Over the last few years there have been frequent security lapses and vulnerabilities found in Adobe Acrobat. My own frequent personal and professional use of Acrobat leaves me feeling uneasy every time I read about an exploit. For example, search Google for news articles in the past year with “acrobat exploit vulnerability” as your search. At the time I’m writing this, that search returns 103 results — most of which have a good dozen or so results associated with each result.

This should be a concern for your firm when reviewing native documents from a client’s computer, thumb drive or email. Prior to opening the DVD or thumb drive from your client on your workstation, how are you verifying that these files do not contain code that will take advantage of one of these exploits? For many of the links listed in the searches above, they’re listed as “Zero Day” exploits. These exploits are named after the theoretical age of the vulnerability. The software manufacturer, corporations and anti-virus companies aren’t aware of these exploits to prevent or identify them which means they’re released on “day zero.” Your IT department, anti-virus software, anti-malware software and anti-spyware software are no match for these exploits.

Recently Adobe announced that Acrobat X would “sandbox” its actions going forward. A “sandbox” environment typically refers to one where actions are limited and quarantined. For example, here is wikipedia’s entry on a sandbox environment as it relates to computer and network security and here’s another wikipedia entry on a sandbox environment as it relates to software development. The idea is that Acrobat will be unable to interact with the Windows file system or its registry, two areas that are frequently accessed in exploits — not just Acrobats — leaving the sandboxed application only able to harm itself and documents it opens, but not the rest of your computer. With Acrobat finally isolating its own access in an effort to keep you safe (and avoid additional negative publicity no doubt), you should now be safe from the exploits, right?

That depends on how quickly your IT department updates your workstations. Do you have a process for vetting new software upgrades and releases, prior to being released? You should. In most small firms, the IT department should be able to quickly evaluate and test the newest Acrobat release and determine whether it’s able to be installed on your network.

But what happens if they find a conflict with another program your firm uses that requires an older version of Acrobat? What if you work for a larger firm or corporation whose IT department is understaffed and the upgrade processes is delayed? What if you work for a corporation that’s so large these upgrade rollouts require significant planning and trial runs?

We typically see clients that are still using Acrobat versions 7 or 8, despite Acrobat Reader being a free program (the same cannot be said for Acrobat Professional). If you were to modify the Google search above and search for exploits specific to these versions you’ll find significantly more, as Adobe typically patches the problems it’s aware of as it’s developing new versions of their software. With these exploits available to hackers (or more accurately, “crackers”) all over the world, how are you sure your client’s data is safe on your network?

If updating your software as security releases are announced isn’t an option, we suggest using a combination of a document hosting platform and file viewers for your reviews. The E-Discovery space is full of hosted document review options, and New Jersey Legal has put its support behind iCONECT.

iCONECT allows you to review documents one-by-one, using their two built-in file viewers to quickly and safely review your documents, while allowing you to run detailed searches to make more efficient use of your review time. These viewers are found to be significantly faster than downloading and opening these files from the platform, as the files themselves are never transmitted to your workstation. This has the added benefit of keeping infected files off of your network and away from your computer.

If you would like to learn more about New Jersey Legal’s iCONECT document hosting platform, including its advanced search options, secure file viewers, folder organization and time-saving document coding; please contact New Jersey Legal’s E-Discovery department at (856) 910-0202 or ediscovery@njlc.net.

Related posts:

1. Searchable PDFs and TIFFs with OCR text
   Almost all cases now contain some form of electronic data. Even if most of your case involves paper documents, the...

New Jersey Legals Blog - Acrobat Exploits Resolved? Maybe, but when will you upgrade?

Now parties, play nice (i.e., negotiate and agree to the form of production or else) … SO ORDERED (in so many words) Shira A. Scheindlin, U.S.D.J., this past month with plenty of dicta for all.  The Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin, most notable for her holdings in Zubulake, Pension Committee, and several other ESI-heavy conclusions of law, is at it again with some Rule 26(f) and Rule 34, guidance for parties now and hereafter.

In National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE), plaintiffs drafted and submitted several demands for production of discovery [“FOIA” litigation] and brought suit to compel production after receiving “[]no substantive response to their requests ….”  2011 WL 381625 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2011).  Of what was produced by defendants, the plaintiff(s) complained as follows:  “(1) the data was produced in an unsearchable PDF format; (2) electronic records were stripped of all metadata; and (3) paper and electronic records were indiscriminately merged together in one PDF file.”  Id. at 2.  As a result, oral arguments were held before Judge Scheindlin this past January.

During the hearing, Judge Scheindlin took a moment to remind the parties of their obligations to “meet and confer” pursuant to F.R.C.P. 26(f).  In this case, no such meeting was held and “[]no agreement regarding form of production was ever reached.  Nor was a dispute regarding form of production brought to the Court for resolution.”  Id.  Further, Judge Scheindlin breaks down the intentions of F.R.C.P. 34 as it pertains to form of production, as follows:

First, the requesting party may specify the form of production of electronically stored information (“ESI”).  Second, the responding party may object to the specified form; if it does so, it must state the form that it intends to use.  If the requesting party disagrees with the counter-proposal, the parties must attempt to resolve the disagreement.  If they cannot, the requesting party may make a motion to compel production in the requested form.  Third, if the requesting party has not specified a form of production, the responding party must state the form that it intends to use.  The responding party may select the form in which the material ‘is ordinarily maintained,’ or in a ‘reasonably usable form.’  The Advisory Committee Note to Rule 34 states that the responding party’s ‘option to produce ESI in a reasonably usable form does not mean that it is free to convert ESI from the form in which it is ordinarily maintained to a different form that makes it more difficult or burdensome for the requesting party to use the information efficiently.’  Finally, the Advisory Committee Note also states that if the ESI is kept in an electronically-searchable form, it ‘should not be produced in a form that removes or significantly degrades this feature.’

Id. at 3-4.

Judge Scheindlin goes on to adopt and apply the holding of Magistrate Judge Frank Maas in Aguilar v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the United States Department of Homeland Security, 255 F.R.D. 350 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).  In Aguilar, a class action suit was filed and alleged unlawful searches and seizures of plaintiffs’ homes, whereas a discovery dispute arose regarding the production of metadata.  The court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ request for the production of metadata for several types of electronically stored information (“ESI”), inter alia.  As Judge Scheindlin interprets it, Judge Maas (Aguilar) relies heavily on the guidance of the Sedona Principles, where “[]the Conference abandoned an earlier presumption against the production of metadata in recognition of ‘the need to produce reasonably accessible metadata that will enable the receiving party to have the same ability to access, search, and display the information as the producing party ….”  NDLON at 4.

Of further importance is the definition of a “load file,” taken from The Sedona Conference Glossary, explained in Aguilar, and now revisited in NDLON as:

A file that relates to a set of scanned images of electronically processed files, and indicates where individual pages or files belong together as documents, to include attachments, and where each document begins and ends.  A load file may also contain data relevant to the individual documents, such as selected metadata, coded data, and extracted texts.  Load files should be obtained and provided in prearranged or standardized formats to ensure transfer of accurate and usable images and data.

NDLON at 4 (citing The Sedona Conference® Glossary: E-Discovery & Digital Information Management (3d ed. Sept. 2010), at 31).

Judge Scheindlin opines that “[]load files must also be produced in order to make the production searchable and therefore reasonably usable.”  NDLON at 4.  This is clarified by footnote(s), a common way for the Judge to afford dicta and guidance, as follows:

The question arises as to the expense of creating load files.  While I cannot predict the exact cost … the fact is that a significant collection of static tiff images is not reasonably usable without load files.  A party can generally avoid the expense … by producing the records in native format.  [S]ome metadata is not embedded in the native file and so will not necessarily travel with [it.]  For this metadata, load files might still be necessary even with a native production.  These files include:  Identifier, File Name, Custodian, Source Device, Source Path, Production Path, Modified Date, Modified Time, and Time Offset Value ….

NDLON n.25

[I]f a party chooses to produce a significant collection of TIFF images, it must assume that the receiving party will review those images on some sort of review platform … which requires load files in order to be reasonably usable.  NDLON. n.45 (citing SEC v. Collins & Aikman Corp., 256 R.R.D. 403, 413 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).

Judge Scheindlin’s discussion in regard to the case at bar:

Although a requesting-party [NDLON] should ask for metadata if it wants metadata (see generally Aguilar), defendants in NDLON are not excused from producing the records in a “usable format.”  NDLON at 5.  Additionally, Judge Scheindlin states that “[plaintiff’s] requests^[1] explicitly placed Defendants on notice ….”  Id.  Further, “[]Plaintiffs asked the [Defendants] to ‘let us know as soon as possible how [they] plan[] to produce the Rapid Production List.’^[2] Had the [Defendants] done what they were asked, any ambiguity as to the nature of the requested format would have been resolved.  Finally, Plaintiffs wrote ‘if you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call me.’”  Id. at 5-6

Here’s what Defendants did wrong (according to Judge Scheindlin):

1. Produced all of the records in non-searchable PDF format;
2. Merged the records without isolation/notation of specific files;
3. Comingled paper and ESI;
4. Failed to produce emails with attachments;
5. Failed to produce records in a ‘reasonably usable form’ as per F.R.C.P.;
6. Produced records in a form that is difficult or burdensome for efficient use of the information;
7. Failed to produce any load file(s) with significant collection of static images of ESI;
8. Ignored Plaintiff’s invitation to contact them with any questions;
9. Did not meet and confer with Plaintiffs;
10. Did not make reasonable attempt(s) to agree on form of production with Plaintiffs (i.e., inadequate cooperation and communication).

See generally NDLON at 2, 5-6.

Despite her dissatisfaction with Defendants’ actions (or lack thereof); Judge Scheindlin reasons that Plaintiffs failed to specifically request metadata, and she refused to require Defendants to re-produce all of the records with metadata.  Judge Scheindlin affords her thoughts on a “do-over” by citing Covad Comm’cs Co. v. Revonet, Inc., 254 F.R.D. 147 (D.D.C. 2008).  Specifically, and as held in Covad, “[]serious consideration [should be given] to cost shifting or cost sharing.”  See NDLON n.36.  Additionally, Judge Scheindlin explains that ‘native’ is not the ideal form of production, here, as a significant amount of text would need to be redacted in this matter.  Accordingly, “Defendants [were] ordered to re-produce all text records in static image single file format together with their attachments.”  Id. at 7.  Judge Scheindlin further ordered that the records be Bates stamped in an effort to assist in the production of single file format.

Now, if you are seeking some black-letter interpretation of law … look elsewhere.  While Judge Scheindlin gets her ‘meet and confer’ point(s) across quite clearly, she subtly affords guidance in regard to what metadata is crucial metadata, in ESI productions.  Judge Scheindlin writes, as dicta and laying below the page margins in a footnote, “[w]hile not necessary to the holding in this case, I believe that [below] are the minimum fields of metadata that should accompany any production of a significant collection of ESI.  Requests for additional fields should be considered by courts on a case-by-case basis.”  Id. n.41.  The fields are:

Additionally, Judge Scheindlin orders the other format requirements (in Plaintiffs’ Proposed Protocol) be produced with the fields above, yet warns that this may not apply in all cases.  Judge Scheindlin explains (again in a footnote):

I am certainly not suggesting that the Proposed Protocol should be used as a standard production protocol in all cases.  []While Rule 34 requires that records be produced in a reasonably usable format – which at minimum requires searchability – any further production specifications are subject to negotiation by the parties on a case-by-case basis.  If no agreement is reached, the court must determine the appropriate form of production, taking into account the principles of proportionality and considering both the needs of the requesting party and the burden imposed on the producing party.

Id. n.44.

But when it comes down to it, Judge Scheindlin notes that this issue could have avoided judicial review had the parties “[]had the good sense to ‘meet and confer,’ ‘cooperate,’ and generally make every effort to ‘communicate’ as to the form in which ESI would be produced.”  Id. at 10.  Such lack of “sense” continues to peeve Judge Scheindlin, and she urges lawyers to take greater measures to comply with discovery-rules and expectations of courts when it comes to the production of documents.  According to Judge Scheindlin; if the parties cooperate and communicate, they will decrease the expense of litigation.  And let’s face it … parties are most certainly looking to lessen the expenses associated within the discovery-phase of a litigation.

Related posts:

1. Computer Forensics vs. eDiscovery: What Does Your Case Need?
   At a recent legal technology trade show I was overwhelmed at how many computer forensics and electronic discovery (aka eDiscovery...

New Jersey Legals Blog - Scheindlin to Counsel: Cooperate, Communicate, Meet and Confer!

GROUPS GATHER WORLDWIDE TO SUPPORT CANCER FIGHTERS

LOCALS SENT OVER 100,000 CARDS IN FIRST ANNUAL “CARDS 4 CANCER” DAY:

April 10, 2010 – A team of local volunteers from New Jersey Legal, Inc., in Cherry Hill participated and gathered dozens of cards to be distributed to individuals battling cancer.  They delivered the uplifting cards to the Center for Cancer and Hematologic Disease, in Cherry Hill.  The local team was one of many around the world who took part in an effort to deliver over 100,000 cards to cancer centers across the globe.

Spirit Jump, a 501 (c) (3) nonprofit hosted its first annual Cards 4 Cancer Day April 10, 2010. On Cards 4 Cancer Day, thousands of individuals around the world delivered uplifting cards to local cancer centers in hopes of raising patients’ spirits and helping them in their fight.  Teams dedicated to this effort formed in 49 states and 9 countries globally to help reach their goal.

“It is truly amazing how influential one’s words can be on another in need of an emotional lift.  We are proud to be a part of the first annual ‘Cards 4 Cancer’ Day.”  James Cortopassi, Team NJ Legal

“While many incredible campaigns focus on the research, thousands lay in hospital beds in need of support.  Cards 4 Cancer Day focuses on those sometimes forgotten fighters.” said Meaghan Edelstein, the Founder of Spirit Jump and a young adult cancer survivor.

“We were very pleased with the turnout here. It’s so nice to see neighbors and families coming together for a good cause.” Quote from one of the team leaders that participated in the event.

About Spirit Jump

Spirit Jump is a 501(c)(3) grassroots nonprofit organization with a mission to provide hope and comfort to the many men, women and children battling cancer.  Spirit Jump accomplishes this by providing uplifting cards and inspirational gifts during this most difficult time through their Cards 4 Cancer program.  Spirit Jump is also well recognized in Social Media, with a large following of active users on Facebook, Twitter and through our webcasts.  For additional information or to make a donation, visit SpiritJump.org,  www.cards4cancer.org or  www.facebook.com/cardsforcancer

No related posts.

New Jersey Legals Blog - NJ Legal participates in first annual ‘Cards 4 Cancer Day’

LOS ANGELES – March 29, 2010 – New Jersey Legal, the leader in litigation support and trial services in New Jersey, and iCONECT Development LLC, a world leader in litigation support and collaboration software, today announced an agreement between the two companies enabling New Jersey Legal to offer its clients iCONECTnxt v820, the latest version of iCONECT’s robust and customizable e-discovery platform that features SQL Server® integration.

iCONECT Adds New Jersey Legal to Roster of ASPs

“We are delighted to welcome New Jersey Legal to our universe of Authorized Service Providers utilizing our litigation support hosting technology,” said Cynthia J. Williams, CEO iCONECT Development LLC. “We are gratified that New Jersey Legal chose iCONECT as their selection process was especially rigorous for both product capabilities and technical support.”

New Jersey Legal Offers Full Case Life Cycle Service

Citing the business advantage of the partnership, “Becoming an iCONECT ASP allows us to completely service the entire case life cycle from our own facility,” said Gary Overman, president and CEO of New Jersey Legal. “New Jersey Legal is now officially ‘Your One-Stop Shop for litigation support!’”

“By partnering with iCONECT and bringing document hosting in-house, we can offer our clients a powerful, feature rich tool that is easy to use. We are committed to maximizing our clients’ efficiency and return on investment,” said John Colasante, New Jersey Legal EDD Project Manager.

About iCONECT Development LLC

iCONECT® Development, LLC (www.iconect.com) is the reliable choice for litigation support software, with products trusted by prestigious Am Law 100 firms, corporate legal departments, Fortune 500 corporations, and government agencies for document review, mergers and acquisitions, and multi-party international cases.

About New Jersey Legal

Founded in 1994, New Jersey Legal (www.njlc.net) is a full service litigation service provider specializing in forensic data collection, ESI processing, and document hosting.  In business since the paper days, New Jersey Legal has remained at the forefront of this ever changing industry and continues to offer full-service technology solutions to law firms, corporations, and government agencies.  Years of experience coupled with a cutting edge hardware infrastructure enables NJL to help clients improve workflow, speed document review, and maximize return on investment through a consultative approach.  NJL’s forensic experts, EDD consultants, and document review project managers have taken numerous terabytes of data from forensic collection to online hosting and production.  A focus on project management and custom tailored solutions sets NJL apart while a complete litigation life-cycle service offering leaves clients dealing with fewer points of contact, saving time and money while enhancing customer satisfaction.

iCONECT and the iCONECT Logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of iCONECT Development, LLC or its affiliates in the U.S. and other countries. Other names may be trademarks of their respective owners.

For more information
iCONECT Development, LLC
Lorraine Watkins
310.341.7053
lwatkins@iconect.com

Related posts:

1. New Jersey Legal Introduces Contract Attorney Services
   New Jersey Legal introduces contract attorney services to existing and new clients to conduct document review, brief writing, jury consulting,...
2. Then & Now: New Jersey Legal celebrates 15 years in the industry
   I came across an old service list several months ago from the early days of New Jersey Legal. There was...
3. About Us
   New Jersey Legal™, unparalleled litigation support expert in all matters of computer and digital forensics, eDiscovery, document services, trial services,...

New Jersey Legals Blog - New Jersey Legal Partners with iCONECT to Offer One-Stop Litigation Support

When browsing the web you are exposed to many vulnerabilities.  By virtue, the operating system you use is enough to expose personal information to any relatively technical individual.  Whether you are at your desk or in the comfort of your home, the information you transmit to and from the Internet is, by default, not secure.  Out of the box, the wireless router you install at home in minutes does not have security enabled.  Manufacturers feel as though adding default security creates a level of complexity that the average user doesn’t want to be bothered with.  Many individuals feel as though they don’t care about who’s watching until they make that first credit card purchase.

Many open source applications such as Wireshark were designed to be a network tool but have the ability to be much more.  A graphical interface with information sorting and filtering options allows packets to be captured whether wired or wireless.   Consequently making the information you transmit/receive available for others to view.

WiFi can be transmitted and/or received by so many different devices that the amount and type of data passing by us is remarkable.  From cell phones and gaming systems to desktop and laptop computers, packets of data are passing through the air at unimaginable rates.

When you go to the local computer superstore and purchase an access point or wireless router you’re often given misleading advice that give you a false sense of security.  Many of the commonly recommended wireless security tips aren’t actually all that useful and may even do more harm than good by giving you that false sense of security.

Too often, we catch a story about an individual being accused of possession of, or downloading, illegal material.  By having a wireless network unsecured or improperly secured, you become an open portal for the transmission of such material.  On top of that your network is leading the trail for authorities directly to you!

Why? How?

Your Internet Service Provider (ISP) assigns an IP address to you via the router they provided.  The destination or source IP address for the illegal material is simply captured as part of the packets being transmitted.  The authorities trace the IP address to the ISP who then traces the IP address to the one assigned to you.  By not having your network secure, you hold a level of responsibility for the type of data being transmitted to and from your router whether having the knowledge of it or not.  Hypothetically, someone can connect to your network without your knowledge and either download or transmit illegal material.  You’re thinking — The police will just see that I didn’t do it.  Very true, but only after your neighbors saw the police at your home/office seizing your PC and your name was published in the newspaper.  Did I mention a costly defense?

What can I do to secure my wireless network?

Don’t broadcast your SSID

The SSID (Service Set Identifier) is an identification that is broadcasted by a wireless router. Basically, it’s the router saying “I’m out here, this is my name, connect to me.”  Telling a router not to broadcast its SSID may prevent basic wireless access software from displaying the network as a connection option, but it does nothing to actually secure the network. Any time a user connects to a router, the SSID is broadcast in plaintext with that packets sent and received, regardless of whether or not encryption is enabled. SSID information can also be picked up by anyone listening to the network in passive mode.

Disable DHCP

DHCP or Dynamical Host Control Protocol is when an IP address is automatically assigned to your device.  Static IP addressing is when you manually assign an IP address to your device and giving you the ability to change your subnet.  Switching DHCP off and using static IP addressing is no defense against a potential hacker. Anyone sniffing the network can usually figure out the IP scheme that has been used to assign the IP addresses with the subnet range.

Filter MAC addresses

Each NIC card has a unique MAC address.  Theoretically, this sounds great as a wireless access points can be configured to accept or block specified MAC addresses. The problem with filtering by MAC address is that these addresses are easily detected by anyone using appropriate monitoring software like Wireshark.

Filtering MAC addresses is the only one with even a minimal level of value. MAC address filtering can keep a beginner hacker or neighbors from easily connecting and accessing your wireless network, but it won’t do much else. To keep more sophisticated intruders off of your network, you’ll have to use encryption in addition to MAC address filtering

Use Encryption

Even the routers you can purchase locally are capable of using encryption.  What ever encryption you use, your key phrase should consist of as many characters, symbols, and numbers as possible.  WPA is a good encryption method, followed by WPA2, WPA, WPA, and WEP. Generally, any router that supports WPA is good in terms of its overall security. WEP is an “only if you must” protocol, but it’s still a better option than transmitting without encryption.

What does this have to do with computer forensics?

New Jersey Legal posses the expertise to evaluate your network, whether wired or wireless and work with you to firmly secure it.  Often times, a company solicits themselves as having forensic experts on staff.   Without having extensive networking knowledge, the forensic expert will overlook data that may be vital to your case.  Don’t allow the smoking gun be left undiscovered!

No related posts.

New Jersey Legals Blog - The Basics Of Wireless Security

New Jersey Legal introduces contract attorney services to existing and new clients to conduct document review, brief writing, jury consulting, trial presentations and to perform traditional attorney services. Often times, attorneys are faced with fluctuation in their workload and referral dilemmas that can result in loss of profit. Before attorneys decline to take a case, they should consider hiring a contract attorney to meet their legal needs.

Contract attorneys are available to perform document review for relevance, responsiveness, first and second level privilege and privilege logs. In addition, contract attorneys can perform traditional legal services such as research and writing, motion and deposition attendance, and even manage discovery projects. They can also provide training for document management and review software (e.g. Concordance, Summation, ImageDepot, Concordance-FYI) to you or your staff.

The contract attorneys are specialized in all areas of the law and are handpicked for your project. This in turn can eliminate referrals and produce excellent work product. For additional information please visit www.njlc.net or contact New Jersey Legal’s Director of Pretrial Support & Legal Staffing, James P. Cortopassi at either (856) 910-0202 or james.cortopassi@njlc.net.

Related posts:

1. My Beginnings As A Courtroom Trial Presenter
   When I started with New Jersey Legal I was hired as a customer service representative to help Dave MacDonald manage...
2. Then & Now: New Jersey Legal celebrates 15 years in the industry
   I came across an old service list several months ago from the early days of New Jersey Legal. There was...
3. New Jersey Legal Partners with iCONECT to Offer One-Stop Litigation Support
   LOS ANGELES – March 29, 2010 – New Jersey Legal, the leader in litigation support and trial services in New...

New Jersey Legals Blog - New Jersey Legal Introduces Contract Attorney Services

Almost all cases now contain some form of electronic data. Even if most of your case involves paper documents, the paper is scanned and the document productions are actually electronic image files (TIFFs or PDF’s) on a disk. For this example we’ll use a scenario where our images are from scanned documents.

Regardless of the image format, you must OCR image files for them to be searchable. When PDF images are put through the OCR process they treat the OCR text a little differently than TIFF images. A PDF image actually embeds the OCR text within itself (kind of behind the image itself). The PDF software and the OCR software work together to align the OCR text directly behind the words within the image so when you go to the search function within Adobe, the search hit will be highlighted on the image. As a user, all you will see is the PDFs text while the software program will see both the PDF text and the OCR text that is in alignment behind it. Many clients like this method because it is typically fairly cheap and easy to use. This method does have its limits, however, and cannot be utilized with high efficiency in large collections.

This is where TIFF images come in. When a paper document is scanned in a TIFF format it also has to be put through the OCR process to enable search capability. When OCRing a TIFF image a separate text file (.txt) is created and used in the TIFF searching process. So let’s recap real quick…

• A searchable PDF is only one file
• A TIFF image that was OCRed has two files (the actual TIFF image and a text file).

Technically a TIFF image is not really searchable, it is the “text file” produced by the OCR process that is searchable. After OCR, each text file corresponds to its respective TIFF image (where the text came from) and when a search hit occurs in the text file, the TIFF image is indicated in the search hit. This cannot be done in Adobe and requires more advanced document management software to take advantage of these features. In addition to our on-line review platform ImageDepot, the two most common document management packages are Summation and Concordance. We consult with our clients to help them choose the right solution for their case.

These options may seem cumbersome, but in large document collections it is the way to go. You can use multiple search criteria and conditional searching such as “AND/OR” type searches to further cull down your collection. Beginning to understand OCR, and how it works, may mean saving literally hundreds of review hours for you and your client.

Jason Lopez
Imaging Department

No related posts.

New Jersey Legals Blog - Searchable PDFs and TIFFs with OCR text

Here is the next update in our series of video interviews called ‘Not Just A Pretty Face‘ that we’ll be doing roughly once per month. Today is extra special though as we’re giving you TWO interviews — with the same man! Different personalities, but the same man. As I said last time, we’re truly lucky to have some great people working here at New Jersey Legal and Jay, one of our drivers from our Princeton office, hits that nail on the head. I know many of our clients in the areas surrounding Princeton know Jay and see him in their firms regularly and my first video interview with Jay will show him like you know him. The second interview though…

In my second video interview with Jay we’ll be interviewing Jason as people know him in his freetime, on weekends and as he would prefer — but thankfully can’t — at work. We’ll call this one Interview With A Viking.

As usual, below you’ll find the youtube video embedded as well as a link to the interview on another video hosting site if youtube is unavailable for you. If you’re viewing the youtube video, we suggest pressing the ‘HQ’ button after pressing play so you can view the video in high quality.

VIDEO INTERVIEW 1

Video Interview 1 via alternate site, Viddler

VIDEO INTERVIEW 2

Video Interview 2 via alternate site, Viddler

Related posts:

1. Not Just A Pretty Face (Part 1)
   This is the first episode in a series of interviews titled ‘Not Just A Pretty Face’ that we’ll be posting...
2. Data Destruction: The Fun Way (Videos)
   Last week we posted an entry asking “How Do You Delete Your Data?” Whether it resides on hard drives or...

New Jersey Legals Blog - Not Just A Pretty Face (Parts 2 & 3: Interview With A Viking)

When I started with New Jersey Legal I was hired as a customer service representative to help Dave MacDonald manage a really large document imaging project. The project was nationwide and included about 10,000 boxes.  The local part of the production was about 5,000 boxes and taking care of the local boxes was my job.  It was hard work and required a lot of attention to detail.  After a year of customer service as well as picking up and delivering over 500 boxes, Gary and Dave (the owners) invited me into their office to ask me a question. They asked if I would be interested in learning electronic trial presentation skills and begin working directly with attorneys on trial and said it would include software training for Sanction and Trial Director.  I jumped at the opportunity and within a couple of days I was off to Arizona for training.

After a lot of training and many, many hours of practice, I was assigned my first trial.  My first trial was a bench trial in Atlantic City.  It was a complex trial with over 40 video depositions and over one hundred thousand pages of exhibits.  Our client requested that we handle everything on their behalf.  So it began… my first trial.

The New Jersey Legal trial support team started by calling court reporters and requesting deposition transcripts and video of the depositions if they were filmed.  We then had to convert most of the video from either tape or VOB format to a digital MPEG format in order to synchronize the video along with the text from the respective deposition. When it was all said and done we had converted over 80 gigs of video and synchronized them with the text and made them ready for a Sanction court presentation.  We imported them into Sanction and indexed all the depositions in our presentation.  Now we were ready for clip creation.  The law firm gave us multiple time frames to create video clips for quick playback in Sanction during the trial.

We then took the clients Summation database (yes, all 100,000+ pages) and imported that into Sanction along with any available OCR text files to make them searchable on the fly during the electronic courtroom presentation. Any documents that did not contain text we OCR’d and prepared those files for Sanction as well. On many occasions during trial, we will need to perform text or index searches to locate a specific document and it is really easy if you OCR all the documents, index them properly when creating your case from the beginning.

The next step was to meet with law firm’s client, and learn more about the case.  We then use the new case information and our experience to develop custom graphics to help better present their case to the Judge.  The graphics are always interesting. No matter the case, the custom graphics almost always include timelines, call-outs, demonstratives, text highlighting and photos. This was a contract dispute so neither animations nor day in the life videos were needed.  One of the features in Sanction is the ability import a custom graphic (in this case a timeline), and link other documents or videos in the case to the time line.  The lead attorney appreciated the ability to zoom in on a specific time bubble on the timeline and have me click multiple links (depending on his train of thought at the time) to display supporting documents or video at the click of a mouse.  We were also able to output all of the video for the judge to take home and review before the next day’s testimony.

As a courtroom trial presenter, I am also responsible for our trial equipment transportation, set-up, and break-down. We bring computers, back-up devices, monitors, projectors, screens, printers, scanners, wireless cards, etc… Our equipment is excellent, very high end and robust.  At the conclusion of this trial, the judge asked me to stick around to print out the settlement documents, as our printers were better than what his chambers are equipped with. This was unique, as everyone else was dismissed and the attorneys, the judge, and I remained.

Our clients’ trial was a success.  The client got the settlement he wanted, the attorneys got to have a high end trial consultant at their disposal and I got my first trial under my belt.   I am glad I started at New Jersey Legal helping with customer service.  I like to think our company’s outstanding customer service helps our customers feel more comfortable when deciding to go to trial with a courtroom presentation professional.  Experience is New Jersey Legal’s most important asset and I am glad to be contributing to that bank of experience.  We have been providing litigation support for over 15 years and we plan on being around helping clients for the next 15.  I look forward to future posts, have a great day!

Ted Mazurek
Sanction Certified Trial Presenter

Related posts:

1. The Right Trial Presentation For Your Case
   You’ve spent years working on a case. The initial client consultation, gathering information during the discovery process, meeting with multiple...
2. Then & Now: New Jersey Legal celebrates 15 years in the industry
   I came across an old service list several months ago from the early days of New Jersey Legal. There was...
3. New Jersey Legal Participates In New Jersey’s Oldest Civil Case
   All of us at New Jersey Legal want to say congratulations to Brown & Connery for settling the oldest civil...

New Jersey Legals Blog - My Beginnings As A Courtroom Trial Presenter

You’ve spent years working on a case. The initial client consultation, gathering information during the discovery process, meeting with multiple experts and handling countless depositions — you’ve handled it all. And now it’s time to decide how you will present your clients case to the jury.

Years ago there wasn’t much of a decision to be made.  Trial exhibits were chosen to be included in trial binders and only a select few documents were either reproduced to hand out or enlarged to present to the jury.

Now, jury’s expect more. In today’s technology driven world, the expectation is more than simple hand outs and an occasional exhibit board. With the likelihood that a potential juror on your case has watched one of the many television shows or movies based in the courtroom, they’re expecting drama, action, and well placed emotionally charged music. While we can’t give them these things, we can help keep them engaged and interested.

In recent years trial consultants and trial presenters have been retained by lawyers to help develop powerful courtroom presentations. Here at NJ Legal this is no different, more and more of our clients depend on our technology during trial preparation as well as the courtroom presentation.  Studies have shown that more than 60% of jurors and judges are the most actively engaged — and retain the most information — during visual presentations.

One advantage of an electronic trial presentation is that the attorney has the entire case file — which includes every document, video, audio, picture, and custom graphic — available with the click of a button.  The attorney can simply refer to an exhibit number and almost instantly, the trial consultant can have that exhibit projected onto a large screen and/or multiple LCD monitors.  No more fishing through boxes and flipping through binders to find the crucial document.  Partnering with a seasoned trial presenter in the courtroom is simply the most organized, effective and powerful courtroom presentation you can give on behalf of your client.

As you prepare for your next trial, Just Call New Jersey Legal!

Related posts:

1. My Beginnings As A Courtroom Trial Presenter
   When I started with New Jersey Legal I was hired as a customer service representative to help Dave MacDonald manage...
2. New Jersey Legal Participates In New Jersey’s Oldest Civil Case
   All of us at New Jersey Legal want to say congratulations to Brown & Connery for settling the oldest civil...
3. New Jersey Legal Introduces Contract Attorney Services
   New Jersey Legal introduces contract attorney services to existing and new clients to conduct document review, brief writing, jury consulting,...

New Jersey Legals Blog - The Right Trial Presentation For Your Case