POL00139297
POL00139297
POSTMASTER GROUP ACTION
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
Steering Group Meeting: 22 August 2016
DECISION 1: Should Post Office undertake further work to preserve relevant documents?
SUMMARY:
Background
Post Office has a Court duty to take reasonable steps to preserve any documents that may need to be
later disclosed in the litigation. "Document" means practically anything holding information, including
electronic documents like emails.
What will satisfy the duty to preserve documents will depend upon the likelihood of documents being
lost, how they may be lost and the consequence on the litigation of losing a document. For example, for
documents tangentially related to one minor sub issue in the litigation, only minimal action will be
required. However, where the documents are required to determine a key liability issue, it will likely be
necessary to have the documents forensically imaged to avoid them being lost.
Failing to adequately preserve documents could result in sanctions against Post Office — including cost
penalties, striking out of parts of Post Office's case and / or the drawing of adverse inferences by a
Judge (ie. by making assumptions against Post Office in the absence of documentary evidence to
disprove those assumptions).
Steps to date
At the outset of the Group Action, Post Office Legal sent "litigation hold notices" to key parts of the
business asking them not to destroy relevant documents.
Since then BD has liaised with various teams at Post Office regarding potentially relevant documents
and document sources. Through these investigations, we have developed an understanding of
document storage, retention and deletion across the business, as well as better understanding the
current IT projects that may impact on document preservation. Please see the Document Locations
Table attached to this paper for details of the locations in which documents are held.
These investigations have led to the development of the "Preservation Options" attached to this paper.
Options
Given the complexity of Post Office's IT systems and the different practices operated in different
business units, we do not believe that simply sending general litigation hold notices (Option 1) or even
more stringent, targeted litigation hold notices (Option 2) will be sufficient.
Conversely, the work to date has revealed that the indicative costs for forensically imaging all Post
Office's systems (Option 5) to be in the hundreds of thousands of pounds (if not more) and this option is
not viable.
Our view is that some form of limited forensic imaging of information is required — either of documents.
held by key custodians (Option 3) or by undertaking a deeper review to identify more relevant locations
of documents (Option 4).
ADVANTAGES:
e The nature of the claims in this matter, particularly the fraud and concealment issues, means
that preservation is a relatively high risk issue in this case. Losing key documents where there
are allegations of concealment would weigh against Post Office in Court and would be
presented by Freeths as yet another form of concealment. This militates towards Post Office
taking a more stringent approach to document preservation.
4A_33628418_1 1
POL00139297
POL00139297
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
* Doing nothing risks falling foul of the Court duty to preserve relevant documents. Aside from
the legal consequences, this would present very badly through a public / media lens.
« By taking steps now, we can then put Freeths on notice of what Post Office is doing and seek
their early engagement on this issue. This will make it harder for them to complain later about
missing documents.
DISADVANTAGES:
« Preserving and disclosing documents is one of the most expensive parts of the litigation
process. All the defensible preservation options come at a material cost to Post Office.
e No matter what steps are taken, many documents will have been lost already due to the
passage of time. Some amount of criticism about missing documents is inevitable and further
work now cannot offer complete protection for Post Office.
RECOMMENDATION:
Post Office should commission the further scoping work described in Option 4 below. This would allow a
more accurate cost estimate to be drawn up. A more informed decision can then be taken to proceed
with either Option 3 or Option 4 (or otherwise).
In parallel, BD should write to Freeths to draw out their view on what would be a proportionate way to
proceed.
4A_33628418_1 2
POSTMASTER GROUP ACTION
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
Steering Group Meeting: 22 August 2016
POL00139297
POL00139297
Bond Dickingow
PRESERVATION OPTIONS
Option Summary Pros/Cons Defensibility Cost range (ex
VAT)
4 Take no more action High risk that documents will not be Not defensible Nil Cost
Rely on the hold notices already sent to the business and
undertake a further review once Post Ofice has received
the Particulars of Claim.
retained.
High risk of criticism as there are additional
steps that POL could reasonably take at
this stage.
Zero cost.
2 Send improved litigation hold notices It is unlikely that all relevant Likely not Less than £2,500
Based on investigations to date, draw up a list of key ndlviduals/ieams would be fully identified defensible
individuals within Post Office and then send specific hold jased on current information.
notices to those specific individuals. In light of the ongoing IT projects /
With respect to external documents within POL's control, migrations this Is still relatively high risk.
identify the key external business partners and Unlikely the preservation would be
stakeholders (eg. Fujitsu) and send bespoke hold notices effectively implemented by all individuals.
to them.
Low cost/impact.
3 Forensically copy documents from key individuals Would likely require the assistance (and —_I Likely £15,000 to £75,000
Based on investigations to date, draw up a list of key
individuals within Post Office and then take forensic
mirror images of any electronic documents stored in their
email accounts and personal files.
With respect to external documents within Post Office's
control, locate key external business partners and
stakeholders (eg. Fujitsu) and send bespoke hold notices
to them.
With respect to hard copy documents, obtain and store
any original hard copy case files relevant to particular
therefore cost) of a third party e-Disclosure
provider in order to take forensically sound
images of data.
Would not secure documents held in
shared workspaces (eg Sharepoint, etc.)
Would likely require updating upon receipt
of the Particulars of Claim.
Limited POL time/interaction required.
Shows a genuine attempt to preserve
documents based on the current state of
defensible in the
short term but
would require
updating in the
near future
4A_33628418_1
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00139297
POL00139297
Claimants. the claim.
4 Undertake further scoping work and then forensically Would require time from business units in Defensible but Cost of scoping
copy documents from key individuals and in key order to scope locations of documents. not perfect. work:
locations Would require the assistance of a third £10,000 - £20,000
Undertake a detailed further review of document party e-Disclosure provider.
locations/custodians and attend meetings with potential . .
custodians and/or teams to obtain information on storage Provides a good level of protection but Cost of imaging
processes. protection is limited by the value of the documents:
information extracted from Post Office
Also scope out documents held in relation to each teams and is not future proof (eg. more £25,000 - £150,000
individual Claimant. documents could be created after copies
This scoping work would allow a list to be drawn up of key are taken).
individuals and key shared document locations (eg. Likely to preserve major locations of key
relevant parts of Sharepoint, etc). documents.
Forensic images can then be taken of any electronic Shows a genuine attempt to preserve
documents stored on key individual email accounts and documents.
personal files and in any other key shared workspaces. .
Reduces the burden when Post Office
With respect to external documents within Post Office's reaches the disclosure stage in this action.
control, locate key external business partners and
stakeholders (eg. Fujitsu) and send bespoke hold notices
to them.
With respect to hard copy documents, obtain and store
any original hard copy case files relevant to particular
Claimants.
5 Forensically image all key IT systems Time consuming (but less so than above). I Gold standard, £700,000 -
minimal risk of £1,500,000
Engage an external e-Disclosure service provider to take
a forensic mirror image of all Post Office servers and
document storage locations.
With respect to external documents within Post Office's
control, we would propose locating the key external
business partners and stakeholders and send bespoke
hold notices and/or document requests to them (with the
option to obtain forensically sound copies where
appropriate).
Most expensive option (due to IT costs of
mirroring very large amounts of data).
Provides full protection with respect to
historic electronic documentation only (still
need to rely on the hold notices to prevent
future deletions.
Less invasive/time consuming than option
4 above.
preservation
failure.
4A_33628418_1
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00139297
POL00139297
With respect to hard copy documents, obtain and store
any original hard copy case files relevant to particular
Claimants.
v_ Provides full protection with respect to
historic documentation and avoids the
need to revisit retention (certainly in the
short term).
4A_33628418_1
POSTMASTER GROUP ACTION
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
Steering Group Meeting: 22 August 2016
POL00139297
POL00139297
Bond Dickingow
POST OFFICE - DOCUMENT LOCATIONS TABLE
HOLDER SOURCE POSSIBLE PRESERVATION ACTION COST (EST.) —
provided by
business and not
verified.
Post Office OLD ELECTRONIC
e Lotus (old emails and archive) None — we understand that these emails are preserved on tape (below) -
e Archive Tapes (fixed email These tapes could be requisitioned — we understand these emails were not I £20k
archives prior to the change to otherwise transferred when the provider changed CSC time
Office)
e NetApp (old OneDrive equivalent) None — we understand that these documents have been transferred to -
SharePoint and/or OneDrive or were otherwise lost on transition in 2015
e Microsoft Office None — email system used post Lotus and pre Office 365 — all copied to -
Office 365 and Mimecast
e FileServers (CFC Cloud) Not all of these have been transferred to Home Drives, OneDrive and/or £150k
SharePoint - forensically sound images could be taken of all documents CSC time
on this system
NEW ELECTRONIC
« Computers (personal) None — should be captured by the proposed hold emails / could -
forensically image hard-drives.
e Phones (personal) None — should be captured by the proposed hold emails / could -
forensically image hard-drives.
e External Storage Devices None — should be captured by the proposed hold emails / could -
forensically image hard-drives.
4A_33628418_1
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL SAP
Home Drives
OneDrive
Office 365
Mimecast
SharePoint
FileServers (cloud CSC)
PO product from Horizon - forensically sound images could be taken of all
documents on this system
Drives held on file servers - forensically sound images could be taken of
all documents on this system
New cloud based location for certain of the Home Drives and NetApp docs
(and for use in the future) - forensically sound images could be taken of all
documents on this system (would need Microsoft support)
None — new emails should be captured by hold notices. Old emails will be
stored on the Mimecast archive
New email archive (all in and out and a full copy of historic archive/email
accounts) - forensically sound images could be taken of all documents on
this system
Team and project specific drives - forensically sound images could be
taken of all documents on this system. No historic log of documents so
old documents could have already been deleted.
FileServers copied from the RMG estate, not held elsewhere by design -
forensically sound images could be taken of all documents on this system
POL00139297
POL00139297
£250k
Fujitsu and Steria
time
Included in
FileServers
£150k
Licencing and time
from Microsoft?
Already
forensically sound
immutable
archive, just
access required
£150k
Microsoft licencing
and time
Included in CSC
FileServers above
e —Proofpoint None - old emails from 2012 — 2015 which may, or may not, be stored -
elsewhere on Mimecast, Lotus and/or tape
e Huddle Copies of the relevant group areas could be forensically imaged -
.
HARD COPY
e Offices These documents should be captured by hold notices already sent to -
Home Offices
individuals within Post Office, and the further team specific hold notices
could be sent.
4A_33628418_1
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00139297
POL00139297
e Box-it archive (used to be Iron
Mountain)
SUPPLEMENTAL
These sources will be used differently by
different teams within Post Office. We
understand that certain teams have team
specific retention policies/schedules.
We understand that the following
software/programmes also interact with
Horizon and short term documents are
accessible by Post Office:
* Branch Databases
e Credence
e¢ HORis
« MDM
e = Eternis
Could send hold notices to all internal team managers — including the
following:
Finance and FSC
Audit
Security
Contract Advisors
Contract Admin
Training Teams
NBSL
Fraud Analysis
Legal
IT
Could also consider sending bespoke communications to the individuals
on the Steering Group, Working Group, and any Horizon
conception/testing/maintenance specific teams within Post Office.
The software in the left column should not be imaged on the basis that
they provide short term access to Fujitsu master data, not separate
documentation and not relevant to historic claims.
Fujitsu
Generic files and servers as well as the
following specific sources that we believe
exist:
e Eternis
« PEAK system
e Horizon Service Desk
e SharePoint (or equivalent)
containing Horizon design docs etc.
Could send itemised hold notice to key relationship managers — containing
a generic preservation request, as well as specific requests with respect to
the source documents listed in the left hand column.
Consider the need to also meet in person to discuss document sources
and required preservation actions.
Contractual notice to preserve to be issued if available.
4A_33628418_1
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00139297
POL00139297
Royal Mail
Historic documents and emails predating
the division of Post Office and RMG. 90%
of these documents (approx.) were
transferred — gauged by access/unit of time.
None — where possible all Post Office documents have been extracted
and transferred. Consider sending hold notice (if current holds insufficient).
and other law
firms
database.
Specific requests could be sent to Cartwright King for criminal files.
Second Sight Unknown It is understood that SS have provided a complete copy of their -
documents to POL already. This is held by BD.
CRK Unknown Still investigating this source. -
ATOS Unknown Could send itemised hold notice to key relationship managers — containing I -
a generic preservation request. Could possibly obtain copy documents
now.
Deloitte Unknown Could send itemised hold notice to key contacts. -
Clients (Banks, Unknown None - these files are not within Post Office's control so are outside of -
Lottery etc) Post Office's preservation duty.
Bond Dickinson Various Legal files should be preserved already. Many files already held on CCRC I -
4A_33628418_1