Introduction
Electronic mail (e-mail) is fast
becoming the most common form of business communication in America.[1] Forrester Research estimates that commercial
email messages will reach 250 billion in 2002.[2] Statistically, each employee of a company
generates between 4 and 11 e-mail messages a day.[3] Add to that the number of e-mail messages
each employee receives, and you can garner the incredible number of e-mail
messages companies must contend with annually.[4]
Every e-mail message that has
ever been generated or received by a company’s employees may be stored, at
least once, somewhere within an organization’s information system.[5] If a company is facing litigation, it may
have the daunting, and expensive, task of gathering and analyzing this massive
amount of accumulated data before it delivers, what might be, the “smoking gun”
to the opposing side.[6]
This paper examines the role of
electronic evidence in litigation discovery.
Specifically, this paper focuses on discovery issues as they pertain to
electronic mail. I begin by gathering
the basic principles of electronic evidence discovery, with an emphasis on
e-mail. Next, I apply the gathered
principles. Finally, I conclude with some tips for companies that are facing
actual or potential litigation.
Electronic Evidence Discovery
Computers play a predominant role
in American business. Vital business
information, traditionally stored on paper, is now created and stored
electronically.[7] As digital documents replace paper, hard
copies of this information may never even be generated.[8] Consequently, electronic evidence discovery
(e-discovery) is becoming an important part of litigation.[9] According to recent surveys, about 30% of
discovery requests now include e-discovery.”[10]
First, in this section, I review
federal discovery rules. Then, I will
catalog the types of electronic media that is used to store electronic
data. Next, I will explain why parties
might prefer electronic versions of documents to hard copy printouts. After that, I will clarify the definition
of “document,” and demonstrate that raw
data that is never converted to hard copy printouts may still be discoverable
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Finally, I will look at the dangers of retaining electronic documents
too long or destroying them prematurely.
Discovery Rules
“[T]oday it is black letter law
that computerized data is discoverable if relevant.”[11] The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP)
“govern the procedure in the United States district courts in all suits of a civil
nature.”[12] Rules 34 and 26 of the FRCP provide for the
discovery of information from opposing parties.[13] I will address each rule in turn.
(1)
Rule 34 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Under
FRCP Rule 34 (a) “[a]ny party may serve on any other party a request . . . to produce . . . any designated
documents.”[14] Back in 1970
Congress made a small change to FRCP Rule 34(a) “to accord to changing
technology.”[15] The rule change modified the definition of
“document” to include "other data compilations from which
information can be obtained, translated, if necessary, by the respondent
through detection devices into reasonably usable form." [16]
The Advisory Committee Notes to
FRCP Rule 34,
makes
clear that Rule 34 applies to electronic data compilations from which
information can be obtained only with the use of detection devices, and that
when the data can as a practical matter be made usable by the discovering party
only through respondent's devices, respondent may be required to use his
devices to translate the data into usable form.[17]
The rule places the burden on the
respondent to make a printout, or otherwise put the data into reasonably usable
form.[18]
(2)
Rule 26 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure
Under FRCP Rule 34 a party must
respond to an opposing party’s request for data. Under FRCP Rule 26(b), however, each party to pending litigation
must disclose, before discovery begins and shortly after commencement of the
litigation, “a copy of, or a description by category and location of, all
documents [and] data compilations . . . that are relevant to disputed facts
alleged with particularity in the pleadings."[19]
In 1993, in order to accommodate
computer discovery, “data compilations” was included into FRCP Rule 26(b).[20] To comply with FRCP Rule 26(b), a party to
litigation has an affirmative duty to locate and review the content of all
existing electronic media devices that are in the party’s “possession, custody,
or control” in order to produce all relevant electronic data to the other
party, or face possible sanctions.[21]
Electronic Media
FRCP Rules 34 and 26 make it
clear that electronic data is discoverable.
In order to locate relevant electronic data, when faced with litigation,
a company should conduct an inventory of all the electronic media that is used
to store business information.[22] The types of electronic media can be sorted
into three categories: system equipment, non-system equipment and archival
apparatus. I will review each category
individually.
(1)
System Equipment
First, system equipment is
equipment that is directly associated with the company’s information system and
used almost exclusively for business purposes.[23] This category includes:
(a)
desktop computers and workstations located at the business
facility;
(b)
laptop computers;
(c)
replaced or removed drives;
(d)
palmtop/handheld devices (including cellular telephones and
organizers);
(e)
mainframes;
(f)
network file servers; and
(g)
Internet servers.[24]
(2)
Non-system equipment
The second category of equipment
is non-system equipment. Non-system
equipment is a device used for the convenience of the company’s employees for
business purposes, but not necessarily part of the company’s information
system.[25] This category includes:
(a)
home computers
(b)
personal hand held devices (including cellular telephones and
organizers)
(c)
floppy diskettes;
(d)
CDs;
(e)
Zip disks;
(f)
Internet-based virtual drives;
(g)
portable drives; and
(h)
other portable media.[26]
(3)
Archival Apparatus
The final category of equipment
is archival apparatus. Archival
apparatus is used to avoid the inadvertent destruction or long term storage of
business information and is a component of the company’s overall information
system.[27] This category includes:
(a)
tape archives;
(b)
system-wide back-ups (monthly, weekly or incremental);
(c)
disaster recovery back-ups (stored offsite); and
(d)
individual employee back-ups (on portable media). [28]
Under the FRCP a respondent has
an affirmative duty to search all storage equipment within its “possession,
custody, or control” for relevant electronic documents.[29]
Electronic Documents
Early on, courts recognized that
a discovering party might prefer the electronic versions of documents to the
hard copy printout.[30] There are two reasons why a party might
prefer electronic versions. First,
electronic versions of documents are easier to sort and analysis than hard
copies. Second, electronic versions of
documents often contain information that hard copies do not. [31] I will review each reason separately.
(1)
Sort And Analyze
The first reason that a
discovering party might prefer an electronic version of a document to a hard
copy version is that electronic documents are easier to sort and analyze. The
leading case that supports the proposition that electronic versions must be
produced, if only to ease the burden of analysis of the data, is National Union
Electric Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.[32]
In National Union, the
discovering party, through interrogatories, requested data concerning sales of
television sets.[33] In answer to the interrogatories, the
respondent furnished a computer printout totaling more than “1,000 pages of
data containing literally hundreds of thousands of numbers.” [34]
After receiving the printout, the
discovering party offered to pay to have the same information printed “onto a
computer-readable form like magnetic tape” in order to make analyzing the data
more effective.[35] The respondent refused to supply an
electronic version, contending, “that the discovery rules do not recognize such
a request.”[36]
Looking forward,[37]
the court concluded that FRCP Rule 34 allowed for the production of the
electronic version of the document, even though the hard copy printout was
already made available to the discovering party.[38] Citing the Advisory Committee’s Notes to
Rule 34, that the data should be delivered in “usable form,” the court ordered
the respondent to provide the electronic versions of the documents, as the
discovering party had requested.[39]
(2)
Additional Data
Another reason a discovering
party might prefer electronic versions of documents is that electronic
documents often contain data not contained in hard copy versions.[40] The additional information found in an
electronic version of a document may be critical to the outcome of litigation,
or may lead to other critical information.[41]
For example, examining the
electronic version of an e-mail message will reveal not only the date and time
of the transmission, but may also include the exact network terminal that was
used to create the message, a list of other recipients, the name of files that
were attached (if any), and the text of any comments in the header or footer.[42]
Furthermore, electronic versions
of e-mail messages will reveal whether the e-mail was ever opened, the time
that the e-mail was last accessed and whether the e-mail was forwarded on to
others.[43] None of this additional information is
included in a hardcopy printout.[44]
Raw Data
The modified definition of
“documents” under the FRCP is broad enough to encompass raw data that is used
to produce charts, graphs, summaries and other reports, even if the raw data
was never contained in hard copy printouts.[45] Companies that fail to provide this raw
data, subject themselves to sanctions.[46] “A plaintiff's failure to comply with
discovery orders is properly sanctioned by dismissal of the suit, a defendant's
by entry of a default judgment.”[47]
In Crown Life, Crown Life
(Crown) filed suit against the discovering party (Craig).[48] Craig worked as an agent for Crown.[49] Crown claimed that Craig wrongfully drew
checks on a Crown account.[50] Craig counterclaimed alleging that Crown
owed it renewal commissions.[51] During discovery, Craig requested that Crown
produce “written documents” concerning the renewal commissions.[52] Crown produced only summaries of raw data,[53]
and then claimed, “that all documents responsive to the document requests had
been produced.”[54]
Based on the summaries alone,
Craig’s expert had “insufficient information” to reach an opinion on the total
amount of commissions due Craig.[55] Later, at trial, Craig learned about a
database that contained raw data about each policy Craig sold.[56] The raw data in this database was never
produced to Craig, even though Crown used the data to prepare its own
witnesses.[57] Crown argued that since Craig only requested
“written documents,” and the raw data was never put in “hard copy” form, it did
not have an obligation to produce the raw data in question.[58]
The court disagreed with Crown’s
analysis, holding that “document,” as defined by the FRCP, is broad enough to
include raw data even if it had never been printed out.[59] Therefore, the court imposed sanctions that
“amounted to a default judgment on Craig's counterclaim.”[60]
Document Retention and Destruction
Most companies have a document
retention policy applicable to paper documents.[61] When it comes to electronic documents,
however, few companies have implemented a like policy.[62] Because electronic data storage costs are
relatively inexpensive and electronic media take up little physical space, many
companies perpetually backup and archive their information systems.[63] As a result, it is not uncommon for
companies to have electronic documents that date back 10 years or more.[64] These same companies, when faced with actual
or potential litigation, may be tempted to destroy this data.[65] Both practices (perpetual retention and
ad-hoc destruction) can have unexpected and unwanted results. I will address each practice separately.
1. Electronic
Document Retention
Retaining electronic data for an
extended period of time can cause problems for a company facing litigation.[66] The process of searching through electronic
data, as required by the FRCP, can be an enormous financial burden.[67] In In re Brand Name Prescription Drug
Antitrust Litigation, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois addressed the discovering
parties’ motion to compel a defendant (CIBA)
to produce relevant e-mail messages in a complex price-fixing case.[68] CIBA objected to the motion and contended that production of
the e-mail messages would create an “undue burden.”[69]
CIBA estimated
that it had “at least 30 million pages of e-mail data stored on its technical
back-up tapes.”[70] Furthermore, it claimed that it would cost
“$50,000 to $70,000 in compiling, formatting, searching and retrieving
responsive e-mail.”[71] CIBA admitted, however, that the cost of
retrieval was high, partly because of "the limitations of the software
CIBA [was] using."[72]
The court noted that under FRCP
Rule 34 “the normal and reasonable translation of
electronic data into a form usable by the discovering party should be the
ordinary and foreseeable burden of a respondent.”[73] Therefore, said the court, it would be
unfair to force the discovering party to bear the costs of an expensive
storage method over which they had no control.[74] While the court required the discovering
party to narrow their request, it refused to shift the cost of production to
the discovering party.[75]
2. Electronic
Document Destruction
When facing actual or potential
litigation, many companies are tempted to purge their information system,
thereby destroying any electronic documents that might be helpful to the
opposing side.[76] This temptation, however, ought not be acted
upon. When courts discover that parties
intentionally destroyed evidence, they apply the “spoliation[77]
inference doctrine.”[78]
Under the spoliation inference
doctrine, "the bad faith destruction of a document relevant to proof of an
issue at trial gives rise to an inference that production of the document would
have been unfavorable to the party responsible for its destruction."[79] The doctrine protects "two important
goals of the judicial system - truth and fairness."[80]
In Procter & Gamble Co. v.
Haugen, the discovering party (Amway) moved for sanctions against the
respondent (P&G) because P&G destroyed e-mail messages of 5 key
employees. [81] Amway argued that bad faith should be
inferred because, even though P&G insisted that Amway save all corporate
e-mail, P&G destroyed all of its corporate e-mail.[82]
The court refused to infer a
general duty to preserve all e-mail messages.[83] It did, however, find that “P&G's
failure to search or preserve the e-mail communications of the five individuals
that P&G had itself identified as having relevant information constitute[d]
a sanctionable breach of P&G's discovery duties.”[84] Because P&G knew that the e-mail
messages of those specified individuals were relevant, yet destroyed them, the
court sanctioned P&G $2,000.00 per individual, for a total sanction of
$10,000.00.[85]
Electronic
Mail
The most prolific, and often the
most damaging, type of electronic evidence is e-mail.[86] The casual, conversational tone of e-mail
messages, the shear number of messages generated, and the misconception of
e-mail users that e-mail is a private and temporary communication, makes e-mail
a prime target for discovery.
In this section I will define
what an e-mail message is and how e-mail systems work. Then I will summarize the basic principles
gathered throughout this paper as they apply to e-mail in particular.
What & How
In order to appreciate the unique
characteristics of e-mail as it relates to litigation discovery, it is
necessary to understand what e-mail is and how it operates.[87]
(1)
E-mail Defined
The National Archives And Records
Administration (NARA) defines e-mail as "[a] document created or received
on an electronic mail system including brief notes, more formal or substantive
narrative documents, and any attachments, such as word processing and other
electronic documents, which may be transmitted with the messages."[88] An e-mail system is "[a] computer
application used to create, receive, and transmit messages and other
documents."[89]
(2)
How e-mail works
E-mail
is transmitted through the Internet, private e-mail service providers or
directly through a telephone line.[90] Then, the message is bounced through a
network of computers where, at each bouncing point, the message is stored
temporarily, until the message reaches its intended destination.[91]
After the
message is received, the e-mail message resides on the hard drive of the sender
and the recipient, the local and wide area network servers, the e-mail provider
servers, and perhaps a mainframe.[92]
Often, the recipient will file the message in a directory, usually in an
“ad-hoc” manner.[93]
As pointed
out in this paper, each of the computers involved in transmitting e-mail
messages from the author of an e-mail to its intended recipient, will likely
have its data copied in order to back up or archive its contents. Therefore, when the e-mail is “deleted” from
the recipient’s hard drive, several exact copies of the e-mail may still exist
elsewhere.
Even if a
party does not have any backup or archive tapes of e-mail messages, the
“deleted” e-mail probably still resides on the hard drive of the recipient and
of the author.[94] This is true because “delete” on a computer
system does not mean “erase.”[95] Rather, deleting data from a computer hard
drive merely reallocates the storage area from “stored” to “free.”[96]
Depending
on the size of the hard drive, a deleted e-mail message may actually exist for
quite some time on both hard drives (not to mention the “bouncing” points).[97] The e-mail message will “exist” until the
computer system writes another file to the “free” space that the e-mail message
originally occupied.[98]
Even after
the space has been reallocated and another file saved in the space once
occupied by the e-mail message, remnants of the e-mail message may still be
discoverable by a competent computer forensic expert.[99]
e-discovery to e-mail
The basic principles of
e-discovery, as discussed in this paper, are applicable to e-mail. First, hard copy e-mail messages are
discoverable. Second, a discovering
party may demand those messages be produced in electronic form in order to more
effectively analyze the data and, additionally, to inspect the “hidden data,”
available only in the electronic version.
Third, even if an e-mail message was never printed out, the raw data
that makes up an e-mail message is discoverable and must be produced, even if
the discovering party requested only “written documents.”
Finally, holding on to e-mail
messages too long, or alternatively, destroying them too soon, can result in
severe repercussions for a company. If
held too long, a company may face large recovery and analysis costs. Additionally, a company may hold the
“digital smoking gun” far longer than the law would require.
If e-mail messages are destroyed
too soon, the company may face sanctions in the form of a default judgment,
dismissal, an adverse inference and/or a monetary award to the other side.[100] This may be true even if a company has a
valid document retention program in place.[101]
In Garreth Shaw v. Hughes
Aircraft Co., Shaw, a former Hughes employee, brought a wrongful
termination and defamation suit against Hughes.[102] Shaw sought e-mail messages from Hughes that
were relevant to his action.[103] Hughes, knowing litigation was underway,
followed through with their retention program and destroyed all e-mail messages
after 90 days.[104]
The judge instructed the jury to
consider the missing e-mail messages favorable to Shaw.[105] Thereafter, the jury awarded Shaw $593,000
in damages, $90,000 was directly attributable to the inference of wrong doing
from the missing e-mail messages.[106]
Conclusion
With all of the e-mail out there,
companies must learn about e-mail discovery early, in order to avoid overzealous
adversaries willing to disrupt their opponent’s business and force them to sift
through large quantities of data, just to force a settlement in case without
merit.
If your company is facing
litigation or potential litigation, here are some tips:
1.
Do not delete e-mail messages from your information system
Chances are, the e-mail will
still exist, either on your computer system or another, in whole or in
part. Furthermore, even if you succeed
in removing the e-mail message from your system completely, a computer forensic
expert can determine that something was destroyed and the court may still
sanction your company for destroying evidence (remember Hughes Aircraft?).
2.
Preserve evidence - mirror all hard drives & other
storage media
Even inadvertent destruction of
data may result in sanctions being imposed against your company. Remember, the court doesn’t know what was
destroyed. So, under the spoliation
doctrine, the court will make an adverse inference against you.
3.
Freeze any future document destruction
Even if your company has a
previously enacted document retention policy, documents should not be
destroyed, nor anything that may look like evidence in order to prevent
sanctions for being imposed on the company for destruction.
4.
Inventory Storage Devices and Hardware
In order to locate relevant
electronic data, when faced with litigation, a company should conduct an
inventory of all the electronic media storage devices and computer hardware
that are used to store business information.[107] Before you can gather and analyze data to
determine its relevance, you have to know where to look.
5.
Analyze all e-mail messages before handing them over
It is better to learn early what
your opponent will soon come to know.
Therefore, your company should analyze any piece of e-mail from the
perspective of your adversary, before sending it out to them.
E-mail discovery is here to
stay. Some of the most newsworthy
events in recent years involved e-mail messages thought to be destroyed, but
which were, in fact, discoverable.[108] Today, less than 50% of Americans have
access to e-mail.[109] In a short time, that number is sure to
approach 100%.[110] Is your company ready?
[1] Jeanne L.
Allert, A 12-Step (or so) Program for Information Junkies. (managing
information technology), 55 Training & Dev 32, ¶10 (2001).
[2] Id. The number of e-mail messages sent every year rises
sharply. Broken down by daily use, the
estimated number of e-mail messages sent in the United States is:
Year
|
Estimated e-mail Messages
|
1994
|
100,000,000
|
1998
|
500,000,000
|
2002
|
1,500,000,000*
|
*Projected
[3] Samuel A.
Thumma, Darrel S. Jackson, The History Of Electronic Mail In Litigation,
16 Computer & High Tech. L.J. 1, 2 (1999).
[4] For a
company with 100 employees, using an average of 8 messages generated and 3
messages received every working day would total 275,000 e-mail messages stored
annually. See, Id. at 3.
[5] See,
Armen Artinyan, Legal Impediments To Discovery And Destruction Of E-Mail,
2 J. Legal Advoc. & Prac. 95 (2000).
[6] Carey Sirota
Meyer & Kari L. Wraspir, E-Discovery: Preparing Clients For (And Protecting
Them Against) Discovery In The Electronic Information Age, 26 Wm. Mitchell
L. Rev. 939, 940 (2000).
[7] John T. Soma & Steven G. Austin, A Practical Guide
To Discovering Computerized Files In Complex Litigation, 11 Rev. Litig.
501, 506 (1992).
[8] See, Joey Frazier, Electronic Sleuthing: John Jessen's
Evidence Discovery Enterprise, 10 NO. 22 Law. PC 1 (1993) (John Jessen
claims that “Twenty to thirty percent of information stored electronically is
never printed”). See also, Corinne
L. Giacobbe, Allocating Discovery Costs in the Computer Age: Deciding Who
Should Bear the Costs of Discovery of Electronically Stored Data, 57 Wash
& Lee L. Rev. 257, 259(2000)(It is estimated that nearly 33% of all
electronically stored data is never printed to paper.). See also, Mark D. Robins, Computers
and the Discovery of Evidence - A New Dimension to Civil Procedure, 17 J.
Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 411, 413 (1999).
[9] See,
Kimberly D. Richard, Electronic Evidence: To Produce Or Not To Produce, That
Is The Question, 21 Whittier L. Rev. 463, 464 (1999). See also, Artinyan, supra note
5 at §III.
[10] See,
Giacobbe, supra note 8 at 259.
[11] Anti-Monopoly,
Inc. v. Hasbro, Inc., 94 CIV.2120 (LLM) (AJP), 1995 WL 649934, at 2
(S.D.N.Y. 1995)
[12] Fed. R.
Civ. P. 1. State courts operate under
state codes. However, most state codes
of civil procedure resemble the federal rules.
[13] See,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 (amended 1970) & Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (amended 1993). States have similar discovery rules. (e.g. Minn. R. Civ. P. 34.01. & Minn. R.
Civ. P. 26.01, Ala. R. Civ. P. 34 &
Ala. R. Civ. P. 26).
[14] Fed. R.
Civ. P. 34(a) (amended 1970)
[15] Fed. R.
Civ. P. 34 (1970 advisory comm. notes).
[16] Fed. R.
Civ. P. 34(a) (amended 1970). See
also, Susan J. Silvernail, Electronic Evidence: Discovery In The
Computer Age, 58 Ala. Law. 176, 176 (1997).
[17] Fed. R.
Civ. P. 34 (1970 advisory comm. notes).
[18] See,
Silvernail, supra note 16.
[19] Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b) (amended 1993).
[20] See,
Artinyan, supra note 5.
[21] Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b) (amended 1993).
[22] See,
Meyer, supra note 6, at 962.
[23] See,
Meyer, supra note 6, at n.11. See
also, Ronald L. Plesser & Emilio W. Cividanes, Discovery And Other
Problems Related To Electronically Stored Data And Privacy, 415 PLI/Pat 277 (1995).
[26] Meyer, supra
note 6, at n.11.
[29] Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b) (amended 1993).
[30] See,
National Union Electric Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.,
494 F. Supp. 1257 (D. Pa. 1980). See
also, Daewoo Electric Co. v. United States, 650 F. Supp.
1003, 1006 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1986) (concluding that the burdens of producing
electronic data with those of producing ordinary files are comparable. “It would be a
dangerous development in the law if new techniques for easing the use of
information become a hindrance to discovery or disclosure in litigation.”).
[31] See,
Giacobbe, supra note 8 at 260 - 261.
[32] National
Union, 494 F. Supp. 1257. See
also, Susan J. Silvernail, Electronic Evidence: Discovery In The
Computer Age, 58 Ala. Law. 176, 177 (1997).
[35] Id. The discovering party said it would “take
two months and cost many thousands of dollars” to convert the hard copies to
electronic versions if the respondent was not forced to cooperate.
[37] “This
process will escalate in years to come; we suspect that by the year 2000
virtually all data will be stored in some form of computer memory. To
interpret the Federal Rules which, after all, are to be construed to ‘secure
the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action’, F. R. Civ. P.
1, in a manner which would preclude the production of material such as
is requested here, would eventually defeat their purpose.” Id. at 1263 – 64.
[40] See,
Robins, supra note 8 at 415. See
also, Giacobbe, supra note 8 at 260 – 261.
[43] See,
Giacobbe, supra note 8 at 259.
[45] Crown Life Insurance v. Craig, 995 F.2d 1376, 1382 - 83 (7th Cir. 1993).
[61] Jonathan J. Soll, Managing Electronic Data Risks Through
An Email Retention Policy 18 NO. 4 ACCA Docket 18, 22 (2000).
[62] See, Giacobbe, supra note 8 at
262.
[63] See,
Artinyan, supra note 5 at §V D.
[65] Matthew J.
Bester, A Wreck on the Info-Bahn: Electronic Mail and the Destruction of
Evidence, 6 Comm Law Conspectus 75, 79 (1998).
[66] Nancy E.
Enneking, Managing e-mail: working toward an effective solution, Rec.
Mgmt. Q., July 1998, at 25.
[76] Bester, supra
note 65 at 79.
[77] Spoliation
is defined as "the destruction or significant and meaningful alteration of
a document or instrument in pending or future litigation." Black's Law
Dictionary 1401 (6th ed.
1990).
[78] Kevin Eng, Spoliation
of Electronic Evidence, 5 B.U. J. Sci. & Tech. L. 13, ¶4 (1999).
[79] Procter
& Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 179 F.R.D. 622, 631 (D. Utah 1998).
[80] See,
Eng, supra note 78 at ¶1 (quoting, Lawrence Solum & Stephen Marzen, Truth
and Uncertainty: Legal Control of the Destruction of Evidence, 36 EMORY
L.J. 1085, 1138 (1987)).
[86] Artinyan, supra
note 5 at §I.
[88] National Archives and
Records Administration, 36 C.F.R. 1234.2.
Electronic mail system. A computer application used
to create, receive, and transmit messages and other documents. Excluded from
this definition are file transfer utilities (software that transmits files
between users but does not retain any transmission data), data systems used to
collect and process data that have been organized into data files or data bases
on either personal computers or mainframe computers, and word processing
documents not transmitted on an e-mail system.
Electronic mail message. A document created or
received on an electronic mail system including brief notes, more formal or
substantive narrative documents, and any attachments, such as word processing
and other electronic documents, which may be transmitted with the message.
Electronic recordkeeping system. An electronic system in
which records are collected, organized, and categorized to facilitate their
preservation, retrieval, use, and disposition.
Transmission and receipt data.
(1)
Transmission data. Information in electronic mail systems regarding the identities of
sender and addressee(s), and the date and time messages were sent.
(2)
Receipt data. Information in
electronic mail systems regarding date and time of receipt of a message, and/or
acknowledgment of receipt or access by addressee(s).
[94] Lawrence
Aragon, E-mail is not beyond the law; electronic data preservation policies;
PC Week Executive; Industry Trend or Event, PC Week (Oct. 6, 1997).
[95] See,
Giacobbe, supra note 8 at 264. See
also, Richard supra note 9 at 467.
[99] Robins, supra
note 8 at 417.
[101] Aragon, supra
note 94.
[107] See,
Meyer, supra note 6, at 962.
[108] Donald C.
Massey, Discovery of Electronic Data from Motor Carriers - Is Resistance
Futile?, 35 Gonz. L. Rev. 145, 147 (2000)( Monica Lewinsky “talking
points" she thought she had deleted from her computer). Bester, supra note 65 at 77.
(discussing the e-mail messages Oliver North thought were deleted, which were
later retrieved from his computer and used against him).
[109] See,
Enneking, supra note 66 at Research Results.