ADVERTISEMENTS

Andy and I have written and talked extensively about metadata, the 'hidden' information that often accompanies word files. It can show when a document was created, when it was revised, who authored it, and, in some instances, show the revisions to a document. This new case doesn't deal with the "ethics" side of it as such, but it probably has ramifications for thought in the area. In a case in Arizona, a litigant requested metadata associated with electronic notes about his employment because he believed they had been altered after creation or had been "back dated." He made a request for the documents under Arizona's Public Records act, but that was denied, so he sued. By two-to-one, the court held that metadata is not a public record in terms of Arizona's statute in Lake v. City of Phoenix, ___ P.2d __ (Ariz. App. 2009). The court applied the judicial approach to determining whether the metadata was a "public record" and did so in a seriously rigid fashion, which inspired a strong dissent. I've put more about it on my statutory interpretation blog, but wanted to raise a couple points here. First, it obviously affects the duties of counsel in Arizona when responding to public records requests. But, I wonder about this: what if counsel is involved in a records requests and realizes that the metadata shows the information is back-dated, or otherwise falsified. Then what? Second, what implications does it have beyond this niche? I honestly can't see any now because it mostly is a case of statutory interpretation, but I've missed many things in my life, and so another implication here wouldn't be the first...

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.