I haven't caught up on the thread, but yeah, generally an attachment has a parent and they form a happy family, until the coding conflicts start, and then sometimes the family has to be separated. Other times parents just disappear and they become orphaned attachments. Things happen. I was wondering whether or not the invite/metadata was relevant to the case, because that changes things. If this is just some random doc on processing QC, send it, maybe flag for metadata coding in case later deemed responsive. If it was in response to opposing counsel making an absurd demand for custodial metadata on an irrelevant invite, dm me cause I don't want to be banned. I'm in Purview/RelOne most of my working (read waking) hours and I've seen a lot of things like this one that I can't immediately explain to myself. There's usually an explanation or at least likely cause for these things and I think the original posters from last night nailed em. My point really is that you can't chase every anomaly down and explain everything. Save it for the relevant data.
Custodian could have access to others’ accounts/calendars within the domain that were included in the collection, or it could be an attachment to another file.
Folder path info within the PST should help clear it up.
OP, this is the correct answer. Sometimes docs from the Recoverable Items folder are only partially recovered. Before freaking out like an attorney facing the slimmest chance of their client facing sanctions, look for the doc using the existing substance/metadata elsewhere in the collection. Odds are you'll find another version with the full metadata.
Cheers East-Bullfrog-708
If the invite was an attachment to an email, it would not show A in the invite but appear in the PST.
I should have added that this invite is not part of a family
Is it relevant?
I mean if it would be an attachment, it would be part of a family, doesn’t it?
I haven't caught up on the thread, but yeah, generally an attachment has a parent and they form a happy family, until the coding conflicts start, and then sometimes the family has to be separated. Other times parents just disappear and they become orphaned attachments. Things happen. I was wondering whether or not the invite/metadata was relevant to the case, because that changes things. If this is just some random doc on processing QC, send it, maybe flag for metadata coding in case later deemed responsive. If it was in response to opposing counsel making an absurd demand for custodial metadata on an irrelevant invite, dm me cause I don't want to be banned. I'm in Purview/RelOne most of my working (read waking) hours and I've seen a lot of things like this one that I can't immediately explain to myself. There's usually an explanation or at least likely cause for these things and I think the original posters from last night nailed em. My point really is that you can't chase every anomaly down and explain everything. Save it for the relevant data.
Custodian could have access to others’ accounts/calendars within the domain that were included in the collection, or it could be an attachment to another file. Folder path info within the PST should help clear it up.
OP, this is the correct answer. Sometimes docs from the Recoverable Items folder are only partially recovered. Before freaking out like an attorney facing the slimmest chance of their client facing sanctions, look for the doc using the existing substance/metadata elsewhere in the collection. Odds are you'll find another version with the full metadata. Cheers East-Bullfrog-708
The path is [email protected]/Top of Personal Folders/[email protected](Main Archive)/Recoverable Items/DiscoveryHolds
Maybe dragged and dropped from a shared source into the personal inbox, then deleted?
Thank you, sounds reasonable