Computer Forensics – Criminal vs Civil – What’s The Difference? | Forensics Computer

For the law enforcement computer forensics specialist, a certain amount of extra care should be taken in collecting data and producing results, for the standard of proof is higher. There are advantages on the data collection end, however. For once a court has authorized a search warrant, an officer (and possibly several) with badge and gun can go seize the defendant’s computer by surprise and by force. Once the computer has been seized and imaged, all data is accessible and may result in additional charges being brought against the defendant.

By contrast, in a civil case, there tends to be a lot of negotiation over what computers and what data can be inspected, as well as where and when. There is not likely to be any seizing of computers, and quite a long time may take place between the time the request to inspect a computer is made and the time the computer is made available to be inspected. It is common for one party to have access to a very limited area of data from the other party’s computer. During this time, a defendant may take the opportunity to attempt to hide or destroy data. The author has had several cases wherein the computer needed for analysis was destroyed before the plaintiff had the opportunity to inspect. Such attempts at hiding data are often discovered by the digital forensic sleuth, who may in turn present evidence of such further wrongdoing in expert witness testimony.

Opportunities for learning techniques and interacting with other professionals may differ as well. While some computer forensic software suites and training, such as Access FTK, EnCase, or SMART Forensics are available to most who can pay, others, such as iLook are available only to law enforcement and military personnel. While many support and professional organizations and groups are available to all, some, such as the High Technology Crime Investigation Association (HTCIA) are not open to professionals who provide for criminal defense (with a few minor exceptions).

When law enforcement has a case involving computer forensics, the intention is to locate enough data to find the defendant guilty in court, where the standard for information presented tends to be fairly high. From the time digital data or hardware is seized and acquired, Rules of Evidence must be kept in mind (Cornell University has the complete and voluminous code on its website). Law enforcement personnel must follow accepted procedures or evidence could be thrown out. Acquisition of data and discovery in criminal cases often must follow sometimes strict and differing procedures depending upon whether the jurisdiction is federal, state, or municipality and at times depending upon a judge’s preferences.

via Computer Forensics – Criminal vs Civil – What’s The Difference? | Forensics Computer.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Show Us the Love to Avoid Discovery Fights, Attorneys Urge | National Law Journal

The present location of the Duke University Sc...
Image via Wikipedia

Attorneys were blunt during a litigation conference at Duke University School of Law about what they need from judges and opposing counsel to fix trial practice in federal courts.

“We’d all be a lot happier if we had some romancing foreplay pre-trial and left the rough stuff for trial,” said Ariana Tadler, a partner in the New York office Milberg LLP.

Tadler, speaking about cooperation between attorneys “on both sides of the v.,” participated in a six-member panel discussion of what works and what doesn’t in the federal courts. The presentation took place on Tuesday, the second and final day of the 2010 Conference on Civil Litigation, sponsored mainly by the U.S. Judicial Conference‘s Advisory Committee on Civil Rules.

The conference focused on whether changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are needed to resolve cases more efficiently and justly. The consensus emerging among conference participants was that large-scale revisions to the rules are not necessary. Rather, most practitioners agreed that what’s needed is better judicial management of cases. Many also wanted to see a tailoring of procedural rules according to the specific kind of case — so-called nontransubstantive rules.

Pfizer Inc. general counsel Amy Schulman agreed that cooperation between opposing counsel helps all parties, but she said that corporate defendants involved in high-stakes cases are often mischaracterized.

“There’s this fundamental notion that we don’t want to play fair,” Schulman said to the crowd of about 150 federal judges, large-firm defense counsel, plaintiffs attorneys and legal scholars. Schulman said her position when confronting a lawsuit against the company was simple: “Sometimes we do things wrong. When we do, we settle cases.” In cases that have “grey areas,” she said, “we want is to know that the system is operating fairly.”

Plaintiffs and defense attorneys in attendance repeatedly urged judges to take a more active role in guiding discovery, especially electronic discovery.

via Law.com – Show Us the Love to Avoid Discovery Fights, Attorneys Urge.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Ontario’s New Rules of Civil Procedure Address Electronic Discovery : Electronic Discovery Law

As of January 1, 2010, Ontario’s new Rules of Civil Procedure became effective, including significant changes to the rules of discovery.  Among the changes/additions is Rule 29.1.03(4) Principles re Electronic Discovery, which states that “In preparing the discovery plan,” as is required by Rule 29.1.03 (1), “the parties shall consult and have regard to the document titled ‘The Sedona Canada Principles Addressing Electronic Discovery’ developed and available from The Sedona Conference.”  In its explanation of the provisions of the newly effective Rules of Civil Procedure, the Ministry of the Attorney General specifically identified several of the Sedona Principles to be considered:

• Discovery steps should be proportionate.  Parties should consider the nature of litigation; relevance of electronic evidence; importance to adjudication; and the cost and delay that may be imposed to deal with electronic documents.

• Parties should meet and confer as soon as possible regarding identification, preservation, collection and production of electronic documents.

• Parties should be prepared to disclose all relevant electronic documents.

• Parties should agree as early as possible on the format in which electronic information will be produced.

via Ontario’s New Rules of Civil Procedure Address Electronic Discovery : Electronic Discovery Law.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare