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. The owner is not an attorney, and nothing posted on this site should be construed as legal advice. Litigation Support Tip of the Night does not provide confirmation that any e-discovery technique or conduct is compliant with legal, regulatory, contractual or ethical requirements.
Featured on the ACEDS blog.
The new Lanceleaf version 11.2 Relativity One will be released in the United States on September 12. One of the great new features is that integration points will perform automatic field mapping between a workspace and the load file.
Relativity notifies admins if there are fields of different sizes.
Lanceleaf will also include a field named "Is Published?" to track when documents have been published to a workspace.
Relativity Integration Points (RIPs) assist with the import of data from third party systems into Relativity workspaces. RIPs facilitate field mapping. RIPs provide the same functionality as Relativity Desktop Client. Relativity 9.5 and later work with RIPs.
When importing data with csv files select Document as the dynamic object.
Integration points can be set to sync data at different intervals. Data is imported via FTP addresses.
When mapping fields be sure to set a unique identifier and an object identifier - these are the only two required fields.
The Maryland Court of Appeals has ruled that social media authentication should be held to a high standard. In Griffin v. State 419 Md. 343, 363, 364 (2011), the Marykand Court of Appeals found social media evidence must be shown to have not been subject to hacking or other manipulation.
Circumstantial evidence under the reasonable juror standard is not sufficient. Facts in some cases before the Maryland courts indicate that if a user of a social media account has shared her password with other people courts will find there is not sufficient grounds to authenticate the evidence. However courts have also excepted evidence in situations in which detectives also made use of special software in order to confirm the identity of a person making social media posts.
In Griffin, Maryland Court of Appeals set up a three factor test:
Did the purported user acknowledge that they created the post?
Does analysis of the computer show that a user of the computer made the post?
Has the social networking site been able to confirm that a particular user made a particular post?
If any one of these three points is confirmed the social media evidence will be authenticated.