The post-publication delete function in Relativity allows updates to processing results to be made accordingly after a document has been removed from the active workspace. Post-publication deletions will take place automatically after a delete mass operation has been performed, if and only if the option to delete all associated files is chosen.

You have the option to avoid deleting any documents with tags, redactions, or highlighting.

If some of the deleted documents are primary versions of duplicates not published to the workspace, deduplication will be re-run so a new primary document is published. Duplicates with the same custodian will not be automatically removed.

When a parent document is deleted, the child documents will be marked in the ‘Processing Deletion?’ field with a ‘Yes’, but also with a ‘Yes’ in the ‘Is Published?’ field where the parent document is marked ‘No’.

In Relativity Processing, an admin has the ability on the Files tab to see different views with a list of all documents for discovery; deleted files; and errored files before they are deduplicated and published to the workspace. Errored files, such as corrupt files or password protected files, can be republished, but without the extracted text or metadata.

A specific error is stated for errored files, and a separate field will indicate the phase in which the error occurred.

The square icons with a upwards, right pointing arrow in the Details column can be clicked on in order to see specific metadata for each file, and a list of the processing errors for the file and when they took place.

Discovered files can be republished by selecting the option in the mass operations menu.

.PST archives, .ZIP files, and files identified as duplicates cannot be republished. Repulishing must be performed to publish any errored files that have been retried. An overlay will be performed, and only one version of each file will remain.

Deleted files will be excluded from processing.

Recently, Justice Matthew D'Emic of the Supreme Court of New York for Kings County issued a decision, People v. Larkin, Index No. 774/2019, 2021 NYLJ LEXIS 525 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 25, 2021) denying the Defendant's motion to compel the disclosure of audit trails for body camera video footage. Noting that NY CPLR §245.20(10(g), which allows for the disclosure of body camera video, did not mention audit trails or metadata, the Court concluded that the audit trails should not be disclosed because they did not contain information on the crimes the Larkin was charged with, and were not necessary for authentication purposes.

Justice D'Emic rejected the Defendant's position that the audit trails constitute information on the subject matter of the case that was in the possession, custody and control of the State. He cited Appellate Division cases in which the disclosure of audit trail data was made contingent on whether or not it was necessary for authentication, or was related to the subject matter of a case. Chain of custody issues arise with respect to evidence in the custody of the police. "The audit trails sought by the defendant are created and maintained by Axon --- a private company over which neither the NYPD nor the People have direction or control. Consequently, the audit trails cannot be deemed to fall within the purview of CPL §245.20 under the theory that they are but one link in the chain of custody record." Id. at *8. He cited rulings holding that audio of taped conversations could be admitted without establishing a chain of custody, because conversations are unique and the participants can testify to their authenticity.

An affidavit submitted by a forensic expert on behalf of Larkin attesting to the essential role audit trails play in verifying electronic evidence was not deemed to be sufficient to establish them as being necessary for authentication. The Defendant made no showing that the video had been tampered with or that they would have information not contained in the video itself.

Sean O'Shea has more than 15 years of experience in the litigation support field with major law firms in New York and San Francisco.   He is an ACEDS Certified eDiscovery Specialist and a Relativity Certified Administrator.

The views expressed in this blog are those of the owner and do not reflect the views or opinions of the owner’s employer.


All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information.


This policy is subject to change at any time.