Computer Forensics Case Analysis: Kucala Enterprises, Ltd. v. Auto Wax Co., Inc. February 21, 2008

INTRODUCTION

There are many computer forensics products on the market today claiming the ability to recover lost/deleted files and obtain electronic evidence (e-evidence) to be used in court. Encase is a popular tool used by many law enforcement agencies to conduct electronic discovery (e-discovery) (EnCase, 2008). Technology is often defined as a double-edged sword. It can be used for great good but also can be used for great harm. Computer forensics is no exception and for every forensics tool there is an anti-forensics tool (EnCase, 2008). Evidence Eliminator is one such tool claiming the ability to defeat the Encase tool (Keys, A. 2003, p.4). What happens when e-evidence in a case is destroyed? What prevents defendants from eliminating all traces of incriminating evidence in an attempt to evade justice? These and other issues are addressed in the case of Kucala Enterprises, Ltd. v. Auto Wax Co., Inc.

OVERVIEW

The two auto care companies, “Kucala” and “Auto Wax,” both manufacture and sell a similar auto clay wax product. In 2001 Auto Wax sent Kucala a letter which stated that Kucala was selling a product that infringed the patent owned by Auto Wax (Keys, A. 2003, p.2). Kucala proceeded to file a complaint, “seeking a declaratory judgment against Auto Wax, which would declare the Auto Wax Patent invalid, and thereby allow Kucala to continue to manufacture and sell its own clay without fear of prosecution by Auto Wax.” (Keys, A. 2003, p.2). On December 13, 2002, the court granted Auto Wax’s discovery request and Kucala was ordered to produce computer files pertaining to the case. Upon forensic inspection of Kucala’s desktop computer, it became apparent that Kucala had used the computer program Evidence Eliminator on the desktop (Keys, A. 2003, p.3).

ANALYSIS

Legal Issue

The legal issue is whether or not Kucala’s actions were unreasonable. Furthermore, whether the actions were done in disregard of the court order, by deleting the files that could be used as evidence(Keys, A. 2003, p.18).

Holding

The district court concluded that Kucala’s disregard of court orders showed an utter lack of respect for the litigation process. The use of Evidence Eliminator software resulted in loss of data relevant to the case. The court found that Kucala had a duty to maintain evidence that was under their control. They were at fault for not preserving it (Keys, A. 2003, p.19).

Decision

The court recommends that Kucala’s suit against Auto Wax be dismissed. Additionally, Kucala is responsible for paying Auto Wax’s attorney fees and costs (Keys, A. 2003, p.20).

CLOSING REMARKS

In this case, any reasonable person can see that justice was clearly served. Kucala’s use of the Evidence Eliminator software seems to be a willful act to circumvent justice. There is no way of telling how much evidence was or was not destroyed by the Evidence Eliminator software. Thus, Kucala’s egregious conduct is rightfully rewarded by dismissing their claim. This a great precedent for subsequent computer forensics cases. As the use of electronic information increases, it is important to ensure that the integrity of that data is maintained. Just as there are penalties for destroying physical evidence, there must be penalties for destroying e-evidence. This will deter the use of tools such as Evidence Eliminator and ensure that computer forensics investigations can be successfully accomplished.

REFERENCES

Keys, A. (2003, May). Kucala Enterprises vs. Auto Wax Company. Retrieved February 14, 2008, from

http://www.guidancesoftware.com/downloads/KucalaVsAutoWax.pdf

EnCase. (2008, February). Wikipedia. Retrieved February 14, 2008, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnCase