Access Restriction
Digital Rights Management lets companies safeguard electronic documents during discovery.
July 31, 2007 at 08:00 PM
6 minute read
Halliburton Co. has a lot of information it considers confidential–and it wants to keep it that way. Like many companies, the energy giant's success is dependent on keeping secrets, from financial data to IP.
To ensure this information stays under lock and key, Ron Perkowski, senior counsel at Halliburton, is turning an eye toward digital rights management (DRM).
“With this technology we could put a limited number of views on an electronic document, or we could even put a tracker on there so we know who looked at it,” he says.
DRM, also referred to as information rights management, is a type of software used to restrict access to and usage of information, especially copyrighted materials. The technology is more than a decade old but is just now seeing its debut for legal applications.
What propelled DRM into the legal spotlight was the new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which codified that electronically stored information is discoverable. Now that companies must produce electronic documents–some of which are very sensitive–in native format to outside parties, it's more crucial than ever to find ways to track and control the use of electronic information.
“Companies are tired of being at the mercy of the end user of a document, and so they're looking to control their information through its lifecycle,” says Brad Gross, chair of Becker & Poliakoff's business technology law group. “The ability to stop leaks has been the Holy Grail. DRM presents a viable and efficient way to accomplish those goals.”
Protecting IP
DRM gained popularity in the early 2000s when Apple used it to stop users from duplicating copyrighted songs they bought on iTunes. Programmers quickly realized the potential advantages of applying this technology to other kinds of electronic information. Now they use DRM to protect documents, as well as the media files the technology had historically been associated with.
This is good news for in-house counsel, who dread turning over sensitive documents during discovery. Now with DRM, counsel can protect sensitive information even after the documents leave the company.
“Attorneys know they have an obligation to produce confidential documents, and knowing that they have additional methods of protection might ease some of the angst associated with producing these things,” says Chris Kruse, president and CEO of CaseCentral, an e-discovery solutions provider. CaseCentral recently launched the first discovery solution that incorporates DRM technology– the CaseCentral Discovery Lifecycle Management platform with information rights management.
CaseCentral's software allows attorneys to assign security controls to documents by selecting from a list of 15 parameters. Once the user selects those parameters, the software puts the document into an encrypted envelope and sends it to CaseCentral's servers. If the lawyer decides to send that document to opposing counsel, that person's computer will establish a connection with CaseCentral's servers when that attorney opens the file. CaseCentral will then check and enforce the controls associated with that file.
“You can set it so the opposing party can't print a certain document, or you can make documents time sensitive so that they'll automatically become inaccessible at the end of a matter,” Kruse says.
Empowered with the confidence that confidential information won't be made public, experts predict companies using DRM will have less anxiety about taking matters to trial.
“Many cases are settled on the basis that companies come to the understanding they're going to have to disclose confidential documents,” Gross says. “Now with DRM, they can take comfort that their trade secrets won't be divulged.”
Authentic Files
Ensuring that confidential documents don't get disseminated across cyberspace during production may be one of the main uses of DRM in the legal marketplace, but it's not the only use.
Another role that DRM can fill during e-discovery is authentication. Under the amended Rules of Civil Procedure, producing parties no longer can turn all documents into a static format such as TIFF or PDF. They now must produce documents in native format. That means a producing party must hand over an Excel spreadsheet as an alterable document, opening the opportunity for unscrupulous opponents to alter evidence to their advantage.
To prevent this, DRM can attach digital fingerprints to documents. These digital fingerprints are basically unique serial numbers assigned to each file.
“Counsel can compare the fingerprint of a document at trial to the original document,” says Kevin Schick, chief operating officer of Vincera Inc., a data security solutions provider that uses DRM. “If the fingerprints match, you know the document has not been altered.”
Because DRM is basically a foolproof method of proving authenticity, litigants that use the technology will face fewer challenges to having documents admitted as evidence.
“When a court is confronted with a DRM-equipped document, there will be no viable argument against its authenticity,” Gross says. “This means the authenticity of a document will begin to be less of an issue in litigation.”
Legal experts speculate there could be even more uses for DRM technology. For example, employers could put controls on key documents to thwart employee theft. That's an area that Perkowski is especially interested in.
“We're not just interested in DRM for e-discovery purposes,” he says. “We're interested in DRM period. Protecting our IP when an employee leaves is a major legal issue in the IP field. We'd really like to find a way to limit the access and distribution of our own information internally without having to attach any sort of disruptive controls on it.”
Facing Flack
Before making the decision to invest in DRM technology, legal departments should consider its cost, which varies greatly depending on the size of the project. Both CaseCentral's and Vincera's solutions can range from a few thousand dollars to more than $100,000.
But that's not the only consideration. Plaintiffs' attorneys will likely fight tooth and nail against the use of DRM-protected documents, claiming the technology is invasive.
“Because DRM can allow you to monitor the usage of documents, plaintiffs' attorneys may claim you're capturing their work product because you can see what they're interested in,” Perkowski says. “I would certainly object to it like crazy if I was a plaintiff.”
If opposing counsel raise such objections, lawyers may have to convince courts that DRM should be allowed.
“Judges will be lost,” Gross says. “Courts are going to have to be educated. That's going to be a tedious hurdle to overcome, but it will have to be done for the true value of DRM to be realized.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCoinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250