One of the striking aspects of the recently introduced changes has been that, although there is a requirement for those with the conduct of the matter to file and serve a disclosure report, there has been no guidance as to what format that Report should take.
The new Rule 31.5(3) simply provides that, not less than 14 days before the first case management conference each party must file and serve a report verified by a statement of truth, which:
(a) describes briefly what documents exist or may exist that are or may be relevant to the matters in issue in the case; (b) describes where and with whom those documents are or may be located; (c) in the case of electronic documents, describes how those documents are stored; (d) estimates the broad range of costs that could be involved in giving standard disclosure in the case, including the costs of searching for and disclosing any electronically stored documents; and (e) states which of the directions under paragraphs (7) or (8) are to be sought
Until recently our advice has been to complete an Electronic Documents Questionnaire – which covers the broad issues and is in a format that will be familiar to the Courts and then keep the actual “report” short – containing just a conclusion and outline of what is proposed. (In this connection it is worth noting that the Rules explicitly contemplate that an EDQ may be served in addition to the Report.)
As today’s guest contributor, it is my pleasure to introduce Harry Trick, Forensic and eDiscovery Technician at Millnet, and experienced mobile device investigator. Today Harry outlines the problems analysts face when confronted with the Maemo operating system and outlines solutions for extracting and analysing data captured from the Nokia n900.
In the modern era the type of mobile phone desired by consumers has changed from a simple, small device used to keep in touch with a few people through calls and text messages to something with more features and connectivity functions such as email and high resolutions cameras. As the need for more features in mobile devices grew a new type of phone emerged, the “smart phone”. One of the first companies to release a commercially successful smart phone was Nokia with the N95. This was not however the first incarnation of a Nokia smart phone, before the N95 were a series of phones that included the Nokia N900. The N900 was packed full of the features that business users wanted such as email functionality, games and a very good camera. As well as these features there were several “hidden” features that appealed to hackers such as easily installable customisable applications.
As today’s guest contributor, it is my pleasure to introduce Adrian Cassidy, Director of Solution Consultancy EMEA at Nuix, and experienced forensic investigator and a friend of mine from our days working at 7Safe. Today he outlines the data challenge faced by investigators and explains how Nuix Investigator software can tackle the challenges of collecting, processing and searching data, while still harnessing the power of human intuition.
Investigators have to deal with growing volumes of data in an increasing number of digital storage devices and formats. As this trend keeps going, there is simply no way we can keep using the traditional methods of electronic investigation, especially the part about forensically analysing each device. As an industry, we face real challenges in terms of how we collect, process and search data.
Millnet’s Charles Holloway talks to Chris Dale of the e-Disclosure Information Project about how the new disclosure rules, which come into force in April 2013, will impact the exchange of information before, and at, the CMC.
Millnet’s Charles Holloway talks to Chris Dale of the e-Disclosure Information Project about what impact the new disclosure rules, which come into force in April 2013, will have upon cost management and budgets.
Millnet’s Managing Director James Moeskops and Chris Dale of the e-Disclosure Information Project, talk about trends in e-discovery and changes being seen in the type and sources of data being collected, in the use of new technologies and in general awareness in the run up to the CPR changes, due in April 2013.
You might be puzzled to hear that if a builder constructed a development for less than £2,000,000 they would do so on a fully costed basis with a detailed budget – BUT if the property to be constructed was more complex and expensive there would be no requirement to budget or monitor the costs of the build.
The recent note from the Chancellor of the High Court – exempting cases over £2 million from the proposed Civil Procedure changes involving the filing of Costs Budgets – does just that.
Following up from the recent post on Google Drive, designed to give a high level introduction to the product, this post will delve a bit deeper into the technical issues relating to the data stored and also the best approach on how to access it.
The artefacts discussed in this post are based on Windows 7, however Apple Mac operating systems retain similar data in plists (property lists).
As “the Cloud” (a varied mix of internet based services ranging from web-based email accounts, on-line storage and services that synchronise data across multiple computers) becomes more relevant and the dominance of the PC or tablet as the exclusive “home” for data reduces, the days when simply taking a snapshot of a computer to capture all available data have gone.
For a number of years Google have offered online solutions for creating, editing and publishing a range of files including Word and Excel. More recently this service has linked into Google Drive, which offers more functionality, but also allows users to synchronise data across various devices. An individual with a Google Drive account is allocated 5Gb of free data storage and can obtain further storage at a cost.
It isn’t uncommon for us to be given a USB stick containing the results of a search carried out by a Client to find responsive material.
Even if, which often isn’t the case, the material has been collected in a forensically sound way (preserving all the available metadata), an approach which involves finding relevant material by carrying out such a “DIY search” will normally not stand up to scrutiny if challenged – the search process which has been adopted is flawed.
The search functions built into Windows Explorer, SharePoint, Outlook and similar search tools are convenient for carrying out quick personal searches but they simply are not capable of being used in a way which will demonstrate that a search has been run and that all responsive material has been identified.
There are hundreds of articles being posted each week that discuss the use of computer assisted review software.
It is not my intention here to go into a debate about what is right or wrong and what approach should or should not be followed – questions of fact and issues of proportionality differ in each case – so I’m just going to tell you what we did.
I can confidently say that it worked (because it did) and the client saved a lot of money in doing so (because they did).”
We have used technology assisted review in a wide range of cases. The approach adopted varies depending on the facts of each case and the following two simple examples illustrate how the factual background adn Client’s requirements can vary: