PDF format gets the cold shoulder as litigation support group's data exchange protocol favours TIFF

Lawyers in England and Wales still do not have more detailed guidance on the technical nitty-gritty of disclosing documents electronically (e-disclosure) beyond what is in the Civil Procedure Rules.


But another step was taken towards that goal this month with the release of part one of the Litigation Support Technology Group's (LiST) data exchange protocol.


In simple language, the protocol recommends the formats lawyers and litigation support professionals should use to exchange electronic documents.


It also aims to give best practice advice on how files should be named and recommends agreeing categorically on what media, for example DVDs or hard disks, information should be provided.


Jonathan Maas, head of litigation technology at UK/US law firm DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary and a founding member of LiST, said the protocol is an attempt to define better what parties should do. 'I don't think it's groundbreaking. It just says if you've got an electronic document, then hand it over, and if you can't agree how to exchange them, we suggest to do it this way,' he said.


This sounds simple, but there is much debate about how documents should be exchanged, especially in regard to what format to exchange files when parties cannot give over 'native' files. Native files would be files in the format in which they were created.


This can be a problem - if a company uses an obscure database system, the files it holds may need to have the whole software installed just to read them. Documents may also, of course, be originally paper documents. In these situations, LiST recommends parties exchange documents in tagged image file format (TIFF), a common digital image format.


Behind LiST's recommendations is a decision on what file format should be used as a common exchange document format in England and Wales. TIFF is not the only way to do this and some say it is not the best - TIFF files hold less metadata and are larger than Adobe's PDF formats, and are arguably less securable.


'We debated this long and hard,' said Mr Maas, 'and we know that there are two schools of thought, obviously. It was a hard-fought battle [but] we came down in favour of TIFF over PDF because TIFFs are supported by more litigation support systems than PDFs. A TIFF image is easily viewed with no further installation from a standard Windows PC.'


Andrew Jones, a litigation professional support lawyer at international firm Clifford Chance and a member of the Association of Litigation Professional Support Lawyers (ALPS), welcomed the protocol. 'The idea behind this document is a good one,' said Mr Jones. 'Disclosure is expensive enough, without arguing unnecessarily - and sometimes literally - about every dot and comma of data formats. Once finalised, the protocol should offer a practical starting point for discussions between litigants. In each case, the parties should agree in advance the extent to which it should apply.'




Part one of the protocol condensed:


Go native: when agreeing to swap documents electronically, you should, where possible, exchange in the documents' 'native' or original format. In other words, if you are swapping information from e-mails, swap Outlook (Exchange) databases.


Have a TIFF: If parties cannot, or cannot agree to, exchange files in native format, LiST recommends transforming files into TIFF (tagged image file format), because it can be read by Windows systems without any extra software.


Know your media: Agree on what you are going to exchange and in what format at the beginning. Also important is to define on what medium, for example DVDs or hard disks, you are going to deliver information.


Metadata counts: Metadata will be addressed by part two, but you should always keep documents' metadata intact on the original file.