Featured Cybersecurity Incident Reports And Lessons Learned From Recent Court Decisions Ordering Their Disclosure - Technology

Published on November 3rd, 2021 📆 | 2007 Views ⚑

0

Cybersecurity Incident Reports And Lessons Learned From Recent Court Decisions Ordering Their Disclosure – Technology

The rapid rise of cybersecurity incidents, and the litigation
and government investigations that often ensue, have resulted in
many hotly contested disputes concerning the disclosure of
documents explaining ‘what happened’ and ‘how.’ In
the past year, at least three courts have weighed in to resolve
such disputes, each of which required disclosure.

In some cases, being ordered to disclose such documents can be
problematic. Incident response reports, including those concerning
forensic investigations and root cause analyses, can lay bare how
and why certain systems were vulnerable to cyberattacks in the
first place, potentially giving rise to or supporting claims of
negligence and statutory violations.

The three recent decisions, however, also provide guidance on
how available legal protections can be applied to incident
reports.

Applicable Legal Protections

The attorney-client privilege (ACP) generally
protects from disclosure information that is shared between
attorneys and their clients for the primary purpose of obtaining or
providing legal assistance. For assistance to be legal in nature, a
lawyer must be attempting to guide a client’s future conduct by
interpreting and applying legal principles to specific
facts. 

The attorney work product doctrine (WPD)
generally protects from disclosure documents prepared “in
anticipation of litigation” by another party when there is
identifiable or impending litigation that has been or is the
“primary purpose behind the creation of the
document.”

In cases involving malicious attacks of Capital One, Clark Hill
and Rutter’s – a bank, law firm and convenience store
chain – filed in Virginia, the District of Columbia and
Pennsylvania, courts analyzed the application of ACP and/or WPD to
cybersecurity incident reports.   

The Trilogy

In re Capital One Consumer Data Security Breach
Litigation   

In July 2020, in one of many lawsuits filed against Capital One
for a data breach that involved unauthorized access to information
for over 100 million individuals, a Virginia court required Capital
One to disclose an incident report prepared by outside counsel. In
analyzing whether the report should be protected under the WPD, the
court stated:

In order to be entitled to protection,
a document must be prepared “because of” the prospect of
litigation and the court must determine “the driving force
behind the preparation of each requested document” in
resolving a work product immunity question.

Applying this standard, the court believed the incident report
would have been prepared anyway, even if the cybersecurity incident
had not occurred because, among other things:

  • The work performed for Capital One by its technical consultant
    prior to the data breach and then for Capital One’s outside
    counsel after the data breach was the same.
  • Capital One had treated the technical consultant’s work as
    a business-critical expense. It was not converted to a legal
    expense until months after its outside counsel was retained.
  • The incident report would have been prepared for regulatory
    purposes anyway – it was given to four regulators, an
    accountant and a senior vice president.
  • The incident report also would have been prepared for business
    purposes. More than 50 Capital One employees were given the report,
    without explanation as to why.

Based on the above, the court determined that the WPD did not
apply and ordered Capital One to turn the report over the
plaintiffs. 

Wengui v. Clark Hill, PLC

In January 2021, a Washington, D.C., court was asked to
determine whether a law firm that experienced a cybersecurity
incident should be required to disclose a forensic report. Since
other purposes for the report existed – i.e., threat
mitigation and advice relating to the configuration of its systems
– the court said the report was not protected by the WPD.

The court also said that since the report was widely circulated
– including to members of Clark Hill’s leadership and IT
teams, as well as the FBI – for a range of
“non-litigation purposes,” it must not have been prepared
in anticipation of litigation. As a result, the court ordered the
report be
disclosed.        

In re Rutter’s Data Sec. Breach Litig.

In July 2021, a Pennsylvania court ordered disclosure of a
report examining how a convenience store chain suffered a
cyberattack to its point-of-sale machines (In re Rutter’s
Data Sec. Breach Litig.
, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 761 (M.D. Pa.
Jan. 2021)). Like Capital One 
and Clark Hill,  the court
in Rutter’s found that the report was not
protected by the ACP or the WPD. Specifically, the court found that
the ACP and WPD did not apply because:

  • The agreement between Rutter’s counsel and the technical
    consultant did not sufficiently evidence that the report was in
    anticipation of litigation.
  • Rutter’s corporate designee testified that he was not
    anticipating any litigation as a result of the cyberattack and that
    the report would have been prepared anyway. 
  • The report’s primary purpose was to set forth
    “facts;” it did not assert any legal opinions, principles
    or strategies relating to Rutter’s legal
    exposure.     

Protecting Reports under ACP and WPD

Organizations seeking to maintain ACP and WPD protection for
reports generated in connection with a cybersecurity incident
should consider the following:

  • Engage counsel and clearly articulate that the work to be
    performed is in anticipation of litigation based on the industry,
    jurisdiction and information involved.
  • Limit communications concerning the reports, including reports
    prepared at outside counsel’s direction, to those involved with
    making decisions based on the legal advice provided.
  • Withhold reports from other teams within an organization to
    better show that the purpose of the reports is to provide legal
    advice to in-house counsel and management.
  • If a technical consultant engaged by outside counsel has a
    preexisting relationship with the affected organization, make sure
    there is a separate agreement for outside counsel’s work.
  • Ask outside counsel to communicate to technical consultants
    that they are being retained to assist outside counsel with
    providing legal advice based, in part, on the underlying
    facts.
  • Outside counsel should clearly articulate that they are
    providing legal advice in relation to the facts so that that can
    they assess and understand the legal obligations potentially at
    issue in anticipation of litigation.

As the above cases demonstrate, maintaining ACP and WPD
protection for all reports generated by technical consultants may
not be feasible. Companies should keep in mind that such reports
may ultimately be discoverable.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.

Source link

Tagged with:



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *