|
''Gates Rubber Company v. Bando Chemical Industries, Ltd., et al.''〔167 F.R.D. 90 (D.C. Col. 1996), U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12423; a copy of the final opinion by U.S. Magistrate Judge O. E. Schlatter of May 1, 1996 is available as (pdf. Document at Harvard Law (accessed 24.02.2015) )〕 is a decision by the U.S. district court for the District of Colorado from May 1, 1996. It is to be considered a landmark decision〔See Fred Chris Smith & Erin E. Kenneally in John J. Barbara (Ed.) ''Handbook of Digital and Multimedia Forensic Evidence'' (2008 Humana Press) p 105)〕 in terms of expert witness court testimony in questions of electronic evidence〔It should be noted that in most cases dealing with computer evidence, the term "electronic" may be more suitable than "digital". Although both are often used synonimously, their semantic content is different (for further details see Burkhard Schäfer & Stephen Mason in Stephen Mason et al. (eds.) ''The Characteristics of Electronic Evidence'' (Butterworth 2010), pp. 21–50).〕 and digital forensics. In a nutshell, the decision states that the authenticity〔It should be noted that this is just one of several criteria for evidence to be recognized as admissible in a legal proceeding. Namely the hearsay-rule often excludes even authentic electronic evidence's admissibility in trial. For further prerequisites particularly concerning electronic evidence see ''Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co.'', 241 F.R.D. 554 (D. Md. 2007) and Jonathan D. Frieden & Leigh M. Murray "The admissibility of electronic evidence under the federal rules of evidence" (2011) Richmond Journal of Law and Technology Issue 2, 1 - 39〕 of electronic evidence is accepted by courts only, if the party adducing the evidence complied with the newest technical standards of electronic evidence acquisition.〔Acquisition is the process of actually collecting electronic data. For example, seizing a computer at a crime scene or taking custody of a computer in a civil suit is a part of the acquisition process as well as the copying of a computer's hard drive (see Larry E. Daniel & Lars E. Daniel in Maxwell & Spielmann (eds.) ''Digital Forensics for Legal Professionals'' (2012 Elsevier) p 12)〕 Moreover, U.S. magistrate judge Schlatter commented on the factors he considered relevant in the process of wheighing the qualifications of digital forensics experts when those present contrary opinions or conclusions to the court. Hence, ''Gates v Bando'' has set legal standards for examining electronic evidence that have remained relevant to this day.〔Fred Chris Smith & Rebecca Gurley Bace ''A Guide to Forensic Testimony: The Art and Practice of Presenting Testimony as an Expert Technical Witness'' (2002 Addison-Wesley Professional) p 262; in the similar case of ''Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v Metro Mark Products, Ltd.'' 43 F. Supp.2d 951 (N.D. Ill. 1999), both opposing digital forensics experts applied the best practice methods as describes in ''Gates v Bando''.〕 == The facts of the case == Gates Rubber Company and Bando Chemical Industries were both involved in the manufacture of industrial belts as direct competitors. Several defendants aside from Bando were former employees of Gates, who had signed written non-competition agreements before they left the company. In 1989, Gates learned that the latter used a computer program highly similar to one of its own, so that Gates suspected its former employees had stolen, copied and used it for Bando. Accordingly, Gates filed several actions on the grounds of unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, infringement of copyright, and breach of contract.〔It should be noted that the facts have been shortened and summarized to a large extent in terms of the aspects relevant for the fields of electronic evidence and expert testimony.〕 During the court proceedings, in 1992 Gates learned that N., one of its former employees, deleted a computer program from his computer at Bando, which Gates claimed to be an unauthorized copy of a copyright-protected software of his own. Furthermore (and actually decisive as regards the influence of digital forensics in trial), N. also "deleted" several word-processing files on the same computer, testifying that he did not erase any materials relevant to the pending litigation. Consequently, Gates applied for disclosure, in order to examine whether ot not the defendant had maliciously deleted files in an attempt to destroy evidence. The court granted Gates a court order that allowed Gates to copy the hard drive of Newman's computer in order to obtain as much information as possible from the "deleted", but reconstructible files. Gates then assigned the technician V. to execute the copying of the hard drive, whereas he subsequently also appeared as Gate's expert witness in the court procedure. In retrospect, the technical method V. applied to create a copy of the hard drive of N.'s computer as well as his formal professional qualification as a digital forensics expert (particularly in comparison to the expert witness summoned by the defendant) turned out to be the crucial aspects that were decisive for the outcome of Gates claims arising from Bando's alleged violation of disclosure obligations through spoliation. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Gates Rubber Company v. Bando Chemical Industries, Ltd., et al」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|