Advanced

Inspektion av elektroniskt lagrad information i dispositiva tvistemål - en komparativ studie av on-site inspections av elektroniskt lagrad information enligt Federal Rules of Civil Procedure och en analys av editionspliktens gränser

Jorstadius, Fredrik LU (2010) JURM01 20101
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Den tekniska utvecklingen har lett till att parts möjlighet att komma åt för tvisten relevant elektronisk lagrad information från motparten, blivit en allt större utmaning. För att komma sådan information förekommer det därför att parter ingår inspektionsavtal. Avtalen ger en eller båda avtalsparter rätt att genomsöka motpartens elektroniskt lagrade information, i syfte att iden-tifiera och/eller återskapa raderade filer relevanta för tvisten.

I uppsatsen utreds dels huruvida en inspektion av motpartens elektroniskt lagrade information kan tillåtas inom ramen för editionsplikten. I utredning-en riktas särskild uppmärksamhet mot att avgöra vilka verkningar en inspek-tionsklausul kan få inom ramen för den materiella editionsplikten. Dels... (More)
Den tekniska utvecklingen har lett till att parts möjlighet att komma åt för tvisten relevant elektronisk lagrad information från motparten, blivit en allt större utmaning. För att komma sådan information förekommer det därför att parter ingår inspektionsavtal. Avtalen ger en eller båda avtalsparter rätt att genomsöka motpartens elektroniskt lagrade information, i syfte att iden-tifiera och/eller återskapa raderade filer relevanta för tvisten.

I uppsatsen utreds dels huruvida en inspektion av motpartens elektroniskt lagrade information kan tillåtas inom ramen för editionsplikten. I utredning-en riktas särskild uppmärksamhet mot att avgöra vilka verkningar en inspek-tionsklausul kan få inom ramen för den materiella editionsplikten. Dels ut-reds, i syfte att belysa viktiga aspekter som bör beaktas vid utformning av en inspektionsklausul, hur inspektioner av elektroniskt lagrad information läggs upp i USA enligt Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Gällande amerikansk rätt, där parter i allt större utsträckning ansöker om att få genomföra en inspektion av motpartens elektroniskt lagrade information, kan följande slutsats dras. Federala domstolarna har uppmärksammat att en inspektion av elektroniskt lagrad information är förknippad med särskilda risker, exempelvis att företagshemlig information röjs, att information ma-nipuleras eller att mjukvaruapplikationer eller operativsystem äventyras om programvara används felaktigt. För att minimerar riskerna kopplade till för-farandet har de federala domstolarna utarbetat särskilda riktlinjer, som gene-rellt angett att en opartisk dataexpert ska insamla den elektroniskt lagrade informationen på ett sätt varpå insamlad data kan verifieras. Informationen ska sedan överlämnas till den »discoverysvarande» partens juridiska ombud, som genom en »privilege screening» sorterar bort irrelevant eller skyddad information, varefter dokumentationen överlämnas till motparten i digital form.

Den konklusion som nås gällande svensk rätt är att en inspektion av motpar-tens elektroniskt lagrade information, som närmast kan liknas vid en privat “husrannsakan”, är något som den svenska rättegångsbalken inom ramen för processuell edition står främmande inför. Det synes dock möjligt för parter att genom fristående avtal – ett avtal som alltså ger part tillgång till annan och mer omfattande information än vad de processuella reglerna om infor-mationsåtkomst medger – åstadkomma ett sådant långtgående tvångsmedel som en inspektionsklausul innebär, vilken kan genomdrivas genom ett edi-tionsföreläggande enligt 38 kap. 3 § rättegångsbalken. Materiell edition präglas alltså inte av samma tankesätt som den processuella editionsplikten gällande inspektioner av motpartens elektroniskt lagrade information.

Någon garanti kan dock inte lämnas för att den av parterna utpekade dataexperten får biträda KFM vid verkställighet eller att det överenskomna tillvägagångssättet för inspektionen kommer att efterföljas, eftersom KFM enligt 16 kap. 12 § 3 stycket utsökningsbalken har befogenhet att ompröva och frångå domstols föreskrifter i exekutionstiteln om så behövs.

Oavsett om yrkandet framställs oberoende av rättegång eller om begäran om materiell edition framställs som en rättegångsfråga i en pågående process, bör preciseringskravet kopplat till 38 kap. 3 § rättegångsbalken vara uppfyllt om stämningsansökan innehåller tillräckliga upplysningar om den omstän-dighet som utlöser editionsplikten. Preciseringsskyldigheten får sedan be-dömas mot bakgrund av den rättsliga grunden som editionsplikten vilar på, exempelvis ett avtal. Parts preciseringsskyldighet måste dock ytterst avgöras av att yrkandet om vad svarande parten ska förpliktigas att göra eller tåla måste vara bestämt enligt 42 kap. 2 § rättegångsbalken. (Less)
Abstract
A party’s ability to access electronic information stored on an opponent’s hard disks – e.g. on a computer or on other electronic storage devices – has become increasingly challenging due to the technological development. In order to get hold of such information and to identify and/or recover deleted electronic information relevant to a dispute, parties sometime include an inspection clause in their agreement, giving one or both contracting parties the right to inspect the opponent’s hard disks.

The purpose of this thesis is to analyze whether it is possible for a court to permit an inspection of an adversary’s hard disks within the scope of a pro-duction order under Chapter 38 Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure (»rättegångsbalken»),... (More)
A party’s ability to access electronic information stored on an opponent’s hard disks – e.g. on a computer or on other electronic storage devices – has become increasingly challenging due to the technological development. In order to get hold of such information and to identify and/or recover deleted electronic information relevant to a dispute, parties sometime include an inspection clause in their agreement, giving one or both contracting parties the right to inspect the opponent’s hard disks.

The purpose of this thesis is to analyze whether it is possible for a court to permit an inspection of an adversary’s hard disks within the scope of a pro-duction order under Chapter 38 Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure (»rättegångsbalken»), especially focusing on Chapter 38 § 3, which recog-nizes the right for a party to move for a production order based on an agreement. The thesis will also discuss protocols for on-site inspections of hard disks, established by federal courts in the U.S. under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in order to provide guidance for contracting parties when constructing an inspection clause.

The conclusion reached regarding American law, is that in the U.S., litigants are increasingly utilizing the tactic of moving for permission to inspect their adversary’s computers. Federal courts have recognized that there are certain technical issues associated with on-site inspections of hard disks under Rule 34 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and accordingly have set forth proto-cols to protect producing parties from e.g. destruction of data and invasion of privacy. Courts have established protocols, pursuant to which a computer expert extracts the raw electronic data in a way in which it can be verified and then allows the producing party to remove privileged, confidential, and unresponsive information that should not be produced. The producing party shall then produce to the adversary all responsive information that is proper-ly discoverable.

The conclusion reached regarding Swedish law, is that an inspection clause gives party’s access to different and more extensive information than the Swedish procedural rules governing document production permits. In other words, it is not possible for a Swedish court to allow a party to inspect an adversary’s hard disks within the scope of a procedural production order (»processuell edition») under Chapter 38 § 2 Swedish Code of Judicial Pro-cedure. In order to enforce an agreement including an inspection clause, a party can move for permission to inspect their adversary’s hard disks within the scope of a production order based on an agreement under Chapter 38 § 3 Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure (»materiell edition»). In comparison with a procedural production order, it appears possible to enforce an inspec-tion clause under Chapter 38 § 3.

Regardless of whether a motion to compel has been filed in an ongoing liti-gation or if a claim is made regardless of a trail, the requirement for a party to specify the motion to compel or claim should be linked to the agreement and, it should be sufficient for a party to describe in the application for a summons, which agreement the production order should be based on, as long as the claim is as precise as Chapter 42 § 2 Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure requires.

Furthermore, no guarantees can be given that the designated computer ex-pert will be able to assist KFM in the enforcement, or that other agreed upon terms for the inspection will be met, as KFM under Chapter 16 § 12 para-graph 3 Swedish Code of Dept Enforcement (»utsökningsbalken»), has the power to reconsider and abandon the courts regulations if necessary. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Jorstadius, Fredrik LU
supervisor
organization
course
JURM01 20101
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Processrätt
language
Swedish
id
1628163
date added to LUP
2010-07-14 10:08:39
date last changed
2010-07-14 10:08:39
@misc{1628163,
  abstract     = {A party’s ability to access electronic information stored on an opponent’s hard disks – e.g. on a computer or on other electronic storage devices – has become increasingly challenging due to the technological development. In order to get hold of such information and to identify and/or recover deleted electronic information relevant to a dispute, parties sometime include an inspection clause in their agreement, giving one or both contracting parties the right to inspect the opponent’s hard disks. 

The purpose of this thesis is to analyze whether it is possible for a court to permit an inspection of an adversary’s hard disks within the scope of a pro-duction order under Chapter 38 Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure (»rättegångsbalken»), especially focusing on Chapter 38 § 3, which recog-nizes the right for a party to move for a production order based on an agreement. The thesis will also discuss protocols for on-site inspections of hard disks, established by federal courts in the U.S. under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in order to provide guidance for contracting parties when constructing an inspection clause.

The conclusion reached regarding American law, is that in the U.S., litigants are increasingly utilizing the tactic of moving for permission to inspect their adversary’s computers. Federal courts have recognized that there are certain technical issues associated with on-site inspections of hard disks under Rule 34 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and accordingly have set forth proto-cols to protect producing parties from e.g. destruction of data and invasion of privacy. Courts have established protocols, pursuant to which a computer expert extracts the raw electronic data in a way in which it can be verified and then allows the producing party to remove privileged, confidential, and unresponsive information that should not be produced. The producing party shall then produce to the adversary all responsive information that is proper-ly discoverable. 

The conclusion reached regarding Swedish law, is that an inspection clause gives party’s access to different and more extensive information than the Swedish procedural rules governing document production permits. In other words, it is not possible for a Swedish court to allow a party to inspect an adversary’s hard disks within the scope of a procedural production order (»processuell edition») under Chapter 38 § 2 Swedish Code of Judicial Pro-cedure. In order to enforce an agreement including an inspection clause, a party can move for permission to inspect their adversary’s hard disks within the scope of a production order based on an agreement under Chapter 38 § 3 Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure (»materiell edition»). In comparison with a procedural production order, it appears possible to enforce an inspec-tion clause under Chapter 38 § 3. 

Regardless of whether a motion to compel has been filed in an ongoing liti-gation or if a claim is made regardless of a trail, the requirement for a party to specify the motion to compel or claim should be linked to the agreement and, it should be sufficient for a party to describe in the application for a summons, which agreement the production order should be based on, as long as the claim is as precise as Chapter 42 § 2 Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure requires. 

Furthermore, no guarantees can be given that the designated computer ex-pert will be able to assist KFM in the enforcement, or that other agreed upon terms for the inspection will be met, as KFM under Chapter 16 § 12 para-graph 3 Swedish Code of Dept Enforcement (»utsökningsbalken»), has the power to reconsider and abandon the courts regulations if necessary.},
  author       = {Jorstadius, Fredrik},
  keyword      = {Processrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Inspektion av elektroniskt lagrad information i dispositiva tvistemål - en komparativ studie av on-site inspections av elektroniskt lagrad information enligt Federal Rules of Civil Procedure och en analys av editionspliktens gränser},
  year         = {2010},
}