Jump to content

Federal Judge Burned by Metadata


TwiceHorn

Recommended Posts

Kind of a funny story came across my google feed.  https://abovethelaw.com/2022/02/federal-judge-burned-by-metadata/  

Apparently, a federal judge in a trade secret case appointed a "special master" for the case.  A special master assists the court/judge with specialized knowledge about the subject matter of a case.  Usually, it's like an IP lawyer with some engineering or scientific training that makes findings that the actual judge can adopt, reject, or modify in making actual rulings in the case.

Apparently, the judge in writing opinions and orders, used the documents generated by the special master as a template or form, thus leaving the author field as "special master" or someone associated with the special master.

One of the parties, presumably the losers on some rulings, made a motion to recuse the judge on the ground that she wasn't independently writing those rulings, based on the metadata, the author field on the document.

Bold move, Cotton.  It didn't work.

As a lawdog, I have been tempted at times to conclude things based on the metadata in a Word doc or pdf, but it's a hazardous business for exactly this reason.  There is actually software to strip metadata from documents to avoid this kind of thing.  I should probably be more rigorous in using it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't  understand the headline from abovethelaw. It doesn't seem like the judge was burned at all.  First, I'm not clear how even if everything occurred as alleged by the moving party it actually a basis for recusal. In fact, I'm almost certain that it is not. At most it may be a basis for an appeal of a court's ruling. And in some jurisdictions winning an appeal may get you a new judge as a matter of course (Utah District Court does this). But, more importantly, it is really the moving party that got burned. You come at the king, you best not miss. Basing a recusal motion on a tenuous theory is bad enough. But anyone that has done significant e-discovery work knows that the author field just tells you who (or rather which user id) initially created a document, not who authored its content. This was just bad and sloppy lawyering. 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't  understand the headline from abovethelaw. It doesn't seem like the judge was burned at all.  First, I'm not clear how even if everything occurred as alleged by the moving party it actually a basis for recusal. In fact, I'm almost certain that it is not. At most it may be a basis for an appeal of a court's ruling. And in some jurisdictions winning an appeal may get you a new judge as a matter of course (Utah District Court does this). But, more importantly, it is really the moving party that got burned. You come at the king, you best not miss. Basing a recusal motion on a tenuous theory is bad enough. But anyone that has done significant e-discovery work knows that the author field just tells you who (or rather which user id) initially created a document, not who authored its content. This was just bad and sloppy lawyering. 

Yeah, the stupidity of it is the funny part.

Interesting about the Utah court.  Never heard of that as a routine practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears that the plaintiff and recusal movant there is represented by Crowell & Moring, which is, as far as I know, a firm that should collectively know better.

The opinion is here https://casetext.com/case/arconic-corp-v-novelis-inc-2/?PHONE_NUMBER_GROUP=P

And it appears that the plaintiff engaged in one of the most bad-faith of trade secret litigation tactics:  failure to identify trade secrets at issue.  That's always the earmark of a bad case and/or bad lawyering.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, does anybody other than lawyers ever examine the properties on a Word doc or pdf and find some interesting "information" about who may have authored the document and/or when?

Seems you rarely have an opportunity to do anything with that information, and you probably had better take it with a degree of salt.

This is one where someone acted, didn't take the degree of salt, and looked foolish in the process.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Forensic accountant here -- I always look at metadata on errything!

One of the favorites was when you get some type of shitty letter from opposing counsel, usually signed by a partner.  You look at the metadata and you may find out which associate drafted it initially.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Macanudo said:

Aren't a significant amount of SCOTUS opinions actually written by the Clerks?

Yes. At least the research parts of them.  I imagine the prose parts are pretty heavily edited by the justices themselves in most cases. That's a slightly different deal than this, but not much.

As dahobbs pointed out, the judge wasn't really "burned" by this, the plaintiff and its lawyers were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

One of the favorites was when you get some type of shitty letter from opposing counsel, usually signed by a partner.  You look at the metadata and you may find out which associate drafted it initially.

Or that the document was originally drafted for another matter altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't know, does anybody other than lawyers ever examine the properties on a Word doc or pdf and find some interesting "information" about who may have authored the document and/or when?

Seems you rarely have an opportunity to do anything with that information, and you probably had better take it with a degree of salt.

This is one where someone acted, didn't take the degree of salt, and looked foolish in the process.

 

Yes, when I used to work in forensics but it was usually to detect if someone attempted to modify the metadata to cover up changes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

Aren't a significant amount of SCOTUS opinions actually written by the Clerks?

 

50 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yes. At least the research parts of them.  I imagine the prose parts are pretty heavily edited by the justices themselves in most cases. That's a slightly different deal than this, but not much.

As dahobbs pointed out, the judge wasn't really "burned" by this, the plaintiff and its lawyers were.

I can tell you from personal experience that I drafted, with generally very limited editing, dozens of oral argument opinions.  I didn't decide the case, but after I was given direction from my judge, I was given pretty free rein to draft the opinion.  There was only one instance that I can recall where the judge had me rewrite the opinion because he thought I had gotten too cute with it (IIRC I had written it like a Posner opinion with some sort of musical theme or something in the headings).

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that this lawyer's "gotcha" moment was that the judge may have signed an opinion drafted by a member of his staff makes me laugh.  Even if the judge had, in fact, drafted that opinion, who cares.  If the judge signs the opinion, it's the judge's (court's) opinion.  In Texas, I'd suggest this is commonplace, even if the % varies from court to court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Kind of a funny story came across my google feed.  https://abovethelaw.com/2022/02/federal-judge-burned-by-metadata/  

Apparently, a federal judge in a trade secret case appointed a "special master" for the case.  A special master assists the court/judge with specialized knowledge about the subject matter of a case.  Usually, it's like an IP lawyer with some engineering or scientific training that makes findings that the actual judge can adopt, reject, or modify in making actual rulings in the case.

Apparently, the judge in writing opinions and orders, used the documents generated by the special master as a template or form, thus leaving the author field as "special master" or someone associated with the special master.

One of the parties, presumably the losers on some rulings, made a motion to recuse the judge on the ground that she wasn't independently writing those rulings, based on the metadata, the author field on the document.

Bold move, Cotton.  It didn't work.

As a lawdog, I have been tempted at times to conclude things based on the metadata in a Word doc or pdf, but it's a hazardous business for exactly this reason.  There is actually software to strip metadata from documents to avoid this kind of thing.  I should probably be more rigorous in using it.

I'm paranoid about the metadata filters.  I work at one of the big shops (I say that only because I presume we have paid for decent software) and sometimes our metadata filter will do weird things to the doc trying to clean a pdf or word file.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't know, does anybody other than lawyers ever examine the properties on a Word doc or pdf and find some interesting "information" about who may have authored the document and/or when?

Seems you rarely have an opportunity to do anything with that information, and you probably had better take it with a degree of salt.

This is one where someone acted, didn't take the degree of salt, and looked foolish in the process.

 

 

School district I used to work for as their IT director; years ago had an issue with a number of faculty who did not want the superintendent retained.  One of the supporting documents was a letter from the school police chief stating examples such as poor work environment, lack of security focus would cause students to be injured, etc.  General axe grinding stuff.  

One of the high school principals was staunchly pro-superintendent, and wrote a positive piece concerning the superintendent.  

Turns out after looking at the metadata, the principal was playing both sides.  He wrote the letter for both the police chief and himself on his school computer.  Since the metadata was created using his network login information, there was no doubt who the "author" was.  The only other possibility was that the police officer was using the principal's computer...or the principal logged into the police chief's computer.   

Superintendent was retained, police chief resigned...then supt presented the principal with the two letters and the metadata.

Principal resigned not long after.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

School district I used to work for as their IT director; years ago had an issue with a number of faculty who did not want the superintendent retained.  One of the supporting documents was a letter from the school police chief stating examples such as poor work environment, lack of security focus would cause students to be injured, etc.  General axe grinding stuff.  

One of the high school principals was staunchly pro-superintendent, and wrote a positive piece concerning the superintendent.  

Turns out after looking at the metadata, the principal was playing both sides.  He wrote the letter for both the police chief and himself on his school computer.  Since the metadata was created using his network login information, there was no doubt who the "author" was.  The only other possibility was that the police officer was using the principal's computer...or the principal logged into the police chief's computer.   

Superintendent was retained, police chief resigned...then supt presented the principal with the two letters and the metadata.

Principal resigned not long after.

 

 

What was the end goal here? Cue Joker picture? 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...