DOCSLIB.ORG

Metadata Article

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Metadata Article TAKING ADVANTAGE (OR NOT) OF CYBER-BLUNDERS: THE ETHICS OF METADATA MINING IN TEXAS SHERYL A. FALK DONALD H. MAHONEY, III Howrey LLP 1111 Louisiana, 25th Floor Houston, TX 77002-5242 State Bar of Texas 21st ANNUAL ADVANCED REAL ESTATE DRAFTING COURSE March 4 -5, 2010 Dallas CHAPTER 23 Sheryl A. Falk Of Counsel Howrey LLP 1111 Louisiana Street 25th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 713.787.7615 Sheryl Falk is Of Counsel in Howrey's Houston office. Ms. Falk specializes in civil litigation and arbitration. The breadth of her experience covers complex commercial litigation, breach of contract disputes, fraud litigation, securities arbitration, product liability, premises liability, and environmental contamination cases. Ms. Falk has served as trial counsel in state and federal cases. Ms. Falk has also handled electronic discovery matters in large state commercial litigation. She is certified in Computer Forensics. Prior to entering private practice, Ms. Falk was an Assistant United States Attorney Representative Highlights Bell v. Resinform, Inc. (Hechinger Home Quarters Builders Square. Successfully defended in trial against multi-plaintiff products liability claim involving plastic resin chairs. 270th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas - Judge Brent Gamble presiding. DX Terminals, Ltd. v. Bayer Corporation . Successful trial resulting in $7.5 million verdict in breach of contract case. 152nd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas-Judge Ken Wise presiding. Elvis Presley Enterprises v. Capece (The Velvet Elvis). Successful trial defending against Estate of Elvis Presley's claim of trademark infringement. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Hon. Vanessa Gilmore presiding. Industrial Information, Resources, Inc. v. Jason Berk . Successfully defended company against a $12 million dollar shareholder's derivative claim in arbitration. Lyondell Petrochemical v. Louisiana Safety Systems. Defended against a $15 million dollar products liability claim arising out of petrochemical explosion blamed on a defective valve. After winning partial summary judgment, case settled. Chambers County, Texas. Admissions Texas, 1992 Courts & Adjudicative Bodies United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Education University of Houston Law Center (JD, 1991) University of the South (BA, 1988) Taking Advantage (or Not) of Cyber-Blunders: The Ethics of Metadata Mining in Texas Chapter 23 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 II. WHAT IS METADATA? .................................................................................................................................. 1 III. SIGNIFICANCE OF METADATA FOR LAWYERS ..................................................................................... 2 IV. ETHICAL RULES INVOLVED ....................................................................................................................... 3 V. ETHICS OPINIONS ON METADATA MINING IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS .......................................... 4 A. New York ................................................................................................................................................ 4 B. Florida ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 C. Alabama ................................................................................................................................................... 5 D. District of Columbia ................................................................................................................................ 5 E. American Bar Association and Maryland ................................................................................................ 5 VI. TEXAS ETHICS REGARDING IN ADVERTENT DISCLOSURES IN GENERAL ..................................... 5 VII. HOW A TEXAS ETHICS RULE ABOUT METADATA MINING MIGHT DEVELOP ............................... 6 VIII. SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF METADATA PRODUCTION THROUGH TRANSPERANCY AND NEGOTIATING WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL ................................................................................... 6 IX. SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................................... 6 i inadvertent disclosures of metadata. See Philip J. Favro, A New Frontier In Electronic Discovery: Preserving And Obtaining Metadata, 13 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. 1, 4-5 (2007) and sources cited therein. While these are instances of public disclosure of hidden metadata, inadvertent production of metadata by a client during a transaction or during litigation may have equally serious consequences for that client and for the recipient. The Professional Ethics Committee for the State Bar of Texas has not produced an opinion regarding the extent to which it is ethical for an attorney to review metadata in electronic information provided. Nor have the authors found any decision from a Texas court addressing the issue. This article will consider how the Texas rule may develop in the future. II. WHAT IS METADATA? Metadata is data that provides information about Taking Advantage (or Not) of other data. MICHAEL R. ARKFELD, ELECTRONIC Cyber-Blunders: The Ethics of DISCOVERY AND EVIDENCE 1-6 (2009). In the litigation context, “metadata is evidence, typically stored Metadata Mining in Texas electronically, that describes the characteristics, origins, usage, and validity of other electronic evidence.” CRAIG Sheryl A. Falk BALL, BEYOND DATA ABOUT DATA: THE LITIGATOR’S Donald H. Mahoney, III GUIDE TO METADATA 1 (2005). The term refers to a vast array of different types of data, which the United States District Court for the District of Maryland has I. INTRODUCTION grouped into three categories in its Suggested Protocol Here is the scenario: your client’s competitor for Discovery of Electronically Stored Information. W. files, but does not serve, a complaint for trade secret Lawrence Wescott II, The Increasing Importance of misappropriation against your client in Texas court. Metadata in Electronic Discovery, 14 RICH. J. L. & The same day the attorney representing the TECH. 10, 2-5 (2008) (citing United States District Court competitor, in an effort to facilitate a quick settlement, for the District of Maryland, Suggested Protocol for sends you a courtesy copy of the complaint as a Discovery of Electronically Stored Information, at 25 Microsoft Word document attached to an email. (hereinafter Suggested Protocol). Should you or may you examine the complaint for The first category—“system metadata”—is data metadata potentially revealing evidence damaging for that is automatically generated from the computer and the competitor’s claim? What if you do examine it includes “author, date and time of creation, and the date and stumble across information that plainly is covered a document was modified.” Id. “Substantive by the attorney client privilege? metadata,” on the other hand is the data reflecting the This hypothetical is not far fetched. In 2004, the substantive changes to a document made by a user, e.g. SCO Group brought suit against DaimlerChrysler and tracked changes. Id. Finally, “embedded metadata” are Autozone for copyright infringement based on the use data entered into a document or file but not normally of Linux software. Stephen Shankland & Scott Ard, visible such as formulas entered into cells in an Excel Hidden Text Shows SCO Prepped Lawsuit Against spreadsheet. Id. BofA, http://news.cnet.com/Hidden-text-shows-SCO- Metadata attaches to all electronic files, and it can prepped-lawsuit-against-BofA/2100-7344_3-5170073. be a great source of information providing the who, html?tag=txt (Mar. 4, 2004). Journalists obtained a what, why, when, where and how information Microsoft Word version of the filed complaint and connected to a file. Different file formats have examined its hidden metadata. Id. They discovered different metadata. Some metadata information is from the metadata that SCO originally planned to readily viewable by the user, and other metadata name Bank of America as a defendant rather than requires extraordinary methods to view, such as DaimlerChrysler and that the venue of the suit was metadata retrieval software. changed from California to Michigan. Id. There are Microsoft Office documents like Word and Excel numerous other examples of embarrassing public contain a host of metadata. To view some of the 1 DM_US:23068656_1 metadata in an Office document, open one at your through requests made under TEX. R. CIV. P. 196.4. In computer, click on “File” and then “Proprieties.” The re Weekley Homes, L.P., 295 S.W.3d 309 (Tex. 2009); “General” tab reflects the metadata of the location of In re Honza, 242 S.W.3d 578 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, the document, its date of creation, last access date, and pet. denied). Rule 196.4 requires a requesting party to last modification date. The “Summary” tab reflects “specifically request” production of electronic the metadata of the title, subject, author, manager, information and “specify” the form in which the data is company, category, keywords, and comments for the too be produced. Many problems related to the document. unintended production
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Texas Law Judicial Clerks List
    Texas Law Judicial Clerks List This list includes Texas Law alumni who reported their clerkships to the Judicial Clerkship Program – or whose names were published in the Judicial Yellow Book or Martindale Hubbell – and includes those who clerked during the recent past for judges who are currently active. There are some judges and courts for which few Texas Law alumni have clerked – in these cases we have listed alumni who clerked further back or who clerked for judges who are no longer active. Dates following a law clerk or judge’s name indicate year of graduation from the University of Texas School of Law. Retired or deceased judges, or those who has been appointed to another court, are listed at the end of each court section and denoted (*). Those who wish to use the information on this list will need to independently verify the information being used. Federal Courts U.S. Supreme Court ............................................................................................................. 2 U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals ............................................................................................. 3 First Circuit Second Circuit Third Circuit Fourth Circuit Fifth Circuit Sixth Circuit Seventh Circuit Eighth Circuit Ninth Circuit Tenth Circuit Eleventh Circuit Federal Circuit District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Courts of Limited Jurisdiction ...................................................................................... 9 Executive Office for Immigration Review U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces U.S. Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims U.S. Court of Federal Claims U.S. Court of International Trade U.S. Tax Court U.S. District Courts (listed alphabetically by state) ............................................................ 10 State Courts State Appellate Courts (listed alphabetically by state) ........................................................ 25 State District & County Courts (listed alphabetically by state) ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Courthouse Guide 2020
    12 TEXAS COURTHOUSE GUIDE 2020 STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS AND AGENCIES Case Manager Southern and Eastern Districts: FEDERAL COURTS Angel Tardie Phone: 504-310-7715 S AND AGENCIES IE Case Manager Louisiana, Mississippi and Agency: C Connie Brown GEN A Phone: 504-310-7671 U.S. SUPREME COURT 1 First St. NE AND Senior Staff Attorney: Kim Tycer S Washington, DC 20543 Phone: 504-310-8504 Phone: 202-479-3000 OURT www.supremecourt.gov C Circuit Librarian: Sue Creech 600 Camp St., Room 106 Clerk: Scott S. Harris Phone: 202-479-3011 New Orleans, LA 70130 EDERAL Phone: 504-310-7797 F Chief Justice: John G. Roberts, Jr. E-mail: [email protected] AND Counselor to the Chief Justice: Jeffrey P. Minear TATE S CIRCUIT JUDGES Associate Justices: Clarence Thomas Chief Judge Priscilla R. Owen Ruth Bader Ginsburg 903 San Jacinto Blvd., Room 434 Stephen G. Breyer Austin, TX 78701-2450 Samuel A. Alito, Jr. Phone: 512-916-5167 Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan Neil M. Gorsuch Active Judges by Seniority: Brett M. Kavanaugh Circuit Judge Edith H. Jones 515 Rusk Ave., Room 12505 Houston, TX 77002-2655 5TH U.S. CIRCUIT Phone: 713-250-5484 COURT OF APPEALS Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith 600 S. Maestri Place 515 Rusk Ave., Room 12621 New Orleans, LA 70130 Houston, TX 77002 www.ca5.uscourts.gov Phone: 713-250-5101 Clerk: Lyle W. Cayce Circuit Judge Carl E. Stewart Phone: 504-310-7700 300 Fannin St., Suite 5226 E-mail: [email protected] Shreveport, LA 71101-3074 Phone: 318-676-3765 Circuit Executive: Ted Cominos 600 Camp St.
    [Show full text]
  • Relevant Texas and Other Employment Law Results Won Trial in 2019 Resulting in a Final “Take Nothing” Judgment for Our Clien
    Relevant Texas And Other Employment Law Results Won trial in 2019 resulting in a final “take nothing” judgment for our client, the employer-defendant, in Miles Hyman v. KD Resources, LLC, No. 2021-32430, in the ​ ​ 157th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, a breach of contract case brought ​ by an ex-employee claiming that the employer had breached a severance agreement under which he was entitled to $1 million (Judge Michael Gomez). Won ruling from district court for our client, the Plaintiff, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment in Borton v. Lowe’s Home Ctrs., LLC, Civil Action No. ​ ​ H-17-2209, 2018 WL 6696701 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 20, 2018), a Family and Medical Leave Act case (Judge Gray Miller). Won ruling from the district court for our client, the Plaintiff, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment, in Pierce v. Fondren Orthopedic Grp., LLP, No. ​ ​ H-18-1686, 2018 WL 6200049 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2018), a breach of employment related contract case (Judge Sim Lake). Won appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversing the trial court’s judgment and rendering judgment in our client, the Plaintiff’s, favor, for $255,000 plus $18,970 in attorneys’ fees, in William Langley v. Howard Hughes Management Co., ​ L.L.C., Separation Benefits Plan, Director of Human Resources, Howard Hughes Management Co., L.L.C., as Plan Administrator, Case No. 16-0724, 2017 WL 2390609 ​ (June 1, 2017), an ERISA severance benefits denial case. Won ruling from district court for our client, the Plaintiff, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment in Frank Erimias v.
    [Show full text]
  • Mark Oberti List of Cases for Website[1]
    Relevant Texas And Other Employment Law Results Won trial in 2019 resulting in a final “take nothing” judgment for our client, the employer- defendant, in Miles Hyman v. KD Resources, LLC, No. 2021-32430, in the 157th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, a breach of contract case brought by an ex- employee claiming that the employer had breached a severance agreement under which he was entitled to $1 million (Judge Michael Gomez). Won ruling from district court for our client, the Plaintiff, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment in an Family and Medical Leave Act case, Borton v. Lowe’s Home Ctrs., LLC, Civil Action No. H-17-2209, 2018 WL 6696701 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 20, 2018) (Miller, J.) (Judge Gray Miller). Won ruling from the district court for our client, the Plaintiff, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment, in Pierce v. Fondren Orthopedic Grp., LLP, No. H-18-1686, 2018 WL 6200049 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2018), a breach of employment related contract case (Judge Sim Lake). Won appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversing the trial court’s judgment and rendering judgment in our client, the Plaintiff’s, favor, for $255,000 plus $18,970 in attorneys’ fees, in William Langley v. Howard Hughes Management Co., L.L.C., Separation Benefits Plan, Director of Human Resources, Howard Hughes Management Co., L.L.C., as Plan Administrator, Case No. 16-0724, 2017 WL 2390609 (June 1, 2017), an ERISA severance benefits denial case. Won ruling from district court for our client, the Plaintiff, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment in an Americans with Disabilities Act disability discrimination case involving a former police officer in Frank Erimias v.
    [Show full text]