Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
the. author. of. the. e-mail. claimed. she. did. not. send. it. to. the.
deputy.mayor.and.asked.the.court.to.compel.the.defense.to.
produce.the.e-mail.and.its.metadata.so.they.could.see.who.
did.send.it.to.the.deputy.mayor.and.when.it.was.sent.
The. defense. argued. that. irst,. only. a. copy. of. the. e-mail.
was.available.which.did.not.contain.the.metadata,.and.sec-
ond,.that.metadata.should.not.be.considered.part.of.the.rel-
evant.electronic.evidence.
This.ended.up.going.to.the.court.of.appeals.and.inally.to.
the.Washington.State.Supreme.Court..The.Supreme.Court.
upheld.the.Court.of.Appeals'.decision.agreeing.that.the.plain-
tiff.was.entitled.to.the.metadata.
Further,.and.most.compelling.of.all,.the.court.ruled.that.
the.city.of.Shoreline.was.responsible.for.searching.the.deputy.
mayor's.personal.hard.drive.from.her.home.computer.
This.example.hits.close.to.home—very.close.to.home,.as.
I.live.in.Shoreline.and.know.several.of.the.people.in.this.case.
pretty.well..Even.though.it.has.been.pretty.well.established.
in.case.law.that.metadata.counts.and.the.data.are.considered.
relevant. evidence,. this. is. a. landmark. ruling. for. Washington.
state.that.creates.a.irm.precedent.
It.is.also.quite.interesting.that.they.suggest.the.public-sec-
tor.organization.was.responsible.for.preserving.and.searching.
the.personal.computer.of.one.of.its.employees..This.is.another.
thing.that.has.been.in.question.and.that.now.looks.like.it.will.
be.expected.in.future.cases,.at.least.in.this.jurisdiction.
1.2.3.11. .Williams.v..District.of.Columbia.
(D.D.C..8/17/11)—When.“Claw-
Back”.Rules.Can.Fail.You
In. this. case. we. get. an. example. of. what. happens. when. an.
organization.is.not.careful.about.its.production.of.electronic.
evidence. and. how. the. “claw-back”. provisions. we. spoke. of.
earlier.work.(or.do.not.work).in.real.life.
The.defendant.in.this.case.inadvertently.produced.an.e-mail.
that. should. have. been. considered. privileged.. They. realized.
