CALIFORNIA LAW REGARDING REDACTED EMAIL SOFTWARE
If e-discovery software is used to redact documents, be sure it “re-OCRs” (Optical Character Recognition, which translates images into text characters) any related text files. If redaction is just a layer hiding visible text, it may be possible to remove the layer and view the text, which makes redaction useless.Īnother additional step to ensure complete redaction of information is confirming any associated text file does not contain the text that you want redacted. This means that the redaction does more than just obscuring a portion of the document image, but also completely replaces all redacted information in the document–including any searchable text. When using redaction tools you must “burn” in the redaction. Sometimes additional steps are necessary to ensure the data selected for redaction is actually redacted. However, there might be more to redaction than just obscuring confidential text contained on document images. On most e-discovery platforms, the cursor is used to highlight and select the text to be redacted. If e-discovery software used, redaction is generally straightforward. Regardless of the reason supporting redaction, it needs to be done right. If There is a Basis for Redaction, Be Sure it is Done Right 1, 2016), the court permitted redaction of irrelevant, but otherwise discoverable information because it was sensitive business information that should not be available to competitors.
For instance, in In re Takata Airbag Prods. Rather than relying on the irrelevance of information to justify redaction, parties may be able to persuade a court that redacting irrelevant information is acceptable for other reasons. May Be OK to Redact Irrelevant Information If Justified for Other Reason The court believed that allowing for the redaction of irrelevant information creates the “potential for abuse” because permitting litigants to unilaterally decide what is germane to a case deprives other parties from seeing information in context and fuels mistrust in the discovery process. The court pointed out that despite 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure emphasizing discovery proportionality, the rules still permit discovery of information even if it is inadmissible as evidence. The company’s position did not persuade the court. 26, 2017), the company argued that it had basis to redact the information because it was irrelevant to the case and redacting it protected sensitive business information. Indeed, a federal court in Wisconsin ordered a litigant to reproduce information because many of the documents originally produced contained redactions. As one court observed, “he practice of redacting for nonresponsiveness or irrelevance finds no explicit support in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” 5.2.īut what about irrelevant information in a document that should otherwise be turned over in litigation? Generally speaking, irrelevant information probably cannot be redacted unless it is protected from disclosure under another rule. Personally identifiable information (PII) should also be redacted from federal court filings.
See e.g., Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5). It almost goes without saying that privileged information and attorney work product may be redacted. Other than Privileged Information and Attorney Work Product, Right to Redact Limited But, if there is a basis for redaction, steps should be taken to ensure it is done correctly. Is there a legal basis to redact irrelevant information from documents produced in litigation? As a few court opinions explain, probably not unless there is another good reason to withhold it.
0 kommentar(er)
