receive a great deal of attention across the academic, research and development communities in industry and the US Government. It is also a very high-profile real world case study emphasizing the adverse and severe consequences of non-compliance and what happens to those who knowingly and willfully violate the law in the areas that impact national security. This updated handout version of the presentation is also a good example of how to visually enhance PowerPoint slides and increase message curb appeal and retention. It intentionlly does not contain all the slides that the actual presentation edition has. Various audience interaction slides are purposely not including here.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on Oct 9, 2015 issued a stay on the odious and overreaching Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/Army Corps of Engineers' (ECA) so-called update that redefines Waters of the United States (WOTUS) to include just about everything, including mud puddles. Some 13 states sued to stop the new rule. This action keeps the rule from being adopted in any of the 50 states until a lawsuit, brought by the 13 states, has a chance of playing out in court.
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge William Cassidy 01/01/2014-05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
EOIR FOIA ID # 2016-23184. Also, see acknowledgment letter at following link: http://www.slideshare.net/abogadobryan/eoir-acknowledgment-letter-for-201623284
In The United States District Court Defendant “Antoine L. Freeman J.D. (Attor...Louis Charles Hamilton II
To: Defendant “Antoine L. Freeman J.D. (Attorney at Law)” and His Counsel of Record filed herein,
Pro Se Plaintiff Louis Charles Hamilton II Propounded “First Set” of Interrogatories.
Pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, it is hereby requested and demanded of Defendant “Antoine L. Freeman J.D. (Attorney at Law)”
responds to this “First Set of Interrogatories” within 30 days after the service of the interrogatories.
Answers and Objections.
(1) Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it is objected to,
in which event the objecting party shall state the reasons for objection and shall answer to the extent the interrogatory is not objectionable.
(2) The answers are to be signed by the person making them, and the objections signed by the attorney making them.
(3) The party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall serve a copy of the answers, and objections if any, within 30 days after the service of the interrogatories.
A shorter or longer time may be directed by the court or, in the absence of such an order, agreed to in writing by the parties subject to Rule 29.
(4) All grounds for an objection to an interrogatory shall be stated with specificity.
Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the party's failure to object is excused by the court for good cause shown.
Explain in full expert Attorney at Law details, and Supply in full details also any and all legal court documents, letters, faxes, text, memos, emails, in support from the date of December 18th 2007 throughout the dates of October 14th 2009 you
Defendant “Antoine L. Freeman, J.D. Texas Bar No. 24058299 herein was (Only) acting in the “legal capacitates” as a Attorney at Law to file a General Denial (Only)
to reply in the Complaint made against Co-Defendant(s) Joyce M. Guy and Edward McCray( herein )
In a civil suit in the 58th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County Texas filed in Cause No. A-180805 that you were retain to for such services from said time frame of December 18th 2007
and still remaining (Acting) Attorney of record throughout the dates of October 14th 2009, up till the dates November 13th 2009 10:22 AM when you file a “Motion for Withdrawal” in cause No. A-180805
The Dr. Roth Case: Impact and ImplicationsJohn Priecko
The US Department of Justice case against University of Tennessee Professor Dr. John Reese Roth and co-conspirator Daniel Max Sherman continues to receive a great deal of attention across the academic, research and development communities in industry and the US Government. It is also a very high-profile real world case study emphasizing the adverse and severe consequences of non-compliance and what happens to those who knowingly and willfully violate the law in the areas that impact national security. This updated handout version of the presentation is also a good example of how to visually enhance PowerPoint slides and increase message curb appeal and retention. It intentionlly does not contain all the slides that the actual presentation edition has. Various audience interaction slides are purposely not including here.
MEALEY'S Data Privacy Law Report Sample Issue May 2015LexisNexis
Download this first issue of Mealey’s Data Privacy Law Report. This monthly newsletter (also available in eBook format) follows the latest litigation in federal and state courts involving online privacy and data protection. The report also covers federal and state regulatory and legislative developments, as well as rulings by administrative agencies tasked with enforcing laws that impact data privacy. Order today by calling 800.223.1940 or by visiting the LexisNexis Store here: http://bit.ly/1HLhMiD
Legally Correct But Technologically Off the Mark - The Case of Arie GengerMark Hyde
Trump v Arie Genger involved the battle for control of an investment company known as TRI,. The dispute was between the Trump Group, the new owners, and Arie Genger, the original owner. As is standard in such cases, the court entered a “status quo order”, enjoining both parties from “tampering with, destroying, or in any way disposing of any Company-related documents, books, or records.”
Electronic Frontier Foundation, www.EFF.org, submitted this brief in support of the ACLU vs. NSA case. Well written, cites privacy law, and constitutional issues. The cited law includes cases from around the country and the Supreme Court dealing with electronic communication, email, and expectation of privacy dealing with meta data. Provides great background in constitutional law.
Briefing a CaseOne of the fundamental skills in legal research i.docxjasoninnes20
Briefing a Case
One of the fundamental skills in legal research is briefing a case. This technique is very helpful for highlighting the important facts of the case and also understanding how the courts apply the relevant laws to the facts of a case to come up with their rulings. When your briefing a case, you’re basically summarizing the case but you’re pulling out the most relevant information. There are many different ways to brief a case but the most popular way is the FIRAC method. This is a widely accepted method for briefing cases and it’s the method I used throughout law school. FIRAC stands for Facts, Issue, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion. I’ll go through and discuss each step in the FIRAC method. The first case brief is due next week. Since for most, if not all of you this is your first attempt at briefing a case, this will not be graded as harshly as the others. Once you submit your briefs I will post an example of how a case should be briefed and also provide you with feedback so that you can understand how the other cases should be briefed.
The first letter in the FIRAC method stands for Issue.
Facts: These are the most important facts of the case; they should include the parties involved, what happened and how the case go to this point
Issue: This is the question presented for the court to answer. This will usually be a question about how the law is/was applied to the case and whether it was done correctly
Rule: This is the relevant rule of law that the court uses to answer the questions in the case
Analysis: In this section of the brief you will explain how the applied the law and reached its decision in the case
Conclusion: How the court answered the question in the issue and how the court ruled in the case
Case Citation (Case names should be in Italics; ex. John v. Doe 123 F.3d 456 ( 1st Cir. 2016))
Facts:
These are the most important facts of the case; they should include the parties involved, what happened and how the case got to this point (the procedural history: who’s suing who? What happened in the lower court? Who is appealing?)
Issue:
This is the question presented for the court to answer. This will usually be a question about how the law is/was applied to the case and whether it was done correctly This should be in the form of a question. In many cases the issue will also correspond with why a person is appealing
Rule:
This explains how the court should apply the relevant rule of law. This does NOT mean the ruling in the case. This section should explain how the court is supposed to apply the law to answer the question in the issue
Analysis:
In this section of the brief you will explain how the applied the law and reached its decision in the case. This should connect the rule of law explained in the previous section to the facts of the case.
Conclusion:
How the court answered the question in the issue and how the court ruled in the case
*Each section should be written in single-spaced, 12 pt. Times New Roman font. ...
Briefing a CaseOne of the fundamental skills in legal research ijenkinsmandie
Briefing a Case
One of the fundamental skills in legal research is briefing a case. This technique is very helpful for highlighting the important facts of the case and also understanding how the courts apply the relevant laws to the facts of a case to come up with their rulings. When your briefing a case, you’re basically summarizing the case but you’re pulling out the most relevant information. There are many different ways to brief a case but the most popular way is the FIRAC method. This is a widely accepted method for briefing cases and it’s the method I used throughout law school. FIRAC stands for Facts, Issue, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion. I’ll go through and discuss each step in the FIRAC method. The first case brief is due next week. Since for most, if not all of you this is your first attempt at briefing a case, this will not be graded as harshly as the others. Once you submit your briefs I will post an example of how a case should be briefed and also provide you with feedback so that you can understand how the other cases should be briefed.
The first letter in the FIRAC method stands for Issue.
Facts: These are the most important facts of the case; they should include the parties involved, what happened and how the case go to this point
Issue: This is the question presented for the court to answer. This will usually be a question about how the law is/was applied to the case and whether it was done correctly
Rule: This is the relevant rule of law that the court uses to answer the questions in the case
Analysis: In this section of the brief you will explain how the applied the law and reached its decision in the case
Conclusion: How the court answered the question in the issue and how the court ruled in the case
Case Citation (Case names should be in Italics; ex. John v. Doe 123 F.3d 456 ( 1st Cir. 2016))
Facts:
These are the most important facts of the case; they should include the parties involved, what happened and how the case got to this point (the procedural history: who’s suing who? What happened in the lower court? Who is appealing?)
Issue:
This is the question presented for the court to answer. This will usually be a question about how the law is/was applied to the case and whether it was done correctly This should be in the form of a question. In many cases the issue will also correspond with why a person is appealing
Rule:
This explains how the court should apply the relevant rule of law. This does NOT mean the ruling in the case. This section should explain how the court is supposed to apply the law to answer the question in the issue
Analysis:
In this section of the brief you will explain how the applied the law and reached its decision in the case. This should connect the rule of law explained in the previous section to the facts of the case.
Conclusion:
How the court answered the question in the issue and how the court ruled in the case
*Each section should be written in single-spaced, 12 pt. Times New Roman font. ...
1 (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2017
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
CARPENTER v. UNITED STATES
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
No. 16–402. Argued November 29, 2017—Decided June 22, 2018
Cell phones perform their wide and growing variety of functions by con-
tinuously connecting to a set of radio antennas called “cell sites.”
Each time a phone connects to a cell site, it generates a time-stamped
record known as cell-site location information (CSLI). Wireless carri-
ers collect and store this information for their own business purposes.
Here, after the FBI identified the cell phone numbers of several rob-
bery suspects, prosecutors were granted court orders to obtain the
suspects’ cell phone records under the Stored Communications Act.
Wireless carriers produced CSLI for petitioner Timothy Carpenter’s
phone, and the Government was able to obtain 12,898 location points
cataloging Carpenter’s movements over 127 days—an average of 101
data points per day. Carpenter moved to suppress the data, arguing
that the Government’s seizure of the records without obtaining a
warrant supported by probable cause violated the Fourth Amend-
ment. The District Court denied the motion, and prosecutors used
the records at trial to show that Carpenter’s phone was near four of
the robbery locations at the time those robberies occurred. Carpen-
ter was convicted. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that Carpen-
ter lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the location infor-
mation collected by the FBI because he had shared that information
with his wireless carriers.
Held:
1. The Government’s acquisition of Carpenter’s cell-site records
was a Fourth Amendment search. Pp. 4–18.
(a) The Fourth Amendment protects not only property interests
but certain expectations of privacy as well. Katz v. United States, 389
U. S. 347, 351. Thus, when an individual “seeks to preserve some-
thing as private,” and his expectation of privacy is “one that society is
2 CARPENTER v. UNITED STATES
Syllabus
prepared to recognize as reasonable,” official intrusion into that
sphere generally qualifies as a search and requires a warrant sup-
ported by probable cause. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U. S. 735, 740 (in-
ternal quotation marks and alterations omitted). The analysis re-
garding which expectations of privacy are entitled to protection is
informed by historical understandings “of what was deemed an un-
reasonable search and seizure when [the Fourth Amendment] was
adopted.” Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S..
1 (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2017
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
CARPENTER v. UNITED STATES
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
No. 16–402. Argued November 29, 2017—Decided June 22, 2018
Cell phones perform their wide and growing variety of functions by con-
tinuously connecting to a set of radio antennas called “cell sites.”
Each time a phone connects to a cell site, it generates a time-stamped
record known as cell-site location information (CSLI). Wireless carri-
ers collect and store this information for their own business purposes.
Here, after the FBI identified the cell phone numbers of several rob-
bery suspects, prosecutors were granted court orders to obtain the
suspects’ cell phone records under the Stored Communications Act.
Wireless carriers produced CSLI for petitioner Timothy Carpenter’s
phone, and the Government was able to obtain 12,898 location points
cataloging Carpenter’s movements over 127 days—an average of 101
data points per day. Carpenter moved to suppress the data, arguing
that the Government’s seizure of the records without obtaining a
warrant supported by probable cause violated the Fourth Amend-
ment. The District Court denied the motion, and prosecutors used
the records at trial to show that Carpenter’s phone was near four of
the robbery locations at the time those robberies occurred. Carpen-
ter was convicted. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that Carpen-
ter lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the location infor-
mation collected by the FBI because he had shared that information
with his wireless carriers.
Held:
1. The Government’s acquisition of Carpenter’s cell-site records
was a Fourth Amendment search. Pp. 4–18.
(a) The Fourth Amendment protects not only property interests
but certain expectations of privacy as well. Katz v. United States, 389
U. S. 347, 351. Thus, when an individual “seeks to preserve some-
thing as private,” and his expectation of privacy is “one that society is
2 CARPENTER v. UNITED STATES
Syllabus
prepared to recognize as reasonable,” official intrusion into that
sphere generally qualifies as a search and requires a warrant sup-
ported by probable cause. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U. S. 735, 740 (in-
ternal quotation marks and alterations omitted). The analysis re-
garding which expectations of privacy are entitled to protection is
informed by historical understandings “of what was deemed an un-
reasonable search and seizure when [the Fourth Amendment] was
adopted.” Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. ...
Privacy & Security of Consumer and Employee Information - Conference MaterialsRachel Hamilton
The ever increasing use of social media by employees in the workforce, privacy violations with online behavioral advertising,and potential privacy and security risks associated with social media sites have prompted federal and state regulators to create stricter enforcement initiatives to protect the privacy of consumer and employee information. The industry is one step closer to a national cyber notification law which will not only pre-empt state notification bills but permanently change how companies and organizations respond to data breaches.
13 млн документов ЦРУ рассекречено и опубликовано в онлайне
Roark v. usg plan to return electronic data
1. Page 1 Defendant’s Proposed Plan for Return of Electronically
Stored Information
Roark v. United States, 6:12-CV-01354-MC
BILLY J. WILLIAMS, OSB #901366
Acting United States Attorney
District of Oregon
JAMES E. COX, JR., OSB # 08565
Assistant United States Attorney
jim.cox@usdoj.gov
United States Attorney’s Office
District of Oregon
1000 SW Third Ave., Suite 600
Portland, Oregon 97204-2902
Telephone: (503) 727-1026
Facsimile: (503) 727-1117
Attorneys for Defendant United States
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
DIANE ROARK,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
Case No.: 6:12-CV-01354-MC
DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED PLAN
FOR RETURN OF
ELECTRONICALLY STORED
INFORMATION
Pursuant to the Court’s order dated May 4, 2015 (Dkt # 110),
Defendant the United States of America, by Billy J. Williams, Acting United
States Attorney for the District of Oregon, and through James E. Cox, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Oregon, submits this
Case 6:12-cv-01354-MC Document 115 Filed 06/12/15 Page 1 of 6
2. Page 2 Defendant’s Proposed Plan for Return of Electronically
Stored Information
Roark v. United States, 6:12-CV-01354-MC
proposed plan for the review and return of electronically stored information
(“ESI”). The parties have conferred and been unable to reach agreement
regarding a method for review and return of ESI on the computer seized
during the July 26, 2007 search of Plaintiff’s residence. Thus, the
government is submitting this proposed plan for the review of ESI in the
event that Plaintiff wishes to have ESI from the computer returned to her.
The government has previously conducted and completed a return of
ESI contained on hard drives at issue in the parallel Rule 41(g) action in the
District of Maryland, Wiebe v. Nat’l Security Agency, et al., District of
Maryland Case No. 1:11-cv-3245. (Declaration of Charles E., ¶ 3.) The
government proposes that the same procedure used to review ESI in the
Wiebe case also be used in this case. (Id.) This procedure involves (1)
identification of electronic files to be reviewed for return, (2) review, and (3)
production. (Id.)
The first step in the process is to identify the types of files on the
computer that are to be reviewed for return. (Id. at ¶ 4.) The government is
willing to review any files that Plaintiff can identify that she would like
returned. If Plaintiff does not know the file names of the files that she would
like returned, then the government proposes that it review for return the
common user created file types that may be located within Plaintiff’s user
profile on Plaintiff’s computer hard drive.
Case 6:12-cv-01354-MC Document 115 Filed 06/12/15 Page 2 of 6
3. Page 3 Defendant’s Proposed Plan for Return of Electronically
Stored Information
Roark v. United States, 6:12-CV-01354-MC
Many of the files on a computer hard drive are system files that run the
operating system or software on the computer. (Id.) System files generally
have no functionality as independent files. (Id.) User-created files, on the
other hand, are files created by a user of the computer, such as emails, word
processing documents, spreadsheets, and photographs. (Id.) Thus, the
government proposes that it review for return all of the following common
user created file types that may be located within Plaintiff’s user profile on
Plaintiff’s computer hard drive:
1. .doc (Microsoft Word file format)
2. .ppt (Microsoft PowerPoint file format)
3. .xls (Microsoft Excel file format)
4. .mdb (Microsoft Access file format)
5. .pdf (Adobe Portable Document Format file format)
6. .txt (Plain Text file format)
7. .rtf (Microsoft Rich Text Format file format)
8. .jpg (JPEG Image file format)
9. .msg (Microsoft Outlook file format)
10. .eml(x) (Apple mail message file format)
11. .mpg (MPEG video file format)
12. .wav (Waveform Audio file format)
13. .wmv (Windows Media Video file format)
14. .avi (Microsoft Audio Video Interleave file format)
15. .cat (Quicken Software)
16. .html (HyperText Markup Language file format)
17. .htm (HyperText Markup Language file format)
18. .dbx (Outlook Express email file format)
19. .flv (Adobe Flash Video file format)
20. .mp3 (MP3 audio file format)
21. .zip (Compressed archive file)
22. .wma (Windows Media Audio file format)
23. .wpd (WordPerfect file format)
Case 6:12-cv-01354-MC Document 115 Filed 06/12/15 Page 3 of 6
4. Page 4 Defendant’s Proposed Plan for Return of Electronically
Stored Information
Roark v. United States, 6:12-CV-01354-MC
(Id.) In addition, the government can also review for return the emails
located within the AOL Personal File Cabinet (PFC) folders associated with
Plaintiff’s AOL email address. (Id. ¶ 5.)
Once the files to be reviewed are identified, these files will be reviewed
for classified or protected information. (Id. ¶ 6.) The government proposes a
two-step review process. (Id.) The National Security Agency (“NSA”) and
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (“HPSCI”) have each
prepared key word search lists designed to identify files that may contain
classified or protected information. (Id.) In the first step of the process, the
government will conduct an automated search of the files to be reviewed with
these key word lists. (Id.)
The second step of the process is a manual review of any files that
return a “hit” from these key word lists. (Id. ¶ 7.) Any files that return a
“hit” on the key word list prepared by NSA will be reviewed manually by
NSA to determine if the file contains classified or protected information. (Id.)
Likewise, any files that return a “hit” on the key word list prepared by
HPSCI will be reviewed manually by HPSCI to determine if the file contains
HPSCI information. (Id.) Any files that can only be reviewed manually –
such as photographs – will be reviewed manually as well. (Id.)
Any files that contain classified or protected information will not be
returned to Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 8.) All other files within the scope of the review
Case 6:12-cv-01354-MC Document 115 Filed 06/12/15 Page 4 of 6
5. Page 5 Defendant’s Proposed Plan for Return of Electronically
Stored Information
Roark v. United States, 6:12-CV-01354-MC
will be returned to Plaintiff. (Id.) The government will copy these files unto
a portable media (such as a CD or DVD), and deliver the portable media to
Plaintiff. (Id.) Many of these files will be in their “native” format and will be
fully-functional if opened with the appropriate software (such as Microsoft
Word). (Id.) However, some of the less-common file formats – such as AOL
email messages – cannot be extracted from the hard drive in their native
format. (Id.) These files will be returned as plain text files. (Id.)
The government cannot provide an estimate for how long this review
process will take because it does not know how many files must be manually
reviewed. (Id. ¶ 9.) However, the government can provide an estimate once
this information becomes available. (Id.)
DATED this 12th day of June 2015.
Respectfully submitted,
BILLY J. WILLIAMS
Acting United States Attorney
District of Oregon
/s/ James E. Cox, Jr.
JAMES E. COX, JR.
Assistant United States Attorney
Attorneys for Defendant
Case 6:12-cv-01354-MC Document 115 Filed 06/12/15 Page 5 of 6
6. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Defendant’s Proposed
Plan for Return of Electronically Stored Information was placed in a
postage prepaid envelope and deposited in the United States Mail at
Portland, Oregon on June 12, 2015, addressed to:
Diane Roark
2000 N. Scenic View Dr.
Stayton, OR 97383
And was sent via email to the following email address:
gardenofeden@wvi.com
/s/ Shari McClellan
SHARI McCLELLAN
Case 6:12-cv-01354-MC Document 115 Filed 06/12/15 Page 6 of 6
7. Page 1 Declaration of Charles E. in Support of Defendant’s Proposed
Plan for Return of Electronically Stored Information
Roark v. United States, 6:12-CV-01354-MC
BILLY J. WILLIAMS, OSB #901366
Acting United States Attorney
District of Oregon
JAMES E. COX, JR., OSB # 085653
Assistant United States Attorney
jim.cox@usdoj.gov
United States Attorney’s Office
District of Oregon
1000 SW Third Ave., Suite 600
Portland, Oregon 97204-2902
Telephone: (503) 727-1026
Facsimile: (503) 727-1117
Attorneys for Defendant United States
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
DIANE ROARK,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
Case No.: 6:12-CV-01354-MC
DECLARATION OF CHARLES E.1
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S
PROPOSED PLAN FOR RETURN
OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED
INFORMATION
1
Section 6 of the National Security Agency Act of 1959, 50 U.S.C. § 3605 (Pub. L. No. 86-36)
authorizes the National Security Agency (NSA) to protect from public disclosure, among other
categories of information, the names of its employees. The undersigned declarant occupies a
non-public position with the NSA. Thus, the name of the declarant is referenced by first name,
last initial. The Agency is prepared to provide the full name of the declarant in an ex parte,
under seal filing should the Court so require.
Case 6:12-cv-01354-MC Document 115-1 Filed 06/12/15 Page 1 of 6
8. I, Charles E., hereby make the following declaration under penalty of
perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746. I make this declaration on personal
knowledge and, if called upon to do so, I could and would competently testify
to the following matters.
1. I am a Computer Forensic Examiner with the National Security Agency
(NSA) and currently assigned within the Office of Counter Intelligence,
Computer Forensic Investigations. I have been in this work role for
approximately two and a half years and have since conducted approximately
110 digital media examinations relating to security and counterintelligence
issues affecting NSA and/or National Security matters. Since 2011, I have
successfully completed approximately 672 training hours relevant to
computer forensics, computer incident response, and network security.
2. I have been informed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
seized a personal hard disk drive (HDD) from plaintiff Diane Roark and
created a raw image copy. I have utilized software to verify the file integrity
of all images by confirming the hash values were consistent with acquisition
values documented by the FBI Computer Analysis and Response Team
originally tasked to image the aforementioned HDD.
3. The government has previously conducted and completed a return of
Electronically Stored Information ("ESI") contained on hard drives at issue in
the Rule 41(g) action in the District of Maryland, Wiebe v. Nat'l Security
Page 2 Declaration of Charles E. in Support ofDefendant's Proposed Plan
for Return of Electronically Stored Information
Roark v. United States, 6:12-CV-01354-MC
Case 6:12-cv-01354-MC Document 115-1 Filed 06/12/15 Page 2 of 6
9. Agency, et al., District ofMaryland Case No. 1=11-cv-3245. The government
proposes that the same procedure used to review ESI in the Wiebe case also
be used in this case. This procedure involves (1) identification of electronic
files to be reviewed for return, (2) review, and (3) production.
4. The first step in the process is to identify the types offiles on the
computer that are to be reviewed for return. Many of the files on a computer
hard drive are system files that run the operating system or software on the
computer. System files generally have no functionality as independent files.
User-created files, on the other hand, are files created by a user of the
computer, such as emails, word processing documents, spreadsheets, and
photographs. The government proposes that it review for return all of the
following common user created file types that may be located within
Plaintiffs user profile on Plaintiffs computer hard drive:
1. .doc <Microsoft Word file format)
2. .ppt (Microsoft PowerPoint file format)
3. .xis (Microsoft Excel file format)
4. .mdb (Microsoft Access file format)
5. .pdf (Adobe Portable Document Format file format)
6. .txt (Plain Text file format)
7. .rtf (Microsoft Rich Text Format file format)
8. .jpg (JPEG Image file format)
9. .msg (Microsoft Outlook file format)
10. .eml(x) (Apple mail message file format)
11. .mpg (MPEG video file format)
12. .wav (Waveform Audio file format)
13. .wmv (Windows Media Video file format)
14. .avi (Microsoft Audio Video Interleave file format)
15. .cat (Quicken Software)
Page 3 Declaration of Charles E. in Support of Defendant's Proposed Plan
for Return of Electronically Stored Information
Roark v. United States, 6=12-CV-01354-MC
I
Case 6:12-cv-01354-MC Document 115-1 Filed 06/12/15 Page 3 of 6
10. 16. .html (HyperText Markup Language file format)
17. .htm (HyperText Markup Language file format)
18. .dbx (Outlook Express email file format)
19. .flv (Adobe Flash Video file format)
20. .mp3 (MP3 audio file format)
21. .zip (Compressed archive file)
22. .wma (Windows Media Audio file format)
23. .wpd (WordPerfect file format)
5. In addition, the government will also review for return the emails
located within the AOL Personal File Cabinet (PFC) folders associated with
Plaintiffs AOL email address.
6. Once the files to be reviewed are identified, these files will be reviewed
for classified or protected information. The government proposes a two·step
review process. The NSA has prepared a key word search list designed to
identify files that may contain classified or protected information. In the first
step of the process, the government will conduct an automated search ofthe
files to be reviewed with this key word list, as well as any key word list that
has been provided by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
(HPSCI).
7. The second step of the process is a manual review of any files that
return a "hie' from these key word lists. Any files that return a "hit" on the
key word list prepared by NSA will be reviewed manually by NSA to
determine if the file contains classified or protected information. Likewise,
any files that return a "hit" on the key word list prepared by HPSCI will be
Page 4 Declaration of Charles E. in Support ofDefendant's Proposed Plan
for Return of Electronically Stored Information
Roark v. United States, 6=12-CV-01354-MC
Case 6:12-cv-01354-MC Document 115-1 Filed 06/12/15 Page 4 of 6
11. provided to HPSCI for HPSCI's determination if the file contains information
protected under Plaintiffs non-disclosure agreement with HPSCI. (Any files
that can only be reviewed manually - such as photographs - will be reviewed
manually as well.)
8. Any files that contain classified, protected or HPSCI information will
not be returned to Plaintiff. All other files within the scope ofthe review will
be returned to Plaintiff. The government will copy these files onto a portable
media (such as a CD or DVD), and deliver the portable media to Plaintiff.
Many of these files will be in their "native" format and will be fully-functional
if opened with the appropriate software (such as Microsoft Word). However,
some of the less-common file formats- such as AOL email messages (".pfc"
extension files) - cannot be extracted from the hard drive in their native
format. These files can only be returned as plain text files.
9. The government cannot provide an estimate for how long this review
process will take because it does not know how many files must be manually
reviewed. However, the government can provide an estimate once this
information becomes available.
I declare under penalty ofperJury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 28th day ofMay 2015 at Fort Meade, Maryland.
CHARLES E.
Page 5 Declaration of Charles E. in Support ofDefendant's Proposed Plan
for Return of Electronically Stored Information
Roark v. United States, 6:12·CV·01354·MC
r
l
t
t
Case 6:12-cv-01354-MC Document 115-1 Filed 06/12/15 Page 5 of 6
12. Page 6 Declaration of Charles E. in Support of Defendant’s Proposed
Plan for Return of Electronically Stored Information
Roark v. United States, 6:12-CV-01354-MC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Declaration of Charles
E. in Support of Defendant’s Proposed Plan for Return of
Electronically Stored Information was placed in a postage prepaid
envelope and deposited in the United States Mail at Portland, Oregon on
June 12, 2015, addressed to:
Diane Roark
2000 N. Scenic View Dr.
Stayton, OR 97383
And was sent via email to the following email address:
gardenofeden@wvi.com
/s/ Shari McClellan
SHARI McCLELLAN
Case 6:12-cv-01354-MC Document 115-1 Filed 06/12/15 Page 6 of 6