Thanks to who intended the Fowler/Systems Design Group/Symantec E-Discovery presentation on March 25. As mentioned, I’ve included links below to some of the documents and federal cases discussed in that presentation. One of the cases alone runs to 100 pages, so this seems a better way to distribute them than paper.

Sedona Principles Second

Qualcomm Sanctions

Lorraine v. Markel (bookmarked)

Lorraine v. Markel Lexis Summary

Hopson v. Mayor of Baltimore

Links to other sources of information:

Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM)

Law.Com’s E-Discovery Road Map (based on the EDRM Model) (Each of the Nodes on the Road Map is clickable, and leads you to articles and other reference material that Law.Com has gathered relevant tot hat node.)

Thanks again to our partners in the presentation, Systems Design Group and Symantec; to Fowler attorneys Ellen Arvin Kennedy, Timothy A. West, and Matthew D. Ellison, who spoke to break-out groups; and to Jane Becker of Alltech’s in-house counsel department, who shared her knowledge on the impact of E-discovery on intellectual property litigation.

Thanks to the Bluegrass Claims Association for inviting me to discuss Electronic Discovery at their March 19 meeting. As mentioned, I’ve included links below to some of the documents and federal cases discussed in that presentation. One of the cases alone runs to 100 pages, so this seems a better way to distribute them than paper.

Update: Tiffany Phillip’s list of internet resources from her August presentation to the Fayettte Women Lawyers group is added to the list below.

Sedona Principles Second

Qualcomm Sanctions

Lorraine v. Markel (bookmarked)

Lorraine v. Markel Lexis Summary

Hopson v. Mayor of Baltimore

internet-resources-for-women-lawyers.doc

The Center for Information Technology policy has released a research paper describing how an scanner can be used to identify the unique properties of a paper document. According to the paper’s abstract, it is “a novel technique for authenticating physical documents based on random, naturally occurring imperfections in paper texture.”

The technique does not require expensive equipment, as the paper’s title suggests: “Fingerprinting Blank Paper Using Commodity Scanners.” (The link is to the project’s website where there are links to more information about the researchers involved, and a link to the full paper.)

While this is not strictly an electronic discovery issue it may speak to one of the difficulties of identifying documents created by computers and printers, a process that seemed to destroy the concept of an “original” document.

The authors will present their paper to the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy in Oakland, California this may. The paper is also likely to be scrutinized by attorneys. If the process is valid it has any number of applications to discovery and litigation. The authors suggest a few in their paper: Detecting forged artwork, currency or tickets; authenticating passports; and halting counterfeit goods. It will be interesting to read the first Daubert challenge that arises.

Despite the good ways this process could be used, the researchers acknowledge that it could also be used in bad ways, such as compromising the secrecy of paper ballots or the anonymity of printed surveys. Such uses would almost seem to require a conspiracy; the authors note that blank paper would have to be “fingerprinted” before ballots or surveys are printed. But the possibility exists that “the ability to re-identify ordinary sheets of paper casts doubt on any purportedly private information gather process that relies on paper forms.”

One of the researchers, Ed Felten discussed the paper at his blog “Freedom to Tinker.”