FROM THE BENCH: COURTS EVALUATE DIGITAL EVIDENCE
	THE BRILL FILES: INSTANT MESSAGING – AN UNTAPPED SOURCE FOR TELLTALE EVIDENCE
	TECHNOLOGY YOU SHOULD KNOW: DIGGING IN ON DATA DESTRUCTION
	KROLL ONTRACK NEWS & EVENTS

FROM THE BENCH: COURTS EVALUATE DIGITAL EVIDENCE

Lawsuit Dismissal Upheld Based on Evidence Uncovered by Computer Expert
Breezevale Ltd. v. Dickinson, 879 A.2d 957 (D.C. Cir. 2005). A tire distributing company brought an action against its attorneys for legal malpractice. The company alleged the attorneys should have delayed the deposition of one of the company’s employees until the company could further investigate the employee’s conduct. The employee being deposed claimed she forged documents relating to a lawsuit against a tire manufacturing company at the direction of and in collaboration with company executives. At trial, the court dismissed the legal malpractice lawsuit and imposed fees upon the company for knowingly bringing a suit based on forged documents. A computer evidence expert testified two documents were created on the employee's computer with a last access date that corroborated the employee's testimony. In addition, the expert determined one of the documents was computer-generated, even though the defendant did not own a computer at that time. Other evidence of forgery included two documents that were typed on a letterhead that did not exist at the time of the alleged document create dates. Based on this evidence, the trial court came to the “inescapable conclusion” the documents at issue were forged. The appellate court affirmed the lawsuit dismissal and award of $4 million in fees based on its finding that sufficient evidence demonstrated the company’s executives knew and participated in the forgeries. However, the court vacated the $1 million punitive sanctions, noting, “[t]he other sanctions imposed by the trial court themselves bore ‘punitive’ elements.”

Court Considers Web Site Cookies in Motion to Exclude Evidence
Inventory Locator Serv., LLC v. Partsbase, Inc., 2005 WL 2179185 (W.D.Tenn. Sept. 6, 2005). The plaintiff alleged the defendant unlawfully accessed the plaintiff’s computerized database, and the defendant counterclaimed arguing similar conduct on the part of the plaintiff. In support of its counterclaims, the defendant offered "Web server logs," purporting to record various unlawful entries into the defendant's computer system from an internet protocol ("IP") address assigned to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought, inter alia, to exclude the evidence, arguing the logs were "incredible on their face," appeared to have been altered, had been moved and deleted, and were inadmissible hearsay. As evidence that the logs were altered or fabricated, the plaintiff noted a "cookie anomaly." When a user from a specific IP address logs onto the defendant’s Web site, a “cookie” containing information such as the IP address from which the user was logging in, would be created and recorded alongside the entry in the server logs. According to the plaintiff, none of the cookies corresponded with the entries allegedly coming from its IP address. In response, the defendant submitted the affidavit from a technology services company president who explained the “cookie anomaly” as a technical glitch not confined to entries from the plaintiff’s IP address. Weighing this evidence, the court determined evidence exclusion was not warranted as “[a]bsent more detailed evidence or expert testimony” it could not determine if the “cookie anomaly” undermined the authenticity of the defendant’s log records.

THE BRILL FILES: INSTANT MESSAGING – AN UNTAPPED SOURCE FOR TELLTALE EVIDENCE

*** Written by Alan Brill, Senior Managing Director for Kroll Ontrack, The Brill Files reflects his work in the field with clients who have encountered some not-so-pleasant events and what was done to remedy the situation. With more than 25 years of consulting experience, Mr. Brill has assisted organizations with a wide range of technology security issues and is an internationally recognized speaker and instructor. ***

Instant messaging (“IM”) allows an Internet user to instantly communicate a written message to friends or colleagues who are logged into the same instant messaging software in real-time. The speed and ease with which users can express themselves has made IM the modern equivalent to water cooler conversations in the workplace. Unfortunately for some individuals who type and send messages they previously may have flippantly spoken to a co-worker, these conversations have the potential to be etched in stone on a computer hard drive or IM archive.

My colleagues and I were recently involved in a case where a company executive found himself in this exact situation. A large corporation approached us requesting that one of our computer forensic experts investigate a claim relating to inappropriate IM activity. One of the company’s entry-level employees had accused the executive of sexually harassing her during several IM “chats.” Denying the conversations took place, the executive claimed the employee was simply seeking revenge because she was denied a promotion.

Our experts were brought in to search for potential evidence on the employee’s computer to see if her claims held any merit. Using keyword searching and other techniques, the expert uncovered IM records evidencing a romantic affair between the executive and the employee. After the affair soured, the employee threatened to expose the executive if she did not receive a promotion. Armed with this hard evidence, the corporation was better able to reach a resolution in the situation.

As IM programs such as Google Talk, AOL instant messenger, MSN Messenger, and Yahoo! Messenger increase in popularity, today’s organizations must weight the pitfalls and advantages associated with this software. Below are some tools to assist organizations in tackling this issue.

• Capitalize on IM technology. Many IM archive systems allow organizations to conform to regulatory requirements, manage IM on a long-term basis, reduce database backup processes, and leverage the corporate knowledge contained within their IM archive.
• Initiate an IM policy. If organizations choose to use IM as a means of communicating, they should have an effective IM management policy in place for monitoring and regulating IM use. The policy should be in writing, and the company should ensure employees have read and understand the policy. As IM technology is constantly improving, companies should also update written IM policies on a regular basis.
• Evaluate security risks. Organizations should discuss the dangers of unarchived or unsecured data in order to determine their acceptable level of risk. An organization should also install software at both the server and firewall level either to prevent IM use or to monitor and archive it. Once this software is installed, an organization will be able to obtain the text files of the IM correspondence.
• Consider implementing a private IM system. The market offers enterprise-wide, private IM systems that operate on the company’s own servers. A private system has its own archive, ensuring instant messaging content is permanently stored. Some private systems work on a local subnet instead of an Internet connection, making messages inaccessible from the outside world.

By implementing an effective management plan, organizations can provide the convenience and efficiency of IM communication while minimizing the risks associated with inappropriate use. If an organization using IM discovers such conversations may contain a key piece of evidence, it should enlist the services of a computer forensic expert. The expert will be in the best position to explore the limits of the IM technology used, helping uncover potentially telltale evidence in your next case.

*** If you would like to explore the opportunity of Alan Brill speaking at a conference you are supporting or organizing, please contact Amanda Karls at (952) 516-3637or at akarls@krollontrack.com. ***

TECHNOLOGY YOU SHOULD KNOW: DIGGING IN ON DATA DESTRUCTION

*** As technology continues to play a larger role in litigation and internal company investigations, lawyers and investigators are expected to understand the inner workings of computers and how they relate to computer conduct issues. ***

In the last few months, emerging cases across the country have featured data destruction tools like “Evidence Eliminator,” “History Kill,” and “Window Washer” among others. Using these programs, individuals have tried to cover up evidence of criminal activity, corporate fraud, and other potentially damaging digital evidence. For example, a recent headline featured the CEO of Bowne, who was indicted for possessing at least two child pornography movies and deleting 12,000 other files when he learned about a government investigation into a child-porn Web site. Computer records obtained during the investigation and an IP address that traced back to Bowne tipped off the government to the CEO’s alleged activity. See, John Foley, “CEO Porn Charge Provides A PC-Use Lesson,” InformationWeek, Jul. 11, 2005. Available at: http://www.securitypipeline.com/165701168.

When a hard drive or portion of a hard drive is “wiped,” an individual runs a commercially available software “shredder” program to intentionally overwrite data with a specific or randomly generated pattern of “1s” and “0s”. If run properly, a wiping utility will make the data unrecoverable by commercial computer forensic experts. Despite this, some tools still may be able to drill deeper into a wiped hard drive to recover pieces of data. However, this process is time-consuming, risky and extremely expensive. Depending on the wiping program used, computer forensic experts may also be able to determine the date, time and the specific program that was used to conduct the wiping.

Data wiping differs from other forms of spoliation such as defragmentation or overwriting. Defragmentation is the process of reorganizing a computer’s “filing cabinet” and is designed to make the computer run more efficiently by putting pieces of files as close to each other as possible.

Defragmenting a computer will not harm the active data (the data users can access on their own from the desktop) but may render a great deal of the normally recoverable deleted data (the data only a forensic engineer can recover) virtually unrecoverable. Depending on the size the drive, data volume and order of operations, deleted files might be recoverable even after defragmentation. A complete computer forensic investigation will help identify data that is recoverable after defragmentation.

While similarities exist between data wiping and hard drive overwriting, overwriting involves a more extensive process. First, the selected files are erased and the computer trash bin is emptied. Next, a large quantity of data is loaded onto the operating system so each unassigned byte of storage is filled up with meaningless data. For example, an individual might download random text from a Web site and copy it to the hard drive over and over, until the unassigned space on the hard drive is completely full.

If evidence of data wiping, defragmentation or overwriting could be important in your case, consult a computer forensic expert to examine the media at issue. Even though many of these utilities and methods are highly successful, most are not completely foolproof. Experienced computer forensic investigators often are able to find bits and pieces of files left on the computer. Even more damaging, investigators frequently uncover evidence of the program itself as well as the date and time the program was used on the computer. When evidence of data destruction is apparent, the results of a thorough forensic examination will help attorneys and their clients best assess the merits of the case.

KROLL ONTRACK NEWS & EVENTS

Growth of Legal Technology Industry Fuels Job Opportunities
As a result of the growth in the legal technologies industry, Kroll Ontrack is seeking qualified candidates for several available Discovery Services Project Manager positions. Among other duties, these individuals will be responsible for managing multiple projects from lead to close-out and assisting with project scoping, conference calls, and customer presentations.

For more information about these opportunities and other open positions at Kroll Ontrack, visit: http://www.krollontrack.com/job-search/.

Meet Kroll Ontrack Representatives at the Following Events:

Visit http://www.krollontrack.com/upcoming-events/ for more information on these events and others.

KROLL ONTRACK REQUESTS YOUR INPUT

Our legal consultants, project managers, and technology experts strive to stay on top of electronic discovery law. If you are aware of any additional local court rulings or new cases in this area of the law, please contact us by writing to mlange@krollontrack.com.

This newsletter is written by Michele C.S. Lange, staff attorney with Kroll Ontrack, with assistance from Charity J. Delich, a Kroll Ontrack law clerk. Ms. Lange has published numerous articles and speaks regularly on the topics of electronic discovery, computer forensics, and technology's role in the law. She can be contacted by writing to mlange@krollontrack.com.

For more information about electronic discovery and computer forensics services, contact Kroll Ontrack at 1-800-347-6105 or http://www.krollontrack.com/.