treat information relating to the draft opinion consistent with the Court’s confidentiality policies.
The investigators searched all available logs for evidence of who handled the draft majority opinion after circulation. A few circumstances justified closer inspection, which was conducted but did not result in any solid leads as to the identity of who may have disclosed the document. Consistent with standard policy for most law enforcement agencies, this report does not identify any individuals who received additional scrutiny because (a) certain aspects of the investigation may yield additional pertinent information and (b) in any event, there is not adequate evidence, even applying a preponderance of the evidence standard, to conclude that any particular individual was responsible for the disclosure.
The investigators did not find any logs or IT artifacts indicating that the draft opinion was downloaded to removable media, but it is impossible to rule out.
During the search of logs for networked printers, the investigators discovered very few confirmed print jobs of the draft majority opinion. This is the case for two reasons. First, for some networked printers there was very little logging capability at the time, so it is likely that many print jobs were simply not captured. Second, the investigators learned that many printers in
12
