Court Opinion

ID: 9800519
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 08:21:25.214021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:56.898707
License: Public Domain

CROTHERS, Justice,
specially concurring.
[¶ 37] I write separately not out of disagreement with the Court’s decision but out of uncertainty, and hence concern, about where this holding will take us when electronically stored information becomes a greater source of evidence.
[¶ 38] We intuitively know that a great deal of information generated today is created by electronic means. People routinely communicate by electronic device, using electronic mail, text messages and social media. These electronic communications *194increasingly are used instead of handwritten correspondence, telephone calls and person-to-person conversation. Commercial and business transactions often occur by or with the assistance of electronic information exchanges. Evidence of these electronic events is both discoverable and admissible. See N.D.R.Civ.P. 34(a)(1)(A) (A party may request production of “any designated documents or electronically stored information — including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations — stored in any medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, after translation by the responding party into a reasonably usable form[.]”); N.D.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1)(A) (“[T]he phrase ‘electronically stored information’ includes reasonably accessible metadata that will enable the discovering party to have the ability to access such information as the date sent, date received, author, and recipients.”); State v. Thompson, 2010 ND 10, ¶ 26, 777 N.W.2d 617 (The district court did not err admitting evidence of text message after proponent offered sufficient authentication under N.D.R.Ev. 901.).
[¶39] One noted treatise on evidence explained the prevalence of electronic information:
“Individuals increasingly rely on computers in their daily lives for personal and business purposes. In business, correspondence by computer is rapidly becoming the preferred means of communication. Indeed, a substantial and growing amount of business data in the United States is now created and transmitted solely in electronic form.
“The Internet, which connects computers and their databases around the world, harnesses and magnifies the power of individual computers. Information located anywhere on the world-wide Internet computer network can be instantaneously accessed, retrieved, and downloaded from any computer, anywhere in the world. Equally important, the Internet serves as a vehicle to transmit electronic messages (e-mails).
“All this computer-based information is stored in various electronic and magnetic media, which provide vast resources that can be mined in discovery or seized from a party and admitted as evidence at trial. Bulky computers initially stored this data, but they have been replaced with sleek mobile units that are significantly more powerful. This trend in computer downsizing is driven by constant advances in miniaturization. Small devices, like ‘thumb drives,’ now store enormous amounts of data.”
5 Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence, § 900.01[1] (Joseph M. McLaughlin, ed., Matthew Bender 2d ed.1997) (footnotes omitted).
[¶ 40] Many electronic documents generated by cyber-interaction will contain hidden content called metadata. Wein-stein’s treatise explains the nature of me-tadata as follows:
“Metadata, other than file names, are not shown when documents are viewed on a monitor screen, but can be easily retrieved. Metadata can reveal the evolution of a document. Earlier drafts of a document, the dates of subsequent revisions, and the identity of persons revising a document are routinely captured by software applications. Meta-data may also identify anyone downloading, printing, or copying a specific document. Different software applications may generate different types of metadata. In many eases, metadata may bear little relevance or usefulness. However, metadata can include infor*195mation in some applications that is essential to a full understanding of the product generated by the software application, e.g., the formulas in a spreadsheet.”
5 id. § 900.01[4][a] (footnote omitted). See also Country Vintner of North Carolina, LLC v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, Inc., 718 F.3d 249, 252-53 n. 4 (4th Cir.2013) (“ ‘Me-tadata may reveal who worked on a document, the name of the organization that created or worked on it, information about prior versions of the document, recent revisions, and comments inserted in the document during drafting or editing.... The hidden text may reflect editorial comments, strategy considerations, legal issues raised by the client or the lawyer, or legal advice provided by the lawyer.’ Metadata may provide information that a paper document would not provide or information that differs from a paper document. Me-tadata may also reveal that a document has been, changed or backdated.” (citation omitted)).
[¶ 41] Given our holding in the present case, lawyers and judges increasingly must be vigilant about identifying and knowing precisely what “evidence” is being admitted. Here, we hold that admission of the DVD included video and audio. Majority opinion at ¶¶ 18, 22. When another form of electronic information is introduced— say an electronic document — questions may arise whether they contain metadata. If so, is metadata being admitted along with the information on the face of the document? Knowing the answer will be important to lawyers, who must “provide competent representation to a client.” N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.1. A comment to the American Bar Association Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 has been modified to provide, “To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks asso-dated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.” Model Rules of Profl Conduct R. 1.1 cmt. 8 (emphasis added). The rules of professional conduct also impose obligations that lawyers maintain client confidences and that inadvertent transmission of documents be handled a certain way. See N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.6 and 4.5(a). Comment 1 to Rule 4.5 notes, “For purposes of this rule, ‘document’ includes email or other electronic modes of transportation subject to being read or put into readable form.” In another context, the importance of a lawyer’s understanding of the extent of evidence available in electronic documents arose in a postconviction relief proceeding. There, the defendant claimed the prosecutor should have offered into evidence the electronic versions of social media posts and emails rather than printouts so the court could have reviewed the metadata. People v. Anderson, No. 311448, 2014 WL 1383399, at *3-4 (Mich. App. April 8, 2014).
[¶ 42] Judges also will increasingly be called on to know and understand the depth of evidence used in judicial proceedings. Civil discovery rules 16 (pretrial conference), 26 (scope of discovery), 33 (interrogatories), 34 (requests for production), 37 (sanctions) and 45 (subpoenas) specifically address electronic information. The present case demonstrates the importance of monitoring electronic evidence in jury trials, where a verdict could be reversed if non-admitted evidence reaches the jury room. Majority opinion at ¶¶ 12-22; State v. Lindeman, 64 N.D. 518, 254 N.W. 276, 280 (1934). Knowing and understanding the quantum of evidence before the court also will be important to judges considering dispositive motions supported by electronic documents or who *196are presiding over a bench trial where proof is offered through electronically stored information. Judges are prohibited from conducting independent investigations. N.D. Code Jud. Conduct Rule 2.9(C) (“Except as otherwise provided by law, a judge shall not investigate facts in a matter independently, and shall consider only the evidence presented and any facts that may properly be judicially noticed.”). Comment 6 to Rule 2.9 emphasizes, “The prohibition against a judge investigating the facts in a matter extends to information available in all mediums, including electronic.” Therefore, when the court is presented with electronically created or stored information, the judge must know whether the submitted evidence includes only that information visible on the surface of the document, or whether metadata is included. The distinction is critical, both on an ethical and adjudicative basis.
[¶ 43] Our decision today properly answers the narrow question presented in the context of the facts of this case. At the same time, the decision exposes a great number of potential questions, and I sample just a few of them to alert the bench and bar of concern as the nature of adjudicative evidence shifts from one-dimensional paper to multi-dimensional electronic documents.
[¶ 44] DANIEL J. CROTHERS