Skip to content

MENU

Farrell Fritz, P.C. logo
HomeAuthorFarrell FritzSubscribeContact

All About eDiscovery

Case Law & Best Practices

Home » Much Ado About Metadata?

Much Ado About Metadata?

Photo of Kathryn Cole
By Kathryn Cole on August 8, 2019
Posted in E-discovery, ESI, Metadata

Anyone reading this blog has likely heard about metadata and its potential role in a litigation (See, “Never Agree to Do Something Your Client Cannot Do;” “The Perils of Self-Collection;” and “A Lawyer’s Obligation to be Technologically Competent – Part 4”).  But we must remember that if metadata is an integral part of one’s litigation (and it often is), it must be a key consideration addressed promptly in the litigation life-cycle because potentially relevant documents must be collected in a way that ensures the metadata of a file is not inadvertently altered.

You may ask, why is metadata important?  Among other things, extracted fields of data (for emails this includes the author, recipients, date sent, subject etc.) and metadata fields (for other electronic documents this includes the creation date, author, date last modified, title, etc.) provides the structure of a document database including the relationship between emails and attachments, the original path of the document, and the source of the document. Providing this data during discovery promotes efficiencies of time and contains costs.

If, however, documents have been collected or accessed in a manner that altered metadata, the data produced will be compromised.  Additionally, if the original metadata was not preserved, the data produced may reflect as the creation date, for example, the date the data was collected, or reviewed. This is not only misleading, but may raise avoidable questions about spoliation and the integrity of the collection, processing, and review process.  It is therefore critically important to think about metadata at the very initial stages of a litigation.

Additionally, it is advisable to confer with your adversary about what metadata is being produced.  There are many potential fields but certain ones are more standard than others.  For example, the following are fairly typical metadata fields (although some are file-specific):

  • FileName
  • FilePath
  • FileSize
  • Hash
  • Language
  • StartPage
  • EndPage
  • ReviewComment
  • From
  • To
  • CC
  • BCC
  • Subject
  • Header
  • DateSent
  • DateReceived
  • HasAttachments
  • AttachmentCount
  • BegAttach
  • EndAttach
  • Attachment Names
  • ReadFlag
  • ImportanceFlag
  • MessageClass
  • FlagStatus
  • FileName
  • FileExtension
  • FileSize
  • DateCreated
  • DateAccessed
  • DateModified
  • DatePrinted
  • Title
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Company
  • Category
  • Keywords
  • Comments

Because metadata can be useful in a litigation strategy (i.e., it can help highlight patterns, establish timelines, point to gaps in the data and connect data to a particular user) it should be discussed at the outset of litigation along with steps necessary to collect data in a way that ensures the integrity of that metadata.

Have questions?  Please contact me at kcole@farrellfritz.com.

Tags: Document Production, e-discovery, eDiscovery, Electronic Discovery, ESI, Litigation Strategy, Metadata
Print:
EmailTweetLikeLinkedIn
Related Posts
  • The Document Demand That Seeks Electronically Stored Information
  • The Perils of Self-Collection
  • The Seven Commandments of Proportionality in ESI*
  • Is Your Zoom-Bombed Meeting Discoverable?
  • The Costs of E-Discovery and What May be Recoverable Under 28 U.S.C. § 1920

Blog Authors Show/Hide

  • Kathryn Cole

Stay Connected

RSS LinkedIn Twitter Facebook

Subscribe By Email

Topics

Archives

Recent Updates

  • Is Your Zoom-Bombed Meeting Discoverable?
  • The Costs of E-Discovery and What May be Recoverable Under 28 U.S.C. § 1920
  • TAR 1.0 vs TAR 2.0: Is the Newer Version the Better Version?
  • “You Can’t Heal What You Never Reveal”: Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Sanctions and Adverse Inference at Trial Because Jay-Z and S. Carter Enterprises Destroyed Emails After Litigation Was “Reasonably Anticipated.”
  • The City of Chicago Employs “TAR” to Facilitate Review, But Doing So Is Not Without Issue

Farrell Fritz Blogs

  • Federal Government Civil Litigation
  • Long Island Land Use & Zoning
  • New York Business Divorce
  • NY Commercial Division Practice
  • NY Health Law
  • NY Trusts & Estates Litigation
  • NY Venture Hub
  • Tax Law for the Closely-Held Business
Copyright © 2021, Farrell Fritz, P.C. All Rights Reserved.
DisclaimerPrivacy Policy
RSS LinkedIn Twitter Facebook
Attorney Advertising
Powered By  LexBlog
Farrell Fritz, P.C. (main office): 400 RXR Plaza, Uniondale, NY 11556-3826 (516) 227-0700