Close
Enter your
text here
Posts By :

Doug Austin

Another Social Media Request Denied as a “Carte Blanche” Request – eDiscovery Case Law

After last week’s recap of 2012 cases, it’s time to start discussing cases in 2013!

In Keller v. National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co., No. CV 12-72-M-DLC-JCL, (Dist. Court, D. Montana Jan. 2, 2013), the defendants filed a motion to compel the plaintiff’s to respond to various discovery requests.  While Magistrate Judge Jeremiah Lynch granted their request to compel the plaintiffs to produce medical records, he denied the defendant’s request “to delve carte blanche into the nonpublic sections of Plaintiffs’ social networking accounts”.

In this breach of contract case claiming damages in the form of unpaid medical expenses and $100,000 in uninsured motorist benefits against the defendant who insured the plaintiff under an automobile liability policy after an automobile accident, the defendant filed a motion to compel the plaintiffs to respond to various discovery requests.  As part of the motion to compel, the defendants requested “any and all records, reports or other documentation for each physician or other health care provider with whom Plaintiff Jennifer Keller has treated or consulted for the period beginning January 1, 2000 up to August 26, 2008”.  The defendants also requested “a full printout of all of [each of the plaintiff’s] social media website pages and all photographs posted thereon including, but not limited to, Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, LinkedIn, LiveJournal, Tagged, Meetup, myLife, Instagram and MeetMe from August 26, 2008 to the present”.

Noting that “Plaintiffs have not shown or argued that producing those records would be unduly burdensome, or that National Farmers Union propounded the discovery request for purposes of harassment”, Judge Lynch granted the motion to compel with regard to the medical records.  However, with regard to the request for social media web pages, while noting that the “content of social networking sites is not protected from discovery merely because a party deems the content ‘private’”, Judge Lynch referenced Tompkins v. Detroit Metropolitan Airport and noted a requirement for a “threshold showing that the requested information is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence”.  In this case, Judge Lynch ruled that the defendant “has not made the requisite threshold showing”, stating that the defendant “is not entitled to delve carte blanche into the nonpublic sections of Plaintiffs’ social networking accounts”.

Therefore, while granting the defendant’s request that the “Plaintiffs must provide a list of all the social networking sites to which they belong”, the remainder of the defendant’s request for social media information was denied, subject to their “right to renew the motion in the event it can make the threshold showing of relevance discussed above”.

So, what do you think?  Should the request have been granted?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

First Case for Technology Assisted Review to be Completed – eDiscovery Trends

As reported in Law Technology News by Evan Koblentz, it appears we have our first case in which predictive coding has been completed.

Last April, as reported in this blog, in Global Aerospace Inc., et al, v. Landow Aviation, L.P. dba Dulles Jet Center, et al, Virginia State Circuit Court Judge James H. Chamblin ordered that the defendants can use predictive coding for discovery in this case, despite the plaintiff’s objections that the technology is not as effective as human review.  The order was issued after the defendants issued a motion requesting either that predictive coding technology be allowed in the case or that the plaintiffs pay any additional costs associated with traditional review.  The defendant had an 8 terabyte data set that they were hoping to reduce to a few hundred gigabytes through advanced culling techniques.

According to the Law Technology News article, defense counsel at Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, and also at Baxter, Baker, Sidle, Conn & Jones, used OrcaTec’s Document Decisioning Suite technology and that OrcaTec will announce that the process is finished after plaintiff’s counsel at Jones Day did not object to the results by a recent deadline.

As reported in the article, eDiscovery analyst David Horrigan of 451 Research, expressed his surprise that Global Aerospace didn’t head in a different direction and wondered aloud why plaintiff’s counsel did not object to the results after initially objecting to the technology itself.

“It’s disappointing this issue has apparently been resolved on [plaintiff’s] missed procedural deadline,” he said. “Not unlike the predictive coding vs. keyword search debate in Kleen Products being postponed, if this court deadline has really been missed, we’ve lost an opportunity for a court ruling on predictive coding being decided on the merits.”

For more about what predictive coding is and its effectiveness, here are a couple of previous posts on the subject.  For other cases where predictive coding and other technology assisted review mechanisms have been discussed, check out this year end case summary from last week.

So, what do you think?  Does this pave the way for more cases to use technology assisted review?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

2012 eDiscovery Year in Review: eDiscovery Case Law, Part 4

As we noted the past three days, eDiscoveryDaily published 98 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 62 unique cases!  Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to admissibility and the duty to preserve and produce electronically stored information (ESI).  Today, let’s take a look back at cases related to sanctions and spoliation.

We grouped those cases into common subject themes and have reviewed them over the past few posts, ending today.  Perhaps you missed some of these?  Now is your chance to catch up!

SPOLIATION / SANCTIONS

All hail the returning champion!  I’ll bet that you won’t be surprised that, once again, the topic with the largest number of case law decisions related to eDiscovery are those related to sanctions and spoliation issues.  Of the 62 cases we covered this past year, almost a third of them (20 total cases) related to sanctions and spoliation issues.  We found them in a variety of sources, even The Hollywood Reporter!  Here they are.  And, as you’ll see by the first case (and a few others), sanctions requested are not always granted – at least not yet.

Sanctions for Violating Motion to Compel Production? Not Yet.  In Fidelity National Title Insurance Co. v. Captiva Lake Investments, LLC, where a party’s “conduct [did not] rise[ ] to the level of a willful violation of the order compelling production” because it was continually working toward the proper production of documents requested by its adversary, a court concluded that the adversary’s motion for sanctions was premature.

“Rap Weasel” Forced to Honor $1 Million Reward Offered via YouTube.  It isn’t every day that eDiscoveryDaily has reason to reference The Hollywood Reporter in a story about eDiscovery case law, but even celebrities have eDiscovery preservation obligations during litigation. In Augstein v. Leslie, New York District Judge Harold Baer imposed an adverse inference sanction against hip hop and R&B artist Ryan Leslie for “negligent destruction” of a hard drive returned to him by the plaintiff after a $1 million reward was offered via YouTube. On November 28, a jury ordered him to pay the $1 million reward to the plaintiff.

Plaintiff Hammered with Case Dismissal for “Egregious” Discovery Violations.  Apparently, destroying your first computer with a sledgehammer and using Evidence Eliminator and CCleaner on your second computer (when you have a duty to preserve both) are not considered to be best practices for preservation. Who knew? 😉

Rambus’ “Shred Days” Result in Sanctions Yet Again.  In Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., California District Judge Ronald Whyte used his discretion to fashion an appropriate fact-specific sanctions award after it found a party willfully destroyed evidence despite reasonably foreseeable litigation, it destroyed such evidence in bad faith, and the opposing party suffered prejudice.

Defendant Ordered to Retain Outside Vendor, Monetary Sanction Awarded.  In Carrillo v. Schneider Logistics, Inc., California Magistrate Judge David Bristow ordered the defendant to “retain, at its expense, an outside vendor, to be jointly selected by the parties, to collect electronically stored information and email correspondence”. The defendant was ordered to produce all surveillance videotapes responsive to plaintiffs’ discovery requests and monetary sanctions were awarded for plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs incurred as a result of the defendant’s discovery violations.

Government Document Productions Can Be Like Water Torture.  In Botell v. United States, Magistrate Judge Gregory Hollows noted that the US Government’s “document production performance in these proceedings has been akin to a drop-by-drop water torture” and ordered a preclusion order prohibiting the US Government “from presenting evidence in its case that had been requested by plaintiffs in the Requests for Production, but which has not been produced” as of the date of the order. The US was also still required to produce the documents, whether they planned to use them or not. Judge Hollows also noted that the “Plaintiff has not waived any motion to seek further sanctions regarding non-production of documents, or spoliation of documents.”

Defendant Appeals Sanctions, Only to See Sanction Amount Raised on Appeal.  In Multifeeder Tech. Inc. v. British Confectionery Co. Ltd., the defendant had been previously sanctioned $500,000 ($475,000 to the plaintiff and $25,000 to the court) and held in contempt of court by the magistrate judge for spoliation, who also recommended an adverse inference instruction be issued at trial. The defendant appealed to the district court, where Minnesota District Judge John Tunheim increased the award to the plaintiff to $600,000. Oops!

eDiscovery Sanctions Can Happen in Police Brutality Cases Too.  As reported in the Seattle Times, Pierce County (Washington) Superior Court Judge Stephanie Arend issued a $300,000 sanction against King County for failure to produce key documents illustrating the previous troubling behavior of a sheriff deputy who tackled Christopher Sean Harris and left him permanently brain-damaged. Judge Arend also indicated that the county would be liable for attorneys’ fees and possibly compensatory damages for the Harris family. This after King County had settled with the Harris family for $10 million in January 2011 during a civil trial in King County Superior Court.

When is a Billion Dollars Not Enough?  When it’s Apple v. Samsung, of course! According to the Huffington Post, Apple Inc. requested a court order for a permanent U.S. sales ban on Samsung Electronics products found to have violated its patents along with additional damages of $707 million on top of the $1.05 billion dollar verdict won by Apple last month, already one of the largest intellectual-property awards on record.

No Sanctions For Spoliation With No Bad Faith.  In Sherman v. Rinchem Co., the plaintiff in a defamation case against his former employer appealed the district court’s denial of both his summary judgment motion and request for an adverse inference jury instruction. The district court had decided the case under Minnesota law, which “provides that ‘even when a breach of the duty to preserve evidence is not done in bad faith, the district court must attempt to remedy any prejudice that occurs as a result of the destruction of the evidence.’” In contrast, as the Eighth Circuit pointed out, in this case where the parties had diversity, and a question remained as to whether state or federal spoliation laws were applicable, federal law requires “a finding of intentional destruction indicating a desire to suppress the truth” in order to impose sanctions.

Pension Committee Precedent Takes One on the Chin.  In Chin v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it was within a district court’s discretion not to impose sanctions against a party for its failure to institute a litigation hold.

More Sanctions for Fry’s Electronics.  In E.E.O.C. v Fry’s Electronics, Inc., Washington District Judge Robert S. Lasnik ordered several sanctions against the defendant in this sexual harassment case (including ordering the defendant to pay $100,000 in monetary sanctions and ordering that certain evidence be considered presumptively admissible at trial), but stopped short of entering a default judgment against the defendant. This ruling came after having previously ordered sanctions against the defendant less than two months earlier.

No Sanctions When You Can’t Prove Evidence Was Destroyed.  In Omogbehin v. Cino, the plaintiff claimed that the District Court erred in denying his motion for spoliation sanctions and appealed to the US Third Circuit Court of Appeals, but lost as the appellate court upheld the rulings by the district judge and magistrate judge.

“Naked” Assertions of Spoliation Are Not Enough to Grant Spoliation Claims.  In Grabenstein v. Arrow Electronics, Inc., Colorado Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix denied the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, finding that their claims of spoliation were based on “naked” assertions that relevant eMails must exist even though the plaintiff could not demonstrate that such other eMails do or did exist. The motion was also denied because the plaintiff could not establish when the defendant had deleted certain eMail messages, thereby failing to prove claims that the defendant violated its duty to preserve electronic evidence. Judge Mix noted that sanctions are not justified when documents are destroyed in good faith pursuant to a reasonable records-retention policy, if that’s prior to the duty to preserve such documents.

Spoliation of Data Can Lead to Your Case Being Dismissed.  In In 915 Broadway Associates LLC v. Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP, the New York Supreme Court imposed the severest of sanctions against the plaintiffs for spoliation of evidence – dismissal of their $20 million case.

Better Late Than Never? Not With Discovery.  In Techsavies, LLC v. WFDA Mktg., Inc., Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman of the United States District Court for the District of Northern California sanctioned the defendant for repeated failures to produce responsive documents in a timely manner because of their failure to identify relevant data sources in preparing its initial disclosures.

The Zubulake Rules of Civil Procedure.  As noted in Law Technology News, the New York Appellate Division has embraced the federal standards of Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, in two case rulings within a month’s time, one of which resulted in sanctions against one of the parties for spoliation of data.

eDiscovery Violations Leave Delta Holding the Bag.  In the case In re Delta/AirTran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litig., U.S. District Judge Timothy Batten ordered Delta to pay plaintiff attorney’s fees and costs for eDiscovery issues in consolidated antitrust cases claiming Delta and AirTran Holdings, Inc. conspired to charge customers $15 to check their first bag. Noting that there was a “huge hole” in Delta’s eDiscovery process, Judge Batten reopened discovery based on defendants’ untimely production of records and indications that there was overwriting of backup tapes, inconsistencies in deposition testimony and documents, and neglect in searching and producing documents from hard drives.

Burn Your Computer and the Court Will Burn You.  In Evans v. Mobile Cnty. Health Dept., Alabama Magistrate Judge William Cassady granted a motion for sanctions, including an adverse inference instruction, where the plaintiff had burned and destroyed her computer that she used during the time she claimed she was harassed.

Appeals Court Decides Spoliation Finding For Not Producing Originals is Bull.  In Bull v. UPS Inc., the Third Circuit court conceded that “producing copies in instances where the originals have been requested may constitute spoliation if it would prevent discovering critical information”. However, it found that in this case, the District Court erred in finding that spoliation had occurred and in imposing a sanction of dismissal with prejudice.

So, what do you think?  Did you miss any of these?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

2012 eDiscovery Year in Review: eDiscovery Case Law, Part 3

As we noted the past two days, eDiscoveryDaily published 98 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 62 unique cases!  Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to social media and the first cases approving technology assisted review.  Today, let’s take a look back at cases related to admissibility and the duty to preserve and produce electronically stored information (ESI).

We grouped those cases into common subject themes and will review them over the next few posts.  Perhaps you missed some of these?  Now is your chance to catch up!

ADMISSIBILITY AND DUTY TO PRESERVE AND PRODUCE

Admissibility of ESI, and the duty to preserve and produce it, is more at issue than ever.  Whether the issue is whether certain emails should be considered privileged, whether cloning of computer files is acceptable or whether text messages require substantiation of authorship, parties are disputing what ESI should actually be admissible in litigation.  Parties are also disputing when and where litigation holds are required and whether collection and search practices are acceptable.  In short, there are numerous disputes about data being produced and not being produced.  Here are (a whopping) sixteen cases related to admissibility and the duty to preserve and produce ESI:

Emails Between Husband and Wife Are Not Privileged, If Sent from Work Computer.  In United States v. Hamilton, the Fourth Circuit found that the district court had not abused its discretion in finding that e-mails between the defendant and his wife did not merit marital privilege protection because the defendant had used his office computer and his work e-mail account to send and receive the communications and because he had not taken steps to protect the e-mails in question, even after his employer instituted a policy permitting inspection of e-mails and he was on notice of the policy.

Defendant Had Duty to Preserve Despite No Physical Possession of Documents.  In Haskins v. First American Title Insurance Co., a court found that an insurance company had a duty to issue a litigation hold to its independent title agents because litigation was reasonably foreseeable and the duty to preserve extends to third parties, as long as the documents are “within a party’s possession, custody, or control.” Although it did not have physical possession, the insurance company controlled the agents’ documents because it had “‘the legal right or ability to obtain the documents from [the agents] upon demand.’”

Defendant Compelled to Produce Additional Discovery to Plaintiff.  In Freeman v. Dal-Tile Corp., a case alleging harassment and discrimination, among other claims, against her former employer Dal-Tile Corporation, the plaintiff brought a motion to compel, asserting that some of the defendant’s discovery responses related to its search for ESI were deficient.

Defendant Claiming Not Reasonably Accessible Data Has Some ‘Splaining To Do.  In Murray v. Coleman, the plaintiff alleged harassment and retaliation in connection with his employment with the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS). This discovery dispute arose when the plaintiff requested access to certain electronic records, alleging that the defendants withheld them.

Cloning of Computer Files: When There’s a Will, There’s a Way.  In Matter of Tilimbo, a court held it was permissible to order cloning of computer files where doing so did not place an unreasonable burden on a nonparty, appropriate steps were taken to protect any privileged information, and the nonparty had not previously produced the requested information in hard copy.

Citing Rule 26(g), Court Orders Plaintiff’s Counsel to Disclose Search Strategy.  Our 501st post on the blog addresses S2 Automation LLC v. Micron Technology, where New Mexico District Judge James Browning ordered the plaintiff’s attorneys to disclose the search strategy their client used to identify responsive documents, based on Federal Rule 26(g) that requires attorneys to sign discovery responses and certify that they are “complete and correct.”

Judge Scheindlin Says “No” to Self-Collection, “Yes” to Predictive Coding.  When most people think of the horrors of Friday the 13th, they think of Jason Voorhees. When US Immigration and Customs thinks of Friday the 13th horrors, do they think of Judge Shira Scheindlin?  New York District Judge Scheindlin issued a decision on Friday, July 13, addressing the adequacy of searching and self-collection by government entity custodians in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

Plaintiff Compelled to Produce Mirror Image of Drives Despite Defendant’s Initial Failure to Request Metadata.  In Commercial Law Corp., P.C. v. FDIC, Michigan District Judge Sean F. Cox ruled that a party can be compelled to produce a mirror image of its computer drives using a neutral third-party expert where metadata is relevant and the circumstances dictate it, even though the requesting party initially failed to request that metadata and specify the format of documents in its first discovery request.

Court Allows Third Party Discovery Because Defendant is an “Unreliable Source”.  Repeatedly referring to the defendant’s unreliability and untrustworthiness in discovery and “desire to suppress the truth,” Nebraska Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart found, in Peter Kiewit Sons’, Inc. v. Wall Street Equity Group, Inc., that the defendant avoided responding substantively to the plaintiff’s discovery requests through a pattern of destruction and misrepresentation and therefore monetary sanctions and an adverse jury instruction at trial were appropriate.

Inadmissibility of Text Messages Being Appealed.  In October 2011, we covered a case – Commonwealth v. Koch – where a Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled text messages inadmissible, declaring that parties seeking to introduce electronic materials, such as cell phone text messages and email, must be prepared to substantiate their claim of authorship with “circumstantial evidence” that corroborates the sender’s identity. That case, where Amy N. Koch was originally convicted at trial on drug charges (partially due to text messages found on her cell phone), is now being appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Another Case with Inadmissible Text Messages.  Above, we discussed a case where a Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled text messages inadmissible, declaring that parties seeking to introduce electronic materials, such as cell phone text messages and email, must be prepared to substantiate their claim of authorship with “circumstantial evidence” that corroborates the sender’s identity. That case is now being appealed to the state Supreme Court. Today, we have another case – Rodriguez v. Nevada – where text messages were ruled inadmissible.

Court Grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Mirror-Imaging of Defendant’s Computers.  In approving a motion for expedited discovery in United Factory Furniture Corp. v. Alterwitz, Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach granted the plaintiff’s motion for a mirror-imaging order after determining the benefit outweighed the burden of the discovery, and it denied as unnecessary the plaintiff’s motion for an order to preserve evidence and a preliminary injunction from spoliation of evidence.

Court Orders eDiscovery Evidentiary Hearing When Parties Are Unable to Cooperate.  A month ago, in Chura v. Delmar Gardens of Lenexa, Inc., Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse ordered an evidentiary hearing to discuss the sufficiency of the defendant’s search for ESI and format of production in response to the plaintiff’s motion to compel additional searching and production.

At The Eleventh Hour, Encrypted Hard Drive Is Decrypted.  In our previous post regarding the case U.S. v. Fricosu, Colorado district judge Robert Blackburn ruled that Ramona Fricosu must produce an unencrypted version of her Toshiba laptop’s hard drive to prosecutors in a mortgage fraud case for police inspection. Naturally, the defendant appealed. On February 21st, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to get involved, saying Ramona Fricosu’s case must first be resolved in District Court before her attorney can appeal. She would have been required to turn over the unencrypted contents of the drive as of March 1. However, at the last minute, Colorado federal authorities decrypted the laptop.

Court Rules Exact Search Terms Are Limited.  In Custom Hardware Eng’g & Consulting v. Dowell, the plaintiff and defendant could not agree on search terms to be used for discovery on defendant’s forensically imaged computers. After reviewing proposed search terms from both sides, and the defendant’s objections to the plaintiff’s proposed list, the court ruled that the defendant’s proposed list was “problematic and inappropriate” and that their objections to the plaintiff’s proposed terms were “without merit” and ruled for use of the plaintiff’s search terms in discovery.

KPMG Loses Another Round to Pippins.  As discussed previously in eDiscovery Daily, KPMG sought a protective order in Pippins v. KPMG LLP to require the preservation of only a random sample of 100 hard drives from among those it had already preserved for this and other litigation or shift the cost of any preservation beyond that requested scope. Lawyers for Pippins won a ruling last November by Magistrate Judge James Cott to use all available drives and Judge Cott encouraged the parties to continue to meet and confer to reach agreement on sampling. However, the parties were unable to agree and KPMG appealed to the District Court. In February, District Court Judge Colleen McMahon upheld the lower court ruling.

Tune in tomorrow for more key cases of 2012 and, once again, the most common theme of the year!

So, what do you think?  Did you miss any of these?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

2012 eDiscovery Year in Review: eDiscovery Case Law, Part 2

As we noted yesterday, eDiscoveryDaily published 98 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 62 unique cases!  Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to proportionality and cooperation, privilege and inadvertent disclosures, and eDiscovery cost reimbursement.  Today, let’s take a look back at cases related to social media and, of course, technology assisted review(!).

We grouped those cases into common subject themes and will review them over the next few posts.  Perhaps you missed some of these?  Now is your chance to catch up!

SOCIAL MEDIA

Requests for social media data in litigation continue.  Unlike last year, however, not all requests for social media data were granted as some requests were deemed overbroad.  However, Twitter fought “tooth and nail” (unsuccessfully, as it turns out) to avoid turning over a user’s tweets in at least one case.  Here are six cases related to social media data:

Class Action Plaintiffs Required to Provide Social Media Passwords and Cell Phones.  Considering proportionality and accessibility concerns in EEOC v. Original Honeybaked Ham Co. of Georgia, Colorado Magistrate Judge Michael Hegarty held that where a party had showed certain of its adversaries’ social media content and text messages were relevant, the adversaries must produce usernames and passwords for their social media accounts, usernames and passwords for e-mail accounts and blogs, and cell phones used to send or receive text messages to be examined by a forensic expert as a special master in camera.

Another Social Media Discovery Request Ruled Overbroad.  As was the case in Mailhoit v. Home Depot previously, Magistrate Judge Mark R. Abel ruled in Howell v. The Buckeye Ranch that the defendant’s request (to compel the plaintiff to provide her user names and passwords for each of the social media sites she uses) was overbroad.

Twitter Turns Over Tweets in People v. Harris.  As reported by Reuters, Twitter has turned over Tweets and Twitter account user information for Malcolm Harris in People v. Harris, after their motion for a stay of enforcement was denied by the Appellate Division, First Department in New York and they faced a finding of contempt for not turning over the information. Twitter surrendered an “inch-high stack of paper inside a mailing envelope” to Manhattan Criminal Court Judge Matthew Sciarrino, which will remain under seal while a request for a stay by Harris is heard in a higher court.

Home Depot’s “Extremely Broad” Request for Social Media Posts Denied.  In Mailhoit v. Home Depot, Magistrate Judge Suzanne Segal ruled that the three out of four of the defendant’s discovery requests failed Federal Rule 34(b)(1)(A)’s “reasonable particularity” requirement, were, therefore, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and were denied.

Social Media Is No Different than eMail for Discovery Purposes.  In Robinson v. Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc., Oregon Magistrate Judge Paul Papak found that social media is just another form of electronically stored information (ESI), stating “I see no principled reason to articulate different standards for the discoverability of communications through email, text message, or social media platforms. I therefore fashion a single order covering all these communications.”

Plaintiff Not Compelled To Turn Over Facebook Login Information.  In Davids v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., the Eastern District of New York ruled against the defendant on whether the plaintiff in her claim against a pharmaceutical company could be compelled to turn over her Facebook account’s login username and password.

TECHNOLOGY ASSISTED REVIEW

eDiscovery vendors everywhere had been “waiting with bated breath” for the first case law pertaining to acceptance of technology assisted review within the courtroom.  Not only did they get their case, they got a few others – and, in one case, the judge actually required both parties to use predictive coding.  And, of course, there was a titanic battle over the use of predictive coding in the DaSilva Moore – easily the most discussed case of the year.  Here are five cases where technology assisted review was at issue:

Louisiana Order Dictates That the Parties Cooperate on Technology Assisted Review.  In the case In re Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation, a case management order applicable to pretrial proceedings in a multidistrict litigation consolidating eleven civil actions, the court issued comprehensive instructions for the use of technology-assisted review (“TAR”).

Judge Carter Refuses to Recuse Judge Peck in Da Silva Moore.  This is only the final post of the year in eDiscovery Daily related to Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group.  There were at least nine others (linked within this final post) detailing New York Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck’s original opinion accepting computer assisted review, the plaintiff’s objections to the opinion, their subsequent attempts to have Judge Peck recused from the case (alleging bias) and, eventually, District Court Judge Andrew L. Carter’s orders upholding Judge Peck’s original opinion and refusing to recuse him in the case.

Both Sides Instructed to Use Predictive Coding or Show Cause Why Not.  Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster in Delaware Chancery Court – in EORHB, Inc., et al v. HOA Holdings, LLC, – has issued a “surprise” bench order requiring both sides to use predictive coding and to use the same vendor.

No Kleen Sweep for Technology Assisted Review.  For much of the year, proponents of predictive coding and other technology assisted review (TAR) concepts have been pointing to three significant cases where the technology based approaches have either been approved or are seriously being considered. Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe and Global Aerospace v. Landow Aviation are two of the cases, the third one is Kleen Products v. Packaging Corp. of America. However, in the Kleen case, the parties have now reached an agreement to drop the TAR-based approach, at least for the first request for production.

Is the Third Time the Charm for Technology Assisted Review?  In Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck issued an opinion making it the first case to accept the use of computer-assisted review of electronically stored information (“ESI”) for this case. Or, so we thought. Conversely, in Kleen Products LLC v. Packaging Corporation of America, et al., the plaintiffs have asked Magistrate Judge Nan Nolan to require the producing parties to employ a technology assisted review approach in their production of documents. Now, there’s a third case where the use of technology assisted review is actually being approved in an order by the judge.

Tune in tomorrow for more key cases of 2012 and one of the most common themes of the year!

So, what do you think?  Did you miss any of these?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

2012 eDiscovery Year in Review: eDiscovery Case Law, Part 1

2012 was quite a year from an eDiscovery standpoint, with a number of cases that impacted how organizations handle discovery.  There were case decisions that broke new ground (such as technology assisted review) and other cases that showed that many organizations still have a lot to learn in terms of inadvertent disclosures of privileged documents and sanctions assessed due to spoliation.

As we did last year, it seems appropriate to review cases from 2012 before moving forward to this year.  eDiscoveryDaily published 98 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 62 unique cases!  And, believe it or not, we still didn’t cover every case that had eDiscovery impact.  Sometimes, you want to cover other topics too.

Nonetheless, for the cases we did cover, we grouped them into common subject themes and will review them over the next few posts (a few of them could be categorized in more than one category, so we took our best shot).  Perhaps you missed some of these?  Now is your chance to catch up!

PROPORTIONALITY / COOPERATION

There were certainly at least a handful of cases where proportionality of eDiscovery and cooperation between parties was at issue.  Here are three such cases:

Plaintiffs Should Pay for Extensive Discovery Prior to Class Certification.  In Boeynaems v. LA Fitness International, LLC, Pennsylvania District Judge Michael Baylson held that “where (1) class certification is pending and (2) the plaintiffs have asked for very extensive discovery, compliance with which will be very extensive, that absent compelling equitable circumstances to the contrary, the plaintiffs should pay for the discovery they seek . . . . Where the burden of discovery expense is almost entirely on the defendant, principally because the plaintiffs seek class certification, then the plaintiffs should share the costs.”

There’s a New Sheriff in Town – Judge Facciola.  In Taydon v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., District of Columbia Magistrate Judge John Facciola laid down the law to the parties in the case requiring cooperation on eDiscovery issues after “[t]he filing of forty-page discovery motions accompanied by thousands of pages of exhibits” and made it clear that the parties would be expected to “meet and confer in person in a genuine, good faith effort to plan the rest of discovery”.

Tennessee Court Orders Split eDiscovery Costs, Plaintiff Bond for Additional Discovery.  In considering the allocation of costs in this contentious business dispute, Tennessee Magistrate Judge Joe B. Brown (not to be confused with TV’s Judge Joe Brown) ordered the parties to split the expenses related to material they had not already produced in Lubber Inc. v. Optari, LLC.

PRIVILEGE / INADVERTENT DISCLOSURES

There were a few cases related to privilege issues, with parties failing the five factor test and paying the price for inadvertent disclosures of privileged documents (even when disclosing two privileged pages out of two million pages produced!).  Here are five cases where disclosure of privileged documents was addressed:

Another Disclosure of Privileged Documents Fails the Five Factor Test.  In Inhalation Plastics, Inc. v. Medex Cardio-Pulmonary, Inc., Ohio Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King found that the defendant had waived the attorney-client privilege was waived for 347 emails inadvertently produced, because they failed all factors in the five factor test to determine whether the inadvertent disclosure entitles the producing party to the return of the documents in question.

Counsel, The Inadvertent Disclosure “Buck” Stops With You.  In Blythe v. Bell, North Carolina Business Superior Court Judge James L. Gale denied a motion for an order compelling the return of privileged documents inadvertently disclosed by the defendants, ruling that privilege had been waived on those documents.

Privilege Waived Because Defendants Failed to Notice “Something Had Gone Awry” with Their Production.  In D’Onofrio v. Borough of Seaside Park, New Jersey Magistrate Judge Tonianne Bongiovanni denied the defendants’ motion for discovery to reclaim privileged documents that were inadvertently produced, finding that privilege was waived because the defendants failed to take reasonable measures to rectify the disclosure.

Inadvertent Disclosure By Expert Waives Privilege.  In Ceglia v. Zuckerberg (the case where Paul Ceglia is suing claiming 84% ownership of Facebook due to an alleged agreement he had with Mark Zuckerberg back in 2003), New York Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio ruled that an information technology expert’s inadvertent disclosure waived the attorney-client privilege where the plaintiff could not show that it (1) took reasonable steps to prevent the disclosure of the e-mail and (2) took reasonable steps to rectify the error once it discovered the disclosure.

Two Pages Inadvertently Disclosed Out of Two Million May Still Waive Privilege.  In Jacob v. Duane Reade, Inc., Magistrate Judge Theodore Katz of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York found that a privileged, two-page email that was inadvertently produced did not have to be returned and that the privilege had been waived because the producing party, Duane Reade, had failed to request its return in a timely manner. According to Defendants’ counsel, the ESI production involved the review of over two million documents in less than a month; that review was accomplished with the assistance of an outside vendor and document review team.

EDISCOVERY COST REIMBURSEMENT

In 2011, there were several cases where the prevailing party was awarded reimbursement of eDiscovery costs.  Last year, that trend reversed somewhat as there were some cases where requests for reimbursement of eDiscovery costs was denied (or only partially granted).  Here are five cases, some of which fall into each category:

Court Reduces, But Allows, Reimbursement of eDiscovery Costs.  In Moore v. The Weinstein Company LLC, noting it had wide discretion to determine costs recoverable by a prevailing party under federal statutes providing for the taxation of costs, a court reduced costs awarded for eDiscovery expenditures based on its analysis of which costs were reasonable, necessary, and taxable.

Trend Has Shifted Against Reimbursement of eDiscovery Costs.  Last year, the trend seemed to be to award the prevailing party reimbursement of eDiscovery costs. Now, that trend appears to have been reversed with those requests being denied (or reversed) by the courts. Now, here is another case where reimbursement of eDiscovery costs was denied.

Google Awarded $1 Million from Oracle, But Denied Discovery Costs.  Judge William Alsup ordered Oracle to pay Google $1 million as reimbursement for Google’s fees for a court-appointed expert in their court battle over intellectual property and Google’s Android software. However, the ruling is only a partial victory for Google, who was seeking $4 million from Oracle in reimbursement of costs associated with the case.

No Race Tires on This Vehicle, Taxation of eDiscovery Costs Granted.  Last May, in Race Tires America, Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corporation, the winning defendants were awarded $367,000 as reimbursement for eDiscovery costs. (Hoosier Daddy!) But, then in March, an appellate court reversed all but $30,370 of those costs, implementing a narrow interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) for assigning those costs. Now, a new case addresses the issue of taxation of costs once again.

Not So Fast On eDiscovery Cost Reimbursement.  Today, we look at another eDiscovery ruling where a significant reduction in award amount was ruled.

We’re just getting started!  Tomorrow, we will cover cases related to social media and technology assisted review.  Stay tuned!

So, what do you think?  Did you miss any of these?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Reduces, But Allows, Reimbursement of eDiscovery Costs – eDiscovery Case Law

In some cases, such as this case and this case, the prevailing party received reimbursement of eDiscovery costs, whereas in this case, this case and this case requests for reimbursement of costs was denied (or reversed) by the courts.  In this case, the prevailing party was awarded a reduced amount, but still received reimbursement of eDiscovery costs.

In Moore v. The Weinstein Company LLC, No. 3:09-cv-0166, 2012 U.S. Dist. (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 18, 2012), noting it had wide discretion to determine costs recoverable by a prevailing party under federal statutes providing for the taxation of costs, a court reduced costs awarded for eDiscovery expenditures based on its analysis of which costs were reasonable, necessary, and taxable.

In this case involving Samuel David Moore, professionally known as Legendary Soul Man Sam Moore, and others as plaintiffs, the defendants prevailed on a motion for summary judgment and subsequently filed a bill of costs. The plaintiffs, however, objected to the costs, and therefore U.S. Magistrate Judge Joe B. Brown (not to be confused with TV’s Judge Joe Brown) reviewed the case. One category of costs the plaintiffs objected to involved eDiscovery expenses.

The court noted that the defendants requested over $40,000 in costs for eDiscovery, approximately half of which was to compensate a third-party vendor for its services. Other costs were for expenses related to in-house eDiscovery work performed by defendants’ counsel Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis, LLP. The court also noted that the parties had agreed to the eDiscovery procedures they would use in their Case Management Order, and these processes included producing electronic data in a TIFF format.

Noting simply that precedent gives courts wide discretion in determining which costs are taxable, the court concluded that certain eDiscovery expenditures submitted by the defendants in their bill of costs were reasonably taxable and some were not:

The Magistrate Judge has reviewed these charges and believes some are unreasonable and should be reduced or eliminated. The Document Solutions charges are reasonable and necessary. Pursuant to the Case Management Order, costs for processing documents into specific formats were required to be borne by each party. Moreover, further processing that document for production by, for example, searching for specific custodians, is also a necessary cost of this litigation.

With respect to the in-house “Technology Services” charges, however, the Magistrate Judge is persuaded that the per hour charge of $150 is unreasonable. Document Solutions billed “tech time” at $175 per hour, which would presumably be significantly higher than the rates billed to Waller clients by Waller’s in-house technical staff. The Magistrate Judge believes that a rate comparable to an experienced paralegal would be more appropriate. The technology services technologists have specialized expertise and training similar to a paralegal. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge will set a more reasonable billing rate of $100/hour for Technology Services billing.

Additionally, the Magistrate Judge concluded that several other costs were “not properly taxed” to the plaintiffs, including costs for “[w]ork on discovery budget”; and “[p]reparation of deposition transcripts for review” and “[p]reparation of documents for hearing,” as they represented “paralegal work.” Finally, an entry for an attorney to “[p]repare for and attend [a] telephonic deposition of IT vendor” was deemed non-taxable by the court as it was “unnecessary.”

Accordingly, the court reduced the total taxable costs for eDiscovery to $36,196.90.

So, what do you think?  Should the costs have been reimbursed?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).  For eDiscovery news and best practices, check out the Applied Discovery Blog here.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Emails Between Husband and Wife Are Not Privileged, If Sent from Work Computer – eDiscovery Case Law

In United States v. Hamilton, No. 11-4847, 2012 U.S. App. (4th Cir. Dec. 13, 2012), the Fourth Circuit found that the district court had not abused its discretion in finding that e-mails between the defendant and his wife did not merit marital privilege protection because the defendant had used his office computer and his work e-mail account to send and receive the communications and because he had not taken steps to protect the e-mails in question, even after his employer instituted a policy permitting inspection of e-mails and he was on notice of the policy.

This appeal arose after a jury convicted Phillip A. Hamilton, who had been a state legislator, of bribery and extortion under color of official right for using his legislative position to obtain funding for a public university in exchange for employment at the university. Hamilton appealed on several bases, including that the district court had improperly determined that the marital privilege was waived for e-mails sent between Hamilton and his wife. The appeals court reviewed the district court’s determination using an abuse of discretion standard.

E-mails sent between Hamilton and his wife through his work e-mail account spoke of their financial difficulties, his plan to meet with officials at Old Dominion University (“ODU”) to attempt to secure employment, and the salary he hoped to secure. Other messages that Hamilton sent and received (also from his work e-mail) from ODU officials helped show an inextricable connection between his proposed employment with the school and his plan to secure funding for the school.

In reviewing the district court’s refusal to grant marital-privilege protection to e-mails between Hamilton and his wife, the court turned to the Supreme Court’s analysis of the marital privilege in Wolfle v. United States. In Wolfle, the Court pointed out, “‘Communications between . . . spouses, privately made, are generally assumed to have been intended to be confidential, and hence they are privileged.’” But, “‘voluntary disclosure’ of a communication waives the privilege.” The court analogized the circumstances here to the ones in Wolfle in which the Supreme Court deemed the marital privilege waived:

In Wolfle, the Court held that a defendant’s communication with his wife did not come “within the privilege because of [his] voluntary disclosure” of the communication “to a third person, his stenographer.” (citation omitted) The Court explained that, “[n]ormally husband and wife may conveniently communicate without stenographic aid, and the privilege of holding their confidences immune from proof in court may be reasonably enjoyed and preserved without embracing within it the testimony of third persons to whom such communications have been voluntarily revealed.” (citation omitted) Because “[t]he privilege suppresses relevant testimony,” it “should be allowed only when it is plain that marital confidence cannot otherwise reasonably be preserved,” and “[n]othing in this case suggests any such necessity.” (citation omitted)

Likewise, in Hamilton’s case, with e-mail as “the modern stenographer,” Hamilton waived the marital privilege when he used his work e-mail account on his office computer to communicate with his wife, although he was able to “‘conveniently communicate without’” doing so.

Moreover, the court found, Hamilton’s argument that at the time he sent the e-mails to his wife there was no employer-instituted computer usage policy was without merit. The court pointed out that by the time the investigation into Hamilton was underway, such a policy was in place, Hamilton had signed his agreement to it, and Hamilton reaffirmed acknowledgment of the policy “every time he logged onto his work computer” when he “press[ed] a key to proceed to the next step of the log-on process.” The district court found that these facts were sufficient to establish waiver of the marital privilege, and the appellate court agreed. (Nevertheless, the court appeared to say, even if Hamilton had had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his e-mails—before the employer enacted a policy regarding the e-mails, the prior Wolfle analysis precluded any privilege from attaching in these circumstances.)

The appellate court acknowledged the protection deservedly extended to certain marital communications, but ultimately it concluded that this case fell outside those bounds:

Hamilton himself contends that he did not waive the privilege because he “had no reason to believe, at the time he sent and received the e-mails, that they were not privileged,” and he could not waive his privilege retroactively. Amicus, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, adds that it seems “extreme” to “require an employee to scan all archived e-mails and remove any that are personal and confidential every time the workplace use policy changes,” when “employees may not even be aware that archived e-mails exist or know where to find them.” (citation omitted)

In an era in which e-mail plays a ubiquitous role in daily communications, these arguments caution against lightly finding waiver of marital privilege by e-mail usage. But the district court found that Hamilton did not take any steps to protect the e-mails in question, even after he was on notice of his employer’s policy permitting inspection of e-mails stored on the system at the employer’s discretion.

Accordingly, that one may generally have a reasonable expectation of privacy in e-mail, at least before a policy is in place indicating otherwise, does not end our inquiry.

So, what do you think?  Should the privilege have been waived?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).  For eDiscovery news and best practices, check out the Applied Discovery Blog here.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Chances Are that Delaware Has Been as Busy as Any State in eDiscovery – eDiscovery Trends

In December of 2011, as previously reported in eDiscoveryDaily, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware revised the “Default Standard for Discovery, Including Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (ESI)” to reflect changes in technology and to address concerns of attorneys regarding the discovery of ESI.  As of January 1, 2013, more changes are in effect in Delaware.

As announced in a press release on the Delaware State Courts web site, The Court of Chancery has amended its Rules regarding discovery, effective January 1, 2013.  Rules 26, 30, 34 and 45 have been updated to account for modern discovery demands and will bring the Court’s rules in line with current practice.  The amendments refer to discovery of “electronically stored information” (“ESI”) in addition to “documents” and “tangible things,” and explain how parties should respond to requests for ESI.  These changes are consistent with similar amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Rule 26(c) also was revised to make clear that an out-of-state non-party from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in this state.  Thoughtfully, they used tracked changes to make it easy to see the revisions.  🙂

In addition to amendments to the Rules, the Court also expanded itsGuidelines for Practitioners, originally released in January 2012, to include guidelines regarding discovery.  These guidelines explain the Court’s expectations regarding parties’ responsibility to confer early and often regarding discovery, including expectations and guidelines regarding:

  • Electronic Discovery Procedures,
  • Overall Scope of Discovery,
  • Preferred Procedures for Collection and Review of Discoverable Material (including ESI),
  • Privilege Assertion Process, and
  • The Role of Delaware Counsel in the Discovery Process.

The Court also developed guidelines for expedited discovery in advance of a preliminary injunction hearing.

So, what do you think?  Where does your state stand with regard to rules changes to support discovery of ESI?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

$2.9 Billion? Gartner Predicts eDiscovery Software Market to Double by 2017 – eDiscovery Trends

As reported by Evan Koblentz in Law Technology News, electronic data discovery software sales reached $1.4 billion worldwide in 2012 and will reach $2.9 billion by 2017 according to Gartner Inc.  Their latest forecast for the eDiscovery industry is discussed in Forecast: Enterprise E-Discovery Software, Worldwide, 2012-2017, available here.

As noted in the summary to the report (not surprisingly), “[d]ouble-digit revenue growth is expected because of increased litigation and ever-expanding volumes of content and data that must be searched”.  Some notable statistics:

  • According to Gartner’s prediction, the eDiscovery software market is expected to grow by more than 15 percent annually over the next five years.  This is more than twice the growth rate for overall business software, which is growing at less than 7 percent annually.
  • Last year, Gartner forecasted $1.5 billion in eDiscovery software sales for 2013.  That figure has been raised to $1.67 billion in the latest report.
  • Part of the reason for increased growth is an increase in the international market.  According to Gartner’s evaluation of 2011 data, 82 percent of eDiscovery software revenue came from North America, 12 percent from Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, 5 percent from the Asia-Pacific region, and 1 percent from Latin America.  That’s a 5 percent rise in revenue in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa and a 3 percent rise in the Asia-Pacific region since 2008.

The report can be purchased here for $1,495.

Of course, the Gartner forecast is considerably different from this forecast from last August.

So, what do you think?  Do you think the Gartner forecast is reasonable, or perhaps possibly even too conservative?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.