POL00043169
POL00043169
Me ene ~
From: Andrew Parsons. GRO
Sent: 24/10/2019 05:45:01
To: Emanuel, Catherine t
ce: { Kenneth Garvey
Subject: Re: KEL documents [WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
Yes. Will call this morning.
A
GRO ~ . 7 wrote:
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 10:27 PM +0100, "Rodric Williams" f
Thanks Kate and Andy.
Andy ~ can [ call you tomorrow to discuss so I can update the Board Update before the SteerCo tomorrow?
Ken — copied for sight.......
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
Sign up for legal updates, e-newsletters and event invitations
YY WOMBLE womblebonddickinson.com
“BOND -
DICKINSON
a]
>; Rodric Williams
Jonathan Gribben
-FID26896945]
From: Andrew Parsons [mailto
Sent: 23 October 2019 17:06
To: Emanuel, Catherine ¢
Ce: Lerner, Alex <.
Subject: RE: KEL documents
Kate
We have a call with A&M at 8pm tonight.
No more progress on the KEL review because I've asked Tony to turn his efforts to the KEL response letter that now
urgently needs to go out the door
POL-0039651
POL00043169
POL00043169
He'll then circle back to the remaining KELs to be reviewed of which there are about 15. We will then have a shortlist of
about 25 (I'm guessing) KELs that will need Fu's input. We are collating list of all the questions to FJ on these 25 but
before sending that to FJ we need to take tactical decision on whether that is a good idea, bearing in mind that
sometimes we ask FJ a question and get answers we don't like!
A
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Wombie Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
Sign up for legal updates, e-newsletters and event invitations
WOMBLE womblebonddickinson.com
BOND -
DICKINSON
From: Emanuel, Catherine
Sent: 23 October 2019 16:40
To: Rodric Williams ¢
Cc: Lerner, Alex ¢
Subject: RE: KEL documents [
4; Andrew Parsons ¢°
-AC.FID26896945]
Hi Rod,
Board Subco resolved to proceed with the narrow review of the KEL extraction process, per the recommendation.
We do not think it should be done by Deloitte (as they are not independent) and have identified two possible
alternative people — one from Alvarez and Marsal and one from FT Consulting, who Alex and Andy are speaking to (in
the course of this afternoon, I believe) following which we will make a recommendation and get an idea of timescales.
Alex, Andy - do feed in if there have been developments since we spoke earlier. Also, has there been any further
progress in relation to the review of the remaining KELs? Last look there were c 25 that needed a more detailed
review.
Kind regards
Kate
From: Rodric William:
Sent: 23 October 2019 16:25
To: Emanuel, Catherine <_
Subject: RE: KEL documents ['
Hi ~ where did we get to with this, and the attached?
Let’s discuss if easier, Rod
POL-0039651
POL00043169
POL00043169
From: Emanuel, Catherine [mailt
Sent: 19 October 2019 16:03
To: Rodric Williams
Cc: andrew.parsons
GRO
‘Kenneth Garvey >) Lerner, Alex; GRO j
Subject: RE: KEL documents [WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
>; Ben Foat
Lerner, Ale:
Waits, Alan
All,
[set out below a slightly revised version of Rod's draft update which has been discussed today between HSF, WBD and
Tony Robinson QC. As any voluntary review risks producing adverse material (feeding into the C's case that the bugs
disclosed thus far are the “tip of the iceberg") we wanted to be clear on the scope of Post Office's current disclosure
duties before making any recommendations.
se are deceptively complex questions so happy to discuss if anyone has comments or queries. I am on
Kind regards
Kate
Introductory Comments
e <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->The key legal risk underpinning these analyses is the ongoing duty in the GLO
litigation to disclose adverse documents which come to Post Office's attention as a result of any voluntary form
of review work.
New KELs
e <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->Post Office has approached its review of the back-versions of the KELs in light
of its legal obligations. In that regard, the KELs fall into two categories: (1) those relied upon by the Claimants
at trial (658); and (2) those disclosed to, but not relied upon by the Claimants (14,000). The Claimants have
requested back-versions of the first category of KELs but not the second (the Claimants have asked whether
Post Office will pay the costs of reviewing the second category).
© <l--[if lsupportLists]--><![endif]-->WBD has prioritised the review of the first category of KELs (i.e. the 658):
o <!--[if lsupportLists]--><![endif]--> Of these, the majority {i.e. 85%) contain no new information {or
inconsequential new information}. The remaining 15% (i.e. 94) do contain new information.
o <!-[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->WBD and counsel are assessing whether any of that new information
could be of relevance to the Horizon Issues trial and we expect to have an update on progress by
Tuesday's Subcommittee meeting.
0 <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->if any of the new information is relevant (or the Claimants take the
position that it is relevant}, the risk is that the Horizon trial is re-opened and/or the judgment
is delayed. There is nothing that can be done to mitigate that risk.
e = <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->in relation to the second category of KELs:
o. <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->Leading counsel has advised that Post Office presently has no
obligation to review these documents.
o. <!--[if lsupportLists]--><![endif]-->The key risk of doing so before the Claimants have asked for them is
that we identify adverse documents amongst them which we are then obliged to disclose as
adverse. This would be doing the Claimants’ work for them. (if the Claimants do ask for these KELs, we
are entitled to provide them without signposting which we consider to be adverse).
POL-0039651
POL00043169
POL00043169
-->The legal advice therefore is that we should not review the 14,000
sk for the documents, or Counsel's review of
o <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endit
other KELs. We van revisit that decision if the Claiman
the 94 reveals information which warrants a wider review.
e = <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->WBD and HSF will between them work together to deliver such a review if
required as expeditiously as possible.
Audit
e = <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->The question of whether to do an audit and, if so, what its scope should be is
a difficult question; all the potential approaches create risk.
e <!--[if IsupportLists]--><![endif]-->The legal team consider that, as a practical matter, any such audit should in
the first instance be confined to a review of the process undertaken to extract the KELs.
¢ <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->The results of that audit can then inform a decision as to what further steps
(if any} should be taken.
From: Emanuel, Catherine
Sent: 19 October 2019 11:01
To: 'Rodric William —_
RO! Ben Foat }
erner, Alex}.
As promised I have been liaising with Alan this morning and we have a few comments.
twill send a revised draft shortly.
Andy — are you around for a brief word?
Cheers
Kate
From: Rodric Williams 4 GRO I
Sent: 19 October 2019
To: Ben Foat< GRO 1
Subject: FW: KEL documents [WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
Ben,
Please find attached an updated Board update. Set out below are the key notes to address the points from your email
on “what would it take to get all of [the KEL review] done by next week”, and “what is the scope [of a Fujitsu audit] that
would diminish the risk [of creating documents that would then need to be disclosed to the Claimants]”.
External Lawyers — please comment/amend as necessary asap so that Ben can update the Board this morning!
Generally
POL-0039651
POL00043169
POL00043169
e <!--[if lsupportLists]--><![endif]-->I have stressed (firmly) to the HSF and WBD teams the importance of this
workstream. It is being escalated to Alan Watts at HSF and Tom Beezer at WBD to make sure our Board’s
requirements are met (both cc’ed).
e = <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->The key legal risk here is the ongoing duty in the GLO litigation to disclose
adverse documents, which may not exist (or which we may not have been aware of) but for taking the action
now contemplated, especially in the context of material we had not previously seen.
New KELs
e <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->WBD are assessing the risk over the weekend of the 94 newly disclosed high-
risk KELs. By the middle of next week, Counsel will have reviewed these KELs in detail and given a view on
whether they are likely to cause the Horizon trial to be recommenced / the judgment delayed (the Counsel
team being best placed to identify the impact they may have on the trial they conducted).
e <!--[if lsupportLists]--><![endif]-->In relation to the other KELs not used at the trial (i.e. the majority of the
c.14,000 new KELs), the key risk of reviewing these is that the Claimants have not yet asked for the documents,
so by reviewing them now we are doing the Claimants' work for them.
¢ <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->The legal advice therefore is that we should not review the 14,000 other KELs
unless the Claimants ask for them, or Counsel's review of the 94 high-risk KELs warrants a wider review.
e <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->WBD and HSF will nevertheless confirm resources to deliver such a review as
required.
e <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->By way if further background since the last update, having now considered
the previously undisclosed KELs:
0 <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->Many (maybe up to 50%) could be duplicates of previously disclosed
documents, but because the KEL is a live database, the KELs could not be extracted in a way to avoid
this duplication. This means a manual/slower “de-duplication” review is required.
o <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->If the new KELS are to be reviewed at pace (i.e. so that they are all
reviewed by the end of next week), the trade off will be quality/assurance. A paralegal team is less
qualified than the smaller, elite team of lawyers who ran the trial to assess the relevance of the new
KELs to the matters in issue in the Horizon Issues trial. Having paralegals undertake the review
therefore creates the risk of inaccuracies in the review process, which is compounded by the technical
nature of the KELs.
Audit
e <!--[if lsupportLists]--><![endif]-->The best way to mitigate the risk of generating adverse/disclosable
documents through an audit is to keep it focussed on Fujitsu’s litigation support provided to date, with any
operational audit to follow once the litigation has been resolved and its associated disclosure duties concluded.
Please let me know if you need anything further.
Kind regards, Rod
EHC KR 2 fF 2 2 FH 2 RF I 0K 0 08 of F008 oR A RR Ca oR
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named
recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you
have received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your
system. Any views or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise
specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: Finsbury Dials,
20 Finsbury Street, London EC2Y 9AQ.
FEC RR RR A IHC RR RoR I ICC 2 ROR RI C0008 oF C0 oR RCAC 00 ORR CCC 0 GRO
POL-0039651
POL00043169
POL00043169
“Post Office Limited is committed to protecting your privacy. Information about how we do this can be found
on our website at www.postoffice.co.uk/privacy”
Herbert Smith Freehills LLP and its subsidiaries and Herbert Smith Freehills, an Australian Partnership, are
separate member firms of the international legal practice known as Herbert Smith Freehills.
This message is confidential and may be covered by legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended
recipient you must not disclose or use the information contained in it. If you have received this email in error
please notify us immediately by return email or by calling our main switchboard on {
delete the email.
Further information is available from www.herbertsmithfreehills.com, including our Privacy Policy which
describes how we handle personal information.
Herbert Smith Freehills LLP is a Limited Liability Partnership registered in England and Wales with registered
number 0C310989. It is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors' Regulation Authority of England and
Wales whose rules can be accessed via www rg.uk/code-of-conduct.page. A list of the members and their
professional qualifications is open to inspection at the registered office, Exchange House, Primrose Street,
London EC2A 2EG. We use the word partner of Herbert Smith Freehills LLP to refer to a member of Herbert
Smith Freehills LLP, or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications. Herbert Smith
Freehills LLP's registration number for Value Added Tax in the United Kingdom is GB 927 1996 83.
oF
pty no liabitity fi
al business of Won
cd by the Softeiter
POL-0039651