Introduction

Imagine you’re on the witness stand, and opposing counsel asks a simple question:

“Can you prove who accessed this critical piece of evidence?”

You confidently present your audit trail showing who created and modified the data. But what about who read it?

In legal software, we’ve long focused on the CUD of audit trails: Create, Update, and Delete. We track changes religiously, but we often ignore a critical piece of the puzzle: the Read action. In high-stakes litigation, regulatory, or forensic contexts, this hidden side of the audit trail isn’t just a nice-to-have; it can be make-or-break for data defensibility.

Why Reads Matter

Imagine generating a full Statute of Limitations (SoL) forensic report. It includes:

• Search criteria
• Audit trails
• Tolling records
• User-attributed metadata

You’ve documented changes perfectly, but can you prove who accessed each part of the data during the investigation?

In legal or regulatory contexts, auditors, courts, or opposing parties may ask for this level of visibility. Without it, your forensic report, however detailed, can leave gaps in the chain of custody.

Selective Read Tracking: Smart Implementation

Logging every single read creates unnecessary overhead. Instead, focus on critical reads that contribute to forensic or regulatory deliverables:

• When a user exports or prints a SoL report
• When a record is flagged for forensic certification
• When generating extended consulting deliverables

Schema Example:

CREATE TABLE AccessLogs (

    AccessLogId INT IDENTITY PRIMARY KEY,

    UserId INT NOT NULL,

    RecordType NVARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,

    RecordId INT NOT NULL,

    Action NVARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,

    Timestamp DATETIME2 DEFAULT SYSUTCDATETIME(),

    ReportId INT NULL,

    Notes NVARCHAR(MAX) NULL

);

Each log entry should capture who, what, when, and why, with optional linkage to the forensic report it supported.

Real-World Cases Where Reads Would Have Mattered

1. United States v. Manning (2013)
   Digital activity logs, including search histories, were used to establish unauthorized access. Detailed read logs could have clarified the scope and intent of access.
   Read more
2. Gates Rubber Company v. Bando Chemical Industries (1996)
   The court emphasized the authenticity of electronic evidence and the need for verifiable audit trails for admissibility.
   Read more
3. In re Jemsek Clinic, P.A. (2013)
   Metadata—including access information—was critical to validating electronic documents’ authenticity in court.
   Read more

Takeaway: Knowing who accessed data can be as vital as knowing who modified it.

Conclusion

For forensic-level defensibility, a CUD audit alone isn’t enough. Adding selective “R” read tracking ensures:

• Chain-of-custody integrity
• Regulatory compliance readiness
• Forensic defensibility

The difference between a “helpful” legal software tool and a truly legally defensible one lies in the details. Strategic read tracking ensures you capture the reads that matter, future-proof your platform, protect your data, and give users confidence in high-stakes situations.

About the Author

My name is Paul A. Jones Jr., and I am a software engineer and legal tech founder developing tools for professionals in law and other regulated industries. I write about systems thinking, modern workflows, and SaaS applications at PaulJonesSoftware.com. Follow me on Twitter: @PaulAJonesJr.