News

EPA Pulls An IRS And Admits To Losing Agency Text Messages October 9, 2014

It appears the Environmental Protection Agency has the same IT people as the Internal Revenue Service. Agency officials are now telling a federal court they lost text messages sent from top officials’ phones.

Justice Department lawyers said they will soon be telling a federal judge the EPA misplaced text messages sent to and from the phone belonging to agency chief Gina McCarthy and former chief Lisa Jackson.

“Defendant has decided to formally notify the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) about the potential loss of federal records relating to text messages,” DOJ lawyers admitted.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank, has been pursuing EPA text messages since last year, after McCarthy was confirmed by the Senate to head up the EPA. CEI filed a case in 2013 to prevent the EPA from destroying agency text messages, a practice the think tank says it discovered through other government records requests.

“Here we see EPA agreeing to the court to ‘do an IRS,’” CEI senior fellow Chris Horner told The Washington Times. Horner’s past transparency work has revealed numerous attempts by EPA officials to avoid public scrutiny by using private email accounts and stonewalling government records requests.

The judge rules CEI could seek an injunction, which would force the EPA to notify the National Archives that it destroyed the text messages of top agency officials. The judge ruled that it’s “implausible that EPA Administrators would not have suspected the destruction of any federal records with the removal of over 5,000 Agency text messages.”

“The American people deserve transparency and accountability from the federal government, and today’s court ruling was a preliminary win in that much larger battle,” said Hans Bader, senior counsel at CEI. “This may signal a possible end to EPA officials destroying their text messages with impunity based on their self-serving claim that all text messages are personal rather than work-related.”

Obama administration lawyers say they plan on notifying the archives “within the next couple of days” and release documents detailing the records it lost.

The EPA’s lost email claim echoes claims made by the IRS. The tax agency claimed it lost emails sent between 2009 and 2011 from Lois Lerner’s email account. Lerner headed up an IRS department that was accused of targeting nonprofit conservative groups with audits. The IRS, however, didn’t inform the National Archives until this year that it had lost Lerner’s emails due to a hard drive crash.

Like the IRS, the EPA has not been very forthcoming with text messages sent by top officials. McCarthy told federal lawmakers earlier this year the agency was having trouble getting the text messages due to a hardware malfunction — just weeks after the IRS claimed losing Lerner’s emails from a hard drive crash.

The EPA, however, claims it had no obligation to preserve text messages from agency officials because they were personal in nature and not subject to federal records law. The agency says it’s still not aware of any unlawful destruction of text messages.

“Recent litigation filed against the Agency claimed that EPA failed to report the destruction of text messages,” an EPA spokeswoman told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “However, EPA reviewed information about the Agency’s policies, practices, and procedures with respect to retention of text messages that qualify as federal records.”

“EPA is not aware of any evidence that federal records have been unlawfully destroyed,” the spokeswoman added. “EPA reviewed information available to it, including information related to the Agency’s upgrade to Microsoft Office 365 that impacted Agency-issued mobile devices.”

3 E-discovery Trends You Can’t Afford to Ignore September 30, 2014

Benedict Y. Hur and Matthew M. Werdegar, Corporate Counsel

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are supposed to be “construed and administered to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Yet, as anyone who has ever been tasked with handling discovery in complex litigation knows, the judicial system has struggled to reconcile this overarching goal with the explosion of electronically stored information (ESI) and the corresponding skyrocketing of e-discovery costs.

Despite various attempts at e-discovery reform over the past decade, studies indicate that discovery continues to account for the vast majority of the cost of civil litigation. Indeed, according to one survey, discovery is responsible for 70 percent of total litigation costs in cases that are not tried. Litigants can spend upwards of $18,000 to collect, process and review a single gigabyte of data. And in large cases, potentially responsive data can measure in the hundreds or even thousands of gigabytes. We are facing the very opposite of inexpensive.

Yet the potential costs of not managing e-discovery properly also are enormous. Thus, the first trend in e-discovery that inside counsel cannot afford to ignore is the rising cost of mismanaging the process.

Trend No. 1: Rising Stakes

According to a 2010 Duke Law Journal study, sanctions for e-discovery violations have mushroomed over the last decade. In 2009, e-discovery sanctions were awarded in more federal cases than in all the years before 2005 combined. While more recent data suggests that the growth in e-discovery sanctions litigation may have leveled off, courts are continuing to impose monetary and issue sanctions for e-discovery misconduct at a rate that would have been unimaginable a decade ago. In late 2013, for example, a federal judge issued sanctions relating to e-discovery mismanagement of almost $1 million, warning that more could be imposed. In re Pradaxa Products Liability Litigation. And earlier this year, another federal court considered terminating sanctions for e-discovery violations in a trade secrets case, but ultimately settled on a spoliation instruction. Quantlab v. Godlevsky.

Trend No. 2: Help from New Model Orders

Fortunately, real relief from the e-discovery scourge may arrive soon at a court near you. Over the last three years, more than two-dozen federal courts, including such IP-litigation-heavy venues as the District of Delaware, the Eastern District of Texas and the Northern District of California, have utilized their local rule-making powers to enact new e-discovery model orders and guidelines. These new e-discovery rules are the second e-discovery trend that counsel cannot afford to ignore.

The new rules generally call for phased discovery of ESI, limits on email discovery, limits on the obligation to preserve and collect certain categories of ESI, increased cooperation between litigants on e-discovery issues and enhanced cost-shifting provisions to discourage e-discovery overreaching. The new rules impose new obligations on litigants. But they also create significant opportunities for creative, well-prepared attorneys to secure more rational and cost-efficient e-discovery frameworks. Now more than ever, courts are willing to entertain creative proposals for reigning in e-discovery, provided that they are tailored to the circumstances of the case and transparently describe what will be covered and why.

To take advantage of the new rules, you need to do your homework at the outset of a case. This includes realistically assessing the risk posed by the litigation and your own discovery needs. You also must understand where your relevant data resides, how much there is and how hard it will be to collect. You then need to use this information to craft a comprehensive, justifiable e-discovery plan. Depending on the circumstances, the plan could include limits on noncustodial sources of ESI that need to be preserved and collected, limits on ESI custodians and limits on email discovery. Such limits can significantly reduce the volume of ESI that ultimately will need to be reviewed—the most expensive part of the e-discovery process. But such limits also will restrict the discovery that you will be able to obtain from your opponent. Consequently, the decisions that go into a well thought-out e-discovery plan often are strategic ones and should be treated as such.

Trend No. 3: A Proliferation of Tools

The third trend that no attorney managing complex litigation can afford to ignore is the proliferation of new e-discovery tools. One of the hottest is predictive coding. Virtually every major e-discovery vendor now offers some type of predictive coding tool. Predictive coding involves using computer algorithms to determine which documents are relevant based on a review of test documents by humans. Humans code an initial subset of documents, and the computer “learns” what is relevant from the human coding and applies it to other documents. While predictive coding does take some up-front effort, when dealing with a large volume of documents the benefit of its use can be substantial. Predictive coding has the potential to curb e-discovery costs by reducing the amount of data requiring expensive human review.

But few courts have addressed the use of predictive coding and other emerging e-discovery tools either in their new local e-discovery rules and guidelines or in published decisions. Indeed, Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck in the Southern District of New York is one of the few judges who has. See Moore v. Publicis Groupe (2012). Peck’s thoughtful order is required reading for anyone considering using predictive coding technology.

Because the law governing their use is still being written, litigants wishing to use the new generation of e-discovery tools must tread carefully, plan ahead and, most critically, negotiate with opposing counsel early and transparently. While transparency may be counterintuitive to most litigators, it is important if you want to minimize your cost of production by using predictive coding. Your opponent needs to know what you plan to search, how you plan to search it and who (or what) will determine responsiveness. While this may require disclosing more information than you are used to, courts so far have conditioned their approval of this technology on such transparency.

One caveat: It is tempting to believe that technology such as predictive coding allows you to look at only a subset of documents and then forego further human review. Not so. As even e-discovery vendors touting the new technology likely will concede, additional document sets will have to be reviewed and quality-controlled to provide assurance that the predictive coding is working. This can and will take time, and will require input from opposing counsel. But if done properly and fairly, it also can save significant resources in the long run. And if not done properly, the court may force you to go back to the drawing board.

In short, to stay out of e-discovery trouble, to take full advantage of the new wave of e-discovery rules and technologies, and to keep the costs of e-discovery as low as possible, it is critical to plan ahead, know your data and cooperate with opposing counsel early in the discovery process. Doing so will enable you to come out on top in the brave new e-discovery world.

Benedict Hur and Matthew Werdegar are partners in the San Francisco office of Keker & Van Nest. Hur’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and commercial disputes for companies ranging from start-ups to established corporations. Werdegar is experienced handling complex intellectual property and civil litigation matters in state and federal courts across the country and before the International Trade Commission.

Response to FOI requests getting worse September 26, 2014

By Nelson Bennett

The British Columbia government is doing a bangup job of providing the public information – just not necessarily the information the public wants, when it wants it.

That’s the assessment of the B.C. Freedom of Information of Privacy Association (FIPA), following a report by B.C. Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham that finds the B.C. government’s response times to freedom of information requests is getting worse.

Government bodies are supposed to respond to an FOI request within 30 business days. But the average response has rose to 44 business days.

“This is my office’s fourth report examining government’s performance responding to access requests within the 30-business-day time limit set out in the legislation,” Denham said.

“In our last timeliness report card, government’s performance had improved to an average of 93% on time; over the past two years their performance has fallen to 74% on time. Government’s disappointing decline in timely responses to access to information requests frustrates individual applicants and erodes the public’s right to know.”

Denham’s report came out September 23, just one day after Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services Andrew Wilkinson issued a press release for Right To Know Week that claimed B.C. is “recognized as a leader in providing open data to the public.”

FIPA executive director Vincent Gogolek said it may be true that B.C. is making more information available online, but when it comes to accessing information through the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the B.C. government has gone backwards.

“This is one of the things that governments do,” Gogolek said. “They like things like releasing information that they think people would like to have and things that they are happy to give us. They get a lot more sticky when people decide to exercise their quasi-constitutional right to information.”

Denham also underlines concerns about response to FOI requests in which the government claims the documents do not exist. Although there has been a slight improvement, one in five FOI requests are met with the response that the requested documents do not exist, underscoring concerns about the way in which government is managing information.

“While the percentage of no responsive records responses has improved from 25% to 19%, I remain concerned about government’s records management practices and the deletion of emails that it considers transitory in nature,” Denham said. “To address this issue, I recommend that government implement an email management system with respect to senior government officials to ensure these documents are preserved and archived.

Gogolek said his organization is also concerned about FOI requests that are initially rejected without a legitimate excuse, and cites the City of Vancouver as a glaring example.

In three recent cases, Gogolek said Denham’s office has ruled against the city’s rejection of FOI requests.

There were three orders in the last three weeks or so, and they lost all of them, spectacularly,” Gogolek said. “Basically they didn’t introduce any evidence.”

PA state agencies are a study in email mismanagement September 24, 2014

In what is probably the most harebrained document management “system” in recent memory, emails sent or received by state agencies in Pennsylvania are archived on state servers for a mere five days before being permanently deleted. Agencies are free to archive email locally for longer if they wish but the decision to do so is made by each state employee of their own accord. It’s okay, insists Pennsylvania Office of Administration spokesperson Dan Egan, because employees get training on what to keep and the majority of their email isn’t really that important anyway.

These jaw-dropping revelations are highlighted in a fascinating, if not somewhat mind-boggling, article published by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Journalist Bill Schackner says the information cropped up during a recent investigation of Pennsylvania’s Education Department.

“Mr. Egan said employees receive mandatory training in proper records retention practices and noted that deletions help manage unwieldy inboxes and make it easier to find relevant records,” writes Schackner. “He said the vast majority of emails are casual ‘chatter’ and not the kind that state rules say must be preserved as public records.”

Government watchdog groups are appropriately horrified at the lackadaisical approach to email preservation that begins at the gubernatorial level and works its way down to every local government agency in the state.

According to the Post-Gazette article, a chief concern is that even with proper training, not every state employee has the legal training to know which emails might be deemed important in the future. Since there’s no secondary verification method in place, experts argue that the five-day window isn’t nearly long enough to catch misfiled emails before they disappear forever.

Missing or deleted email is often merely an inconvenience but the far-reaching implications are much more serious. “The result [of destroying emails after five days] is that an untold number of emails by thousands of public employees are excluded from legal review by a Right-to-Know officer whenever the public seeks release of materials that might illuminate how government works,” notes Schackner. He says that, according to Egan, “Right-To-Know document requests are filled by employees who forward what they believe are relevant emails whenever a Right-to-Know request is received, instead of routinely searching servers.”

In what may be the understatement of the century, the executive director of Pennsylvania’s Office of Open Records says the state has gotten better about records management in recent years but still needs to beef up its policies a bit more. If there’s a bright spot in the current tangle of policies it’s that court records are handled separately and the state’s school districts typically preserve email for several months.

Egan counters concerns about the state’s email management by suggesting that longer retention times would not be cost effective and that it makes little sense to store large volumes of spam or other documents that aren’t agency-related.

Those are valid points, to be sure. However five days isn’t nearly enough time to retrieve documents set for deletion, especially when there’s no review process in place to check out what’s in the pipeline for disposal. Furthermore, as Emily Grannis, a legal fellow with the Committee for Freedom of the Press, told Schackner, “You’re leaving it up to the person who created the record to determine whether or not it needs to be archived. That’s a problem.”

I’ll say.

As Paul Wester, chief records officer at the National Archives and Records Administration, told a crowd of attendees at a records management conference last week, “If you don’t want to have to stand before Congressman [Darrell] Issa with your hand raised, touching the chin of God, get your email under control.”  - Lisa

 

Tools

‘Email delete’ policy is misunderstood according to LAUSD September 22, 2014

‘Email delete’ policy is misunderstood according to LAUSD

A policy intended to delete unnecessary emails on LA Unified district computers has caused a media storm and much confusion, but ultimately is misunderstood, according to officials who spoke to LA School Report.

“It could be this is much ado about nothing” said school board member, Steve Zimmer.

The bottom line: the ‘delete’ program does not apply if employees are following policy, that is, properly archiving emails from their inbox.

“Those are absolutely safe,” said Lydia Ramos, district communications director. “If it’s on your hard drive then it stays.”

Last week the school board voted to approve software by Microsoft that would routinely destroy emails left in the “inbox” of LA Unified employees after a calendar year, in compliance with a policy from 2012 called the Record’s Retention and Instruction Policy – that has not yet taken affect.

But, Ramos confirmed, emails properly archived by employees on department servers or on individual computers are not affected – and at least for now, the district says, it will not delete any emails at all.

Ramos also added that a controversial batch of iPad-related emails that were recently released would not have been slated for deletion, had the policy been fully in place.

Concerns about the unintended consequences of the new email management system and the retention policy arose almost immediately after the board approved the $295,000 contract. Several members voiced concern at the board meeting, saying it could lead to the destruction of public records – a contentious topic on the heels of the release of two-year old emails revealing previously unknown communications between Superintendent John Deasy, former district Deputy Jaime Aquino, and top Apple and Pearson executives leading up to the district’s $500 million iPad deal.

The LAUSD policy, which should have taken effect July of 2013 but has been delayed due to lack of infrastructure and staffing, establishes guidelines for identifying three “classes” of records:

  • Permanent records, which should be kept indefinitely or a minimum of seven years
  • Non-permanent records, which should be kept for three but reviewed for re-classification after one year
  • Disposable records, which can be deleted after three years

Determining which emails fall under each category is up to the discretion of individual employees. The iPad-related emails would, at the very least, fall under the “non-permanent” category, said Ramos.

Many school board members report archiving emails to their hard drives regularly.

“It’s not even because I choose to, it’s because I have to,” said Zimmer. “Every few weeks I get an alert telling me I’m running out of email storage space and in order to make room, I go through and delete what I don’t need then store the rest.”

But confusion remains. Board member Monica Ratliff announced Wednesday she plans to discuss the issue at the October board meeting. “In reviewing the policy, I was alarmed to learn that our current, existing policy is that emails are to be automatically deleted after one year,” she said in a statement.

“I believe the District should preserve any emails of Board members, the Superintendent, senior officers and their respective staffs.  Often, older emails may have historical importance that cannot always be assessed until later.”

Board member Tamar Galatzan expressed similar concerns.

“The 2012 policy was designed to let us declutter email accounts and better manage a system that serves more than 60,000 employees,” Galatzan told LA School Report. “At the time, we were told that employees would be able to save relevant emails for as long as they needed to and also that the district would be able to recover important documents. I’m no longer confident this is the case and will support changes to ensure that critical information is preserved.”

Zimmer, who admits he’s also confused about the new policy, said he was not alarmed by the change until after the vote.

“I just assumed that if the policy has been in place since 2012 and those emails, which are more than a year old have all been released, then the archiving system was working and this really wasn’t a big deal.”

Ramos said the new software will make it easier to search for archived emails and respond more quickly to public records requests. “The spirit of the policy is to help employees manage their records and help them identify which documents are important and need to be kept.”

She also pointed to a survey by the San Diego Union-Tribune. According to the report of more than 100 local governments found that a one-year policy is generous, “Carlsbad keeps emails 90 days, San Diego County keeps them 60 days, San Marcos for 30 days. At the Fallbrook Public Utilities District, it’s nine days.”

Pennsylvania Gov’t investing in email archiving September 2, 2014

In response to the recent intense public scrutiny they have faced in the past 10 days over records retention policies, specifically access and retention of emails, the Pennsylvania Gov’t plans to invest $2-$3M dollars in an email archiving solution. This re-active approach is unfortunately the practice of a lot of Public and Private corporations that face monetary penalties, compliance adherence, litigation and regulation scandals because of their lack of email archiving practices and policies internally.

Word of a potential new system came as an aide to Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi announced plans to review Pennsylvania’s statute and hodgepodge of regulations governing records retention to see what changes may be needed.

An archiving system, if purchased, would cover 47 agencies under the governor’s jurisdiction, said Dan Egan, spokesman for the Pennsylvania Office of Administration. Details on how it would work, the length of time those emails would be preserved and exactly how long a system could take to install were not available, though Mr. Egan said it probably would take months. He did not know precisely when planning started.

Jatheon Technologies advice: Don’t be the next scandal in the news, create a pro-active email archiving strategy.

Jatheon Technologies specializes in on-premise email and information archiving solutions, and these solutions afford our customers the ability to instantly archive, retain, search, recover and produce all archived data for quick retrieval and action. Whether easing the current load on your email server through effective storage management onto our appliance, our quick and easy installation, 24×7 remote system monitoring, or simply ensuring all of your corporate email is safe, Jatheon can help make your life easier!

To view the full article click here

Jatheon Technologies Launches New Email Archiving Product Line-Up June 24, 2014

| Close

Congress Probes How IRS Emails Could Go Missing June 20, 2014

WASHINGTON (AP) – Eight federal employees connected to the tea party investigation experienced hard drive crashes, resulting in an unknown number of lost emails, Internal Revenue Service Commissioner John Koskinen told lawmakers Friday in an unusually tense congressional hearing.

A week ago the IRS acknowledged it could not produce some of the emails of the IRS executive at the center of the probe because her computer crashed in 2011. Koskinen acknowledged to lawmakers that the hard drive was recycled and presumably destroyed.

“I want that hard drive and I want the hard drive of every computer that crashed,” said the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich. Koskinen said the IRS took extra measures to try to retrieve the lost emails. But he was unapologetic about the computer crashes or the period when the IRS advised Congress that emails it had sought were lost.

“I don’t think an apology is owed,” Koskinen said. Koskinen says it’s not clear whether all eight of the hard drive crashes resulted in lost emails. Koskinen also said appointment of a special federal prosecutor to investigate the IRS handling of tax-exempt applications would be a “monumental waste of taxpayer funds.”

The congressional investigation has been highly politicized because of allegations that the IRS improperly singled out tea party groups seeking tax-exempt status. Friday’s hearing was unusually tense, as Camp and other Republicans occasionally interrupted Koskinen and continued to ask other questions before Koskinen had an opportunity to answer. The senior Democrat on the committee, Rep. Sander Levin of Mich., chided his colleagues that, “Witnesses deserve some respect.” An FBI investigation is ongoing.
The former IRS official at the center of the investigation, Lois Lerner, has invoked her Fifth Amendment right at least nine times to avoid answering lawmakers’ questions. Lerner did not learn that IRS staffers were improperly reviewing applications of tea party and other conservative groups for tax-exempt status until weeks after her computer crashed, according to an earlier audit by the Treasury Department inspector general for tax administration.

Lerner’s computer crashed sometime around June 13, 2011, according to emails provided to Congress. She first learned about the tea party reviews on June 29, according to the inspector general.

Koskinen told Congress that Lerner’s hard drive was unavailable to them because it had been recycled. The IRS said last week it became aware of the missing emails in February of this year. The IRS did not know whether the other computer crashes have resulted in lost emails as well. It will also not say how often its computers fail and lose data. The lost emails are raising questions even by the government’s records officer. In a June 17 letter to the IRS, Paul Wester Jr. asked the agency to investigate the loss of records and whether any disposal of data was authorized. Wester, the chief records officer at the National Archives and Records Administration, was responding to the IRS’ June 13 disclosure of Lerner’s lost emails. Wester’s letter did not address the lost records of six other employees that the IRS disclosed that day. Wester said the IRS is required to report its finding within 30 days. Federal agencies are supposed to report destruction of records — whether accidental or intentional — to the National Archives “promptly” after an incident.

The IRS said that after Lerner’s computer crashed in June 2011, technicians were not able to retrieve data from her hard drive.

In May, more than two months after the IRS discovered the emails were missing, the IRS assured Camp that it would provide all applications from groups seeking tax-exempt status in 2010 and 2011, including all files, correspondence and internal IRS records related to them. Camp had asked for the records in May 2012. It’s similarly unclear why the IRS didn’t attempt to recover the emails from backup servers in June 2011, especially since Lerner told an IRS computer technician in a July 2011 email, “There were some documents in the files that are irreplaceable.” Shawn Henry, the FBI’s former cyber director, said technicians should have been able to retrieve data from the servers around the times the computers crashed. “If they knew there was a problem in 2011,” said Henry, now president of CrowdStrike, a security technology company, “they could have or should have been able to recover it.” The IRS told Congress last week that recovering emails has been a challenge because doing so is “a more complex process for the IRS than it is for many private or public organizations.”

The IRS was able to find copies of 24,000 Lerner emails from between 2009 and 2011 because Lerner had sent copies to other IRS employees. Overall, the IRS said it was producing 67,000 emails to and from Lerner, covering 2009 to 2013. The agency said it searched for emails of 83 people and spent nearly $10 million to produce hundreds of thousands of documents. At the time that Lerner’s computer crashed, IRS policy had been to make copies of all IRS employees’ email inboxes every day and hold them for six months. The agency changed the policy in May 2013 to keep these snapshots for a longer, unspecified amount of time. Had this been the policy in 2011, when at least two of the computer crashes occurred, there likely could have been backups of the lost emails today.

The chief executive for an email-archiving company, Pierre Villeneuve of Jatheon Technologies, said most public and private sector organizations keep emails for several years, not six months, because of financial regulations and inexpensive computer storage. “To have a large agency like the IRS have a very weak policy for email archiving and retention is quite shocking,” Villeneuve said. “If this were a private enterprise and they couldn’t produce this information on demand, they’d be in trouble. They’d either be fined or accused of hiding information.”
The IRS has said technicians sent Lerner’s hard drive to a forensic lab run by the agency’s criminal investigations unit. But the information was not recoverable, a technician told her in an Aug. 5, 2011, email.

| Close

Jatheon Technologies Appoints New President And Chief Executive Officer June 18, 2014

Jatheon Technologies is pleased to announce the appointment of Pierre Villeneuve as its new President and Chief Executive Officer.
Pierre is a seasoned entrepreneur and business leader with over 30 years experience starting and growing small to medium sized businesses involved in the development of software solutions and applications in technology driven businesses. Pierre received his Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and Mathematics from the University of Waterloo, as well as a Masters of Business Administration designation from the Schulich School of Business at York University. Furthermore, Pierre also holds a Chartered Financial Analyst designation from the CFA Institute based in Charlottesville Virginia.

“I look forward to expanding Jatheon’s growth in product breadth and market share. It is extremely exciting to be working in a dynamic and fast moving industry”, stated Mr. Villeneuve.

ABOUT JATHEON TECHNOLOGIES

Founded in December 2004, Jatheon Technologies has designed the world’s first non-intrusive network appliance simplifying email and information archiving, indexing, retrieval and dynamic monitoring of corporate email and messaging data.

The Jatheon email and information archiving appliance allows organizations to meet and exceed the highest standards of regulatory compliance and corporate governance. Jatheon’s solutions also enables organizations to effectively manage their federal, industry and corporate compliance commitments including SEC, NASD, NYSE, Sarbanes Oxley, USA Patriot Act, HIPAA and other state regulated legislation requirements.

For More Information please visit us at www.jatheon.com

For Media inquiries please contact:
Scott Charlton, Vice President, Marketing
Jatheon Technologies
647-270-5608, scharlton@jatheon.com

| Close