Tag Archives: Redaction

Posted on

I Thought We Were Past This

by

I saw a link in the ABA Journal Law News Now this morning that simply floored me.

The Journal article states:

A federal judge’s opinion in Apple’s patent infringement suit against Samsung Electronics was formatted in a way that exposed redacted information.

The mistaken revelation in the opinion issued Friday by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh discussed Apple studies showing its customers are unlikely to switch to Samsung’s Android devices, Reuters reports. The redacted portions also included some details on Apple’s licensing deals with Nokia and IBM.

iPad and Galaxy TabThe Reuters article includes additional details about the “redacted” information. According to the news stories, it appears that the information that was supposed to have been redacted did not contain any information that was truly secret.

Whether the information should have been redacted is an interesting question. However, it is not the issue that interests me. My interest is with the inability of people to properly use their software.

In 2009, I wrote about a redaction issue involving Facebook and ConnectU. What I said then applies equally now:

The reality is that it is not too much to ask for basic technical competence from people who are publishing allegedly redacted documents. It’s one thing to not have a full understanding of all of your computer’s programs. However, if someone is going to release allegedly redacted documents on the internet, it is not unreasonable to have that person actually ensure that the documents are redacted properly. The thing that makes this worse is that the document could have been redacted in Acrobat easily and, if done with the redaction tool, none of the confidential information would remain in the document.

The software to properly redact information is readily available and easy to use. To have an error of this type is simply inexcusable.

 

Posted on

Avoiding Ethical Pitfalls with Redaction

by

I recently noted that I had co-authored an article on metadata. The second part of that article has now been published by the State Bar of Wisconsin. This portion focuses on redaction. You can find links to both parts of the article here. I wantto give a big thanks to my co-author Nerino Petro for making sure that this article got published.

Posted on

Maybe Blago’s Attorneys Should Have Attended an ISBA CLE

by

At Law and Conversation, Helen Gunnarsson is reporting about the motion recently filed by attorneys for Rod Blagojevich. The motion, which seeks to subpoena the President, was supposed to contain redacted information. The information, of course, was not actually redacted, and, instead, was simply covered by black boxes. As Helen notes, both the Tribune and the Sun Times are reporting that this error was caused by a “computer glitch.”

This is the most ridiculous thing I have heard. A “computer glitch” does not cause this problem. The problem is caused because someone did not redact the document properly. There are ways in which a document can be properly redacted, and ways in which it is not properly redacted. Having a document that is improperly redacted is no more a computer glitch than having a document that is properly redacted.

As Helen mentioned in her post, Nerino Petro and I spoke on this issue at the ISBA Solo and Small Firm Conference last fall. Additionally, Helen recently wrote about this topic in the ISBA Bar Journal. Further, both Nerino & I reprised our presentation just last week in Chicago. Further, one need not look far to notice the large number of news stories that talk about redaction done wrong.

This is not a complicated task. Further, it is not one that you can ignore. Before the Northern District of Illinois allows you to sign in to the CM/ECF system, it requires you to check a box stating “I understand that, if I file, I must comply with the redaction rules. I have read this notice.”

Clearly this check box does not prevent someone from filing an improperly redacted document. However, it should make attorneys question the fact of whether they have properly redacted the document they are about to upload to the ECF system.

Updated:

I am glad that someone in the mainstream media has finally pointed out that this was not caused by a computer glitch. As Eric Zorn states:

Not to get too fussy, but the computers used in this caper all seem to have performed perfectly. The “glitch,” discovered yesterday at almost the same time by competing reporters, was in the brain of the person on the Blagojevich defense team . . . .

Thanks Eric for pointing this out.

Posted on

Legal Technology for Non-Techies

by

On April 16, 2010, from 1 to 5:15 pm I will be one of the speakers at a CLE on Legal Technology for Non-Techies. The CLE is through the Illinois State Bar Association and is sponsored by the Standing Committee on Legal Technology and the Senior Lawyers Section. The topics covered include using practice management software, Creating a paperless environment, managing metadata and redaction, and paperless communication with clients.

If you practice in federal court, the information relating to redaction should be especially relevant to you. In the Northern District of Illinois, when you log into the CM/ECF system, you are greeted with the following:

Redaction Notice Northern District Illinois

If you don’t understand how to properly redact your documents, you run the risk of running afoul of these rules. If you are not sure about your redaction knowledge, I urge you to attend our presentation.

Posted on

Redaction Done Wrong. Again!

by

At times I am amazed at the technical incompetency of some people. Recently the AP was able to discover the confidential details of  the settlement between Facebook and ConnectU because whoever “redacted” the confidential information did not actually redact the information. Instead of properly redacting information from the document, the person simply put white boxes over the “redacted” information. Because of this, “The Associated Press was able to read the blacked-out portions by copying from an electronic version of the document and pasting the results into another document.”

Additionally, there are multiple other ways in which the information can be read in Adobe Acrobat. In fact, if you choose Document > Examine Document, in Adobe Acrobat, Acrobat will create a report that lists all of the “redacted” information.

To view the document yourself, click here.

The reality is that it is not too much to ask for basic technical competence from people who are publishing allegedly redacted documents. It’s one thing to not have a full understanding of all of your computer’s programs. However, if someone is going to release allegedly redacted documents on the internet, it is not unreasonable to have that person actually ensure that the documents are redacted properly. The thing that makes this worse is that the document could have been redacted in Acrobat easily and, if done with the redaction tool, none of the confidential information would remain in the document.

In a great coincidence I attended an Adobe webinar on redaction just days after the AP story broke. If you would like to learn more about redaction, you can check out information from that webinar here.

Hat tip to PDF for Lawyers for first linking to this story.