Title: How to Preserve Digital Evidence in Case of Legal Investigation | EdTech Magazine
Headings: How to Preserve Digital Evidence in Case of Legal Investigation
Management
How to Preserve Digital Evidence in Case of Legal Investigation
Recent incidents have shown how important it is for colleges and universities to preserve evidence – including digital evidence – that may be required in a legal investigation.
Where's the Proof?
Collect and Preserve
A Shield and a Sword
Chain of Custody Checklist

Content: Well, the case is going to trial, and we need the chain of custody to prove that Smith really wrote all those things. Without the chain of custody, the judge won't admit any of that information, and we'll get killed at trial.” If “chain of custody” is a new or vague concept to you, you're not alone. In simplest terms, a proper chain of custody establishes the integrity of a piece of evidence, showing that it wasn't tampered with or otherwise altered since it was first collected. While chain of custody is a legal term of art – meaning it has a specific meaning in the law and can have legal consequences – it has significant practical implications for IT managers and other professionals. “Although it plays a critical function in litigation where opposing counsel is challenging the authenticity of evidence – particularly where digital evidence is involved – I've found that there are very few who adequately account for the chain of custody, let alone appreciate its importance,” observes Scott Carlson, a partner in the Chicago office of Seyfarth Shaw, whose practice focuses on electronic evidence and complex litigation. Where's the Proof? To illustrate the significance of chain of custody, let's go back to the original anecdote. While the electronic files you were able to produce from Smith's computer proved that he was sharing proprietary information with your competitor, getting those files into evidence at trial is an entirely different matter. Opposing counsel will challenge the integrity of the files and may claim that the court should not allow that evidence because it was altered, deleted or inserted long after Smith last set foot on your premises.