Electronic Data Records Law | How to Win E-Discovery

Tag Disclosed ESI | Privacy, Control, Security

Warn FBI, Auditor, Examiner, Adversary, Regulator, Investigator or Inspector General

Ediscovery Production Strategy-Services for Text, Email, Twitter, Facebook Google+ or Other Social Network Records

Subpoena . . . tax audit . . . court order . . . police raid . . . search warrant . . . criminal investigation . . . regulatory proceeding . . . administrative summons . . . grand jury inquiry . . . litigation discovery demand -- any of these could compel or motivate a party holding e-records to reveal or produce them.

But often the party that receives (or seizes) the records should be expected to safeguard them after they arrive.

Laws requiring the safeguarding of records are many and diverse.  One small example:  As a business discloses information to the federal government, it can (if justified) tag or annotate the information as a “trade secret.”  By so doing, the business warns government employees that they violate federal law (18 U.S.C. Section 1905) if they abuse the trade secret, such as disclose it to a competitor or to the news media.

Legally speaking, the tagging or annotating of records can be strategically powerful.  But when a large quantity of e-records (SMS, chat, e-mail, Web 2.0, iPhone, BlackBerry) is involved, manual annotation is laborious and expensive.

Emerging technology affords a solution.  Technology empowers producing parties to annotate (label, tag) records with ever-better precision and efficiency.

When records like instant messages are disclosed under law, it is becoming more common that they be disclosed in an electronic format that supports annotations, such as XML.

Electronic annotation (commenting) enables highly granular, specifically-targeted legal notices.  Targeted annotation can give the producing party an advantage.  The advantage is more apparent when large numbers of record are at issue and different records require different notices.

By long-standing practice, lawyers often mark disclosed records with warnings or reservations of rights. But historically these notices were expressed as general, blanket statements in transmittal letters. (See footnote.)

When numerous records are involved, blanket statements may not be as effective as specific, record-by-record annotations.   Suppose for example that five million email records are being produced.  Within those records are, say, 2137 that contain personally identifiable information (PII), which the producing party is obligated to safeguard.  The producing party may better fulfill its obligation by specifically annotating each of the 2137 with strong warnings, rather than with general notices covering the whole five million.  (Example:  “WARNING: This email may contain private data protected by law.  Access on need-to-know basis only.”)

Specific annotations can include any of a range of legal statements:  disclaimers, instructions, interpretations, cross references, self-serving language, reservations of rights, claims of privacy, contractual terms of use, designation as attorney work product and more.

According to Ranjit Sarai, e-discovery consultant at Messaging Architects, “Annotations can involve advanced services in e-record production.  Manual annotation of individual records can be very time consuming.  But we can recommend or develop routines for identifying relevant records and placing the prescribed annotations on them.  We can facilitate collaborative, team annotations.  We can also help bring the appropriate attention to annotations.  Some annotations should be understated.  Others should scream out in blinking neon lights.”

Update:  Tags and annotations can be inserted according to varying degrees of granularity, whether record-by-record, word-by-word, or something else.  US intelligence agencies are managing massive databases on terrorists by tagging each word, one-by-one.  A tag can show, for example, the level of security clearance an analyst needs in order to see the word.  Advanced search software can prevent an analyst from seeing information for which he does not have adequate clearance, while alerting him that the database may contain additional information relevant to his inquiry, access to which will require higher authority.   Siobhan Gorman, "How a Team of Geeks Cracked Spy Trade," Wall St. J., 4 Sept. 09.

–Benjamin Wright

Mr. Wright delivers education on cyber defense law under the SANS Institute.


Footnote:  A case known as Teachers Insurance(1) suggested that when a company discloses information to the Securities and Exchange Commission, it waives attorney-client privilege on that information, unless it explicitly reserves its privilege rights.  Applying that idea, a company in another case(2) attempted to make such a reservation of rights in the transmittal letter sent with documents disclosed to the SEC. 

(1)Teachers Insurance and Annuity Assn. of America v. Shamrock Broadcasting Co, 521 F. Supp. 638 (SDNY 1981).

(2)In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to Fulbright and Jaworski and Vinson & Elkins, 183 Fed. Sec. L. Rep. para. 99,505 (DDC 1983).

Email Recovery | Network Back-up

E-mail Database Search and Forensics

Archival | What is a Subpoena?

As litigation and other requests for e-mail from backup tapes grow more frequent, an enterprise may be wise to restore, consolidate and archive all of its old e-mail held in backup.

Historically organizations did not think of e-mail as an asset worthy of preservation.  They did not archive it, though copies would end up in network backup.  

But experience has taught that e-mail evidence can be critical to defense of a lawsuit or enforcement of a contract.  Alternatively its disclosure might be required under a subpoena (see definition below), a court order, an administrative summons, an IRS tax audit or a freedom of information act request (FOIA).  Further, e-mail might be needed in an investigation (led internally or by outside criminal prosecutors) of a bribe, a kickback, an overcharge, tax evasion or a embezzlement of money, or it might be needed for an audit of alleged misallocation of funds. 

Archival

Greg Smith of Messaging Architects observes that repeated requests for e-mails from backup can warrant a change of thinking in the IT department. “While most backup software deals very efficiently with individual electronic records, it cannot provide the same level of access to email. This is because enterprise email exists as a record within a database (such as for Groupwise or Microsoft Exchange).  The database must be restored in its entirety and searched in its entirety in order to ascertain the contents of the database. With database sizes exceeding 100GB and scores if not hundreds of tapes, the cost to restore and search the tapes can be considerable. Recovering records for selective users and dates may satisfy the current discovery requirement, but with each successive lawsuit, or changes in discovery parameters for an existing lawsuit, restoration from tape can become a recurring financial liability.”

Greg continues, “The practical solution is to remove the information from tape permanently and place it in an electronic records format where information can be retained and managed as individual records and not conglomerates of information.  In such a format, individual email records can be sorted by user or date.”

Restored records can be archived in an open (non-proprietary) format, such as XML, which enables searchers to tap an ever-expanding array of search and forensics tools.  XML may or may not qualify as "native format" as that term is sometimes used in court decisions, though XML may be a more useful format than whatever the native format was.

–Benjamin Wright

Mr. Wright is an advisor to Messaging Architects, experts in e-discovery and consultants in e-mail investigations.

Post Script  What is a subpoena?  A subpoena is a legal demand that someone turn over information or evidence. Commonly the laws of litigation enable a party to subpoena other parties for records or other evidence. Sometimes the law also invests the power to subpoena in an official who conducts investigations, such as a government auditor or an inspector general. If a party abuses the power to subpoena, by demanding irrelevant records or by issuing a demand with no regard for the cost of compliance, a court may sanction the issuer of the subpoena.

Investigating Staff Graft or Misconduct

Electronic Records for Audit, Ethics and Internal Control

If an institution – any institution – is to maintain its reputation, it must be prepared to investigate the actions of its employees (personnel).  Inevitably, allegations will arise that this or that employee embezzled, acted unethically, abused authority, laundered money, executed an unauthorized trade or simply made a mistake.  Power to conduct internal investigations is critical to government agencies and for-profit corporations, as well as charity, non-profit, and educational organizations.

Modern investigations today are different from those of the past, by virtue of the presence of digital records. The sheer quantity of e-records (e-mail, text, chat or instant messages, logs, meta-data, photographs, blog comments, surveillance videos, and on and on and on) is mushrooming beyond comprehension.  When an institution undertakes to audit whether a superior harassed a subordinate, an accountant misunderstood a tax liability or an administrator wrongfully tolerated a conflict of interest, a brimming corpus of electronic records can be available for examination . . . and can facilitate a just outcome.  The records can shed welcome light on whether the subject of the investigation did what is claimed, or did not do it.

A case in point is an investigation at Yale University, a regular recipient of research grants from the federal government.  Prosecutors alleged that academics at Yale had misallocated federal money (funds or assets) by (a) transferring grant funds to accounts that were not intended for the grants in question, and (b) paying themselves for summer activities using money from grants not earmarked for those activities.

In other words, the government claimed professors and staff played fast and loose in interpreting the purpose of specific grants.

In the face of such allegations, an institution has no choice but to cooperate with government.  (Which university wants to be the subject of an adversarial police raid in search of computer records?) Yale launched a massive investigation, covering some $3 billion in grants over seven years (2000-2006). It turned over more than a million pages of documents.  No doubt the massive quantity of records included email and other computer-based records.  (A similar corruption probe in the 1980s could not have yielded as many records because computers and e-mail were not as pervasive then.)  The college settled the matter in 2008 by agreeing to pay $7.6 million.  

Although Yale admitted it had made some errors, the government granted the school a release from further liability with respect to the years that were investigated.

$7.6 million is a relatively small penalty.  The university appears to have done itself three favors.  First, it had retained plentiful records for many years.  Second, it cooperated with the government and divulged rafts of records.  Third, when the allegations first arose, Yale instituted reforms preemptively, including tighter accounting controls and improved staff training.  The result was the imposition of only a small settlement payment.   And as for the future, Yale remains qualified to receive grants from the government. 

Had Yale produced fewer records, and displayed less transparency and less cooperation, the institution would not have fared so well.

I’ll bet the “errors” to which Yale admitted reflected past practices that had developed over decades, in an age when records were fewer and therefore government (inspectors general) had less ability to audit or investigate.

The incident teaches Yale staff (and staff at other institutions receiving federal grants) that they will be on a tighter leash for the future.  A digital informant is ready to snitch on them.  The super-plentiful e-records now being made about their daily activities expose them to greater review and accountability than was historically possible.

–Benjamin Wright

Mr. Wright is an advisor to Messaging Architects, thought leader in records-dirven investigaions.  He also teaches Internet law at the SANS Institute.