Organiser of Darkmarket fraud website jailed
February 28, 2010
A man who created a website trading in stolen financial information linked to tens of millions of pounds in losses has been jailed for nearly five years. Renukanth Subramaniam, 33, founded Darkmarket, a "Facebook for fraudsters" where criminals could buy and sell credit card details and bank log-ins... More (BBC)
2010-2011 EDRM Kickoff Meeting Update
February 26, 2010
| May |
| 11 |
| 6:00 pm |
Whether you are a current EDRM participant, an EDRM alumnus, or have never participated in EDRM, we invite you to the kickoff meeting for the 2010-2011 EDRM year – our sixth year!
What: 2010-2011 EDRM kickoff meeting
When: May 11-13, 2010
Where: The Saint Paul Hotel, St. Paul, MN
Please register at edrm.net/2947
What…
As we do each year at this time, we will wrap up the previous EDRM year and start the new one. Help us:
- Celebrate the conclusion of the 2009-2010 EDRM projects:
- Shape the course of the 2010-2011 EDRM projects
When…
Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 6:00 – 8:00 pm:
- Informal reception: Reconnect with current EDRM participants, meet and welcome new ones
Wednesday, May 12, 2010, 7:00 am – evening:
- 7:00 – 8:00 am: Registration & continental breakfast
- 8:00 am – 4:00 pm: Joint meetings and breakout sessions
- ??:00 pm: Reception & dinner
Thursday, May 13, 2010, 7:00 am – 1:00 pm:
- 7:00 – 8:00 am: Continental breakfast
- 8:00 am – 1:00 pm: Joint meetings and breakout sessions
Where & other logistics…
- Where: The Saint Paul Hotel, 350 Market Street, St. Paul, MN 55102 (http://www.stpaulhotel.com)
- Attire: Casual
- Food: Breakfasts, breaks, lunches & dinners provided – please let us know is you have any dietary restrictions
- Lodging: The Saint Paul Hotel – a block of rooms has been set aside at $172/night; to make reservations, call 1-800-292-9292 or 651-292-9292 and provide group number 536394 (Gelbmann & Associates)
Participant fees & requirements…
For information about EDRM participant fees and requirements, go to edrm.net/113
Questions…
If you have any questions, contact us at mail@edrm.net
We look forward to celebrating with you the completion of the 2009-2010 EDRM projects and working with you on the 2010-2011 projects!
Microsoft’s wiretap guide goes online, security site goes offline
February 25, 2010
Long-established privacy and cryptology website Cryptome was pulled offline on Wednesday after Microsoft launched a legal offensive over its publication of Redmond's guide to internet wiretapping... More (The Register)
Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) Announces Public Comment Period for All E-Discovery Projects
February 23, 2010
Comment period for all eight standardization projects extends through April 15, 2010, and includes an “Open Mic” page for comments, questions and suggestions
ST. PAUL, Minn. – February 23, 2010 – The Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) project teams announced today announced the beginning of the public comment period for new work product drafts posted on the EDRM website. Updates on each EDRM projects – Evergreen, Metrics, Search, Information Management Reference Model, Jobs, Model Code of Conduct and XML – were given at EDRM’s luncheon that took place on February 1 during LegalTech New York. The comment period for each of the projects’ working drafts extends through April 15, 2010, and includes an “Open Mic” page for general comments, questions and suggestions.
A recap of each of the project updates and work product drafts posted include:
- Evergreen – The Evergreen project team has made considerable progress in updating the EDRM.net website to standardize the organizational flow of content across all EDRM working groups. Website updates support Evergreen goals to streamline access to content and promote feedback. Posted materials include:
- Metrics – After three years of hard work, the Metrics project team has developed an extensive set of codes designed to provide an effective means of measuring the time, money and volumes associated with e-discovery activities. Posted materials include:
-
- The EDRM Metrics Cube – a top-level graphic that portrays interrelationships
- Version 1.0 of the Metrics Code Set
- Metrics Problem Profiles – the first of several case studies that demonstrate the use of metrics in e-discovery
- Search – The Search project team is developing a framework for defining and managing Search as applied to e-discovery workflow, specifically focused on techniques for collecting, culling, filtering, locating and classifying electronically stored information. Posted materials include:
- Information Management Reference Model (IMRM) – The IMRM project team is working to provide a common, practical, flexible framework to help organizations develop and implement effective and actionable information management programs. In an effort to facilitate dialogue among legal, IT, records management, line-of-business and other stakeholders, the work group has posted the following materials for comment:
- A top-level, draft diagram of IMRM
- The IMRM Draft Guide – a narrative to support the top-level diagram
- IMRM Overview – a high-level description of the project
- Jobs – The Jobs project team is in the process of developing a framework for evaluating pre-discovery and discovery personnel needs or issues. This includes providing scenarios based on existing business models that can help organizations identify, assess, advocate for, recruit, on-board and retain qualified professional resources. The first posted materials include:
- EDRM Jobs Overview – high level description of the EDRM Jobs framework
- 1st and 2nd level diagrams that support the EDRM Jobs framework
- Model Code of Conduct – The Model Code of Conduct project team is evaluating and defining acceptable guidelines of ethical business practices within the e-discovery service industry, which are intended to serve as a basis for decision-making by all participants. Posted materials include:
- Data Set – The Data Set Project is providing industry-standard, reference data sets of ESI and software files that can be used to test various aspects of e-discovery software and services. Posted materials now include:
- XML – The XML Project has developed a series of standard, generally-accepted XML schema to facilitate the movement of ESI from one step of the e-discovery process to the next, from one software program to another and from one organization to the next. Twenty one organizations representing 28 products and services now demonstrate compliance with the EDRM XML schema. Posted materials include:
More information on each of the EDRM projects and the materials is available at http://edrm.net.
About EDRM
Launched in May 2005, the EDRM project was created to address the lack of standards and guidelines in the electronic discovery market – a problem identified in the 2003 and 2004 Socha-Gelbmann Electronic Discovery surveys as a major concern for vendors and consumers alike. The completed reference model provides a common, flexible and extensible framework for the development, selection, evaluation and use of electronic discovery products and services. Expanding on the base defined with the Reference Model, the EDRM projects were expanded in May 2006 to include the EDRM Metrics and the EDRM XML projects. Over the past four years, the EDRM project has comprised more than 180 organizations, including 120 service and software providers, 45 law firms, three industry groups and 16 corporations involved with e-discovery. Information about the EDRM project is available at http://edrm.net.
Press contacts:
George Socha
Socha Consulting
651.690.1739
pr@edrm.net
Tom Gelbmann
Gelbmann & Associates
651-483-0022
pr@edrm.net
Katana Forensics releases Lantern version 1.0.4.0
February 23, 2010
Katana Forensics has released version 1.0.4.0, adding the feature of passcode bypass. Release Notes for 1.0.4.0 - Added support for certificate file for locked phones - Fixed memory errors while extracting large and numerous files - Locked artifact files - Added debugging information to logging - Added low disk space warning prior to acquire
Case in Point 2010-02-22 05:00:55
February 22, 2010
About ‘Case in Point’ – ‘Case in Point’ is a weekly cartoon series, created by CaseCentral Corporation, that illustrates the lighter side of eDiscovery. ‘Case in Point’ also runs a contest inviting anyone from the expansive eDiscovery realm – lawyers, IT staff, judges, service providers, paralegals, writers and consultants – to submit their own humorous experience or a scenario they find particularly funny. Participants may submit cartoon ideas online at http://www.casecentral.com/caseinpoint/idea for consideration. Readers who see their idea turned into a cartoon will receive a copy of the final cartoon signed by the artist, Tom Fishburne.
Permission to reproduce ‘Case in Point’ cartoons is granted on the conditions that any cartoon used is reproduced “as is” and that the re-use is not for purposes of resale or direct compensation. Please provide CaseCentral with a copy of any such use by sending an email with attached sample to: caseinpoint@casecentral.com.
Case in Point mailing list – Visit www.casecentral.com/caseinpoint/mailsignup/ to have Case in Point sent weekly to your eMail. To opt out, send an email titled “UNSUBSCRIBE” to caseinpoint@casecentral.com.
Case in Point Resources – Get the ‘Case in Point’ one year anniversary screen saver: www.casecentral.com/case-in-point/resources/ or ‘Case in Point’ mobile for your iPhone or Blackberry: www.casecentral.com/case-in-point/mobile/.
About the cartoonist – CaseCentral is pleased to feature Tom Fishburne as the cartoonist behind ‘Case in Point.’ See Tom’s bio here: http://www.tomfishburne.com/tomfishburne/bio.html
About CaseCentral – Case in Point is sponsored by CaseCentral. Visit www.casecentral.com to learn more about CaseCentral’s eDiscovery products and services.
Logicube Posts Product Comparison of Forensic Quest vs TD1
February 22, 2010
Logicube, Inc. has posted a product comparison of its Forensic Quest data capture solution vs the Tableau TD1 on its website. Click on the link entitled "Product Comparison Quest vs TD1" at the following URL: http://www.logicubeforensics.com/products/hd_duplication/forensic-quest.asp The document, in PDF format, provides a comparison by feature of each device and includes data transfer speed comparison as well for various capture modes.
Court Sanctions Plaintiff for Accessing Password-Protected Documents and Other Violations, Reduces Sanction based on Behavior of Plaintiff’s Counsel and Defendant
February 19, 2010
Lawson v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 2009 WL 5842136 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 16, 2009); Lawson v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 2010 WL 503054 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 8, 2010)
Where plaintiff accessed privileged, password-protected documents in defendant’s production, “carelessly” produced poor and incomplete copies of relevant taped conversations, and intentionally lied regarding taped conversations in deposition, the magistrate judge declined to recommend dismissal but recommended monetary sanctions instead. The amount of sanctions recommended was reduced by 25% upon the magistrate judge’s finding that plaintiff’s counsel mitigated plaintiff’s violations by ignoring plaintiff’s emails regarding the password-protected documents. The magistrate judge also found plaintiff’s “improprieties” mitigated “by the part [the defendant] and its counsel played in creating this perfect storm of a disaster” and reduced the sanction an additional 25%. While the magistrate judge recommended plaintiff’s counsel be ordered to pay monetary sanctions equal to a 25% reduction in plaintiff’s maximum sanction, the district court declined to adopt that recommendation. The recommendation was otherwise adopted.
In the course of discovery, defendant produced to plaintiff a hard drive containing large volumes of electronically stored information, some of which was privileged and password-protected. Prior to this production, the parties entered into a protective order and an agreement that plaintiff would provide defendant with fourteen days notice before using any information on the hard drive and that defendant would have seven days to object. It was apparently upon these agreements that defendant relied when producing privileged materials as well as a prior arrangement in which plaintiff had been allowed to return his company issued computer with privileged material encrypted to maintain its protection. Plaintiff's counsel denied the existance of any agreement regarding password-protected documents.
In the transmittal letter accompanying the hard drive, defendant indicated the password-protected documents were privileged. Later, there was disagreement as to whether this letter was provided to plaintiff by his attorneys.
Plaintiff accessed the password-protected documents. Thereafter, he sent an email to counsel disclosing his access with the subject line “Password protected files – Unlocked!” Although disputed amongst the parties, the magistrate judge determined that plaintiff’s attorneys did not open the email and remained unaware of plaintiff’s access. It was also determined that counsel did not see a later email in which the “unlocked documents” were mentioned. Counsel later withdrew.
Upon learning of plaintiff’s activities, defendant moved for sanctions. In addition to the password-protected documents, the magistrate judge was asked to consider defendant’s allegations that plaintiff intentionally produced an incomplete and low quality copy of a recorded conversation, failed to reveal the existence of other relevant tape recordings, and lied about those recordings in deposition.
Sifting through the contradictory assertions from all interested parties (plaintiff, former counsel, and defendant), the court found the following:
- plaintiff’s attorneys did not read the email from plaintiff indicating he had accessed password-protected materials;
- plaintiff did not speak with his attorneys prior to accessing the password-protected documents;
- plaintiff intentionally accessed and viewed password-protected documents meant to remain confidential and privileged;
- plaintiff’s attorneys had no knowledge of plaintiff’s activities;
- plaintiff acted carelessly in responding to discovery when he produced an incomplete and poorly reproduced copy of a relevant taped conversation;
- plaintiff’s failure to disclose the existence of other taped conversation was “careless and sloppy” but not intentional;
- plaintiff intentionally lied about taped conversations at deposition.
The magistrate judge held that Rule 37 and “the inherent power of the court” provided authority for sanctions and that sanctions were appropriate. Plaintiff’s inappropriate behavior was “mitigated” however, by his own behavior, as well as that of his attorneys and the defendant. Specifically, for example, the magistrate judge credited plaintiff with his decision to volunteer certain information at deposition and his apparent lack of effort to hide his access to the privileged documents (as evidenced by his email to counsel). The magistrate judge also found plaintiff’s behavior mitigated by that of his attorneys because counsels’ failure to read or respond to plaintiff’s email “contributed to the situation” and because “[Plaintiff] cannot be blamed for the lack of attention paid to him by his attorneys.” Finally, the magistrate judge found that defendant’s behavior mitigated that of the plaintiff where defendant and defense counsel contributed to the “perfect storm of a disaster” by failing to remove the privilege documents from production in the first place, among other things.
Accordingly, having determined the maximum appropriate sanction to be $54,500, the magistrate judge recommended plaintiff’s sanction be discounted by 25% to account for the contributory behavior of his counsel and recommended counsel be ordered to pay an amount equal to the reduction. Similarly, the magistrate judge further reduced plaintiff’s sanction by another 25% to account for defendant and defendant's counsel's contributions to the problem.
Upon the district court’s consideration of these recommendations, counsels’ objections to the recommended sanction were sustained and the order of sanctions modified to reflect that counsel should not be sanctioned.
A copy of the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is available here.
A copy of the district court’s opinion is available here.
Logicube® Acquires Intellectual Property For Celldek Technology
February 18, 2010
Logicube® Inc. has announced that it has acquired the intellectual property of the CellDEK™ technology. Logicube and the Forensic Science Service developed two products around the CellDEK technology; CellDEK (launched in 2005) and CellDEK TEK (launched in 2007). Both products, which provide forensic data capture from cell phones, PDAs and GPS devices, are used by government, law enforcement and both public and private forensic investigation companies...
For Lawyers – Presenting Electronic and Computer Forensics Evidence at Trial
February 17, 2010
Computer forensics examiners can determine when an external storage device like a thumb drive or external hard drive has been attached to a computer and from that information infer that files have been copied to the external storage device. Lawyers know these examiners can track Internet history and usage and analyze system-related information to determine when computer files were created, who created them, and when they were last accessed or modified. On the other hand, most lawyers haven’t faced the challenge of presenting electronic evidence to a jury through the testimony of a computer forensics expert... More (Wisconsin Lawyer)