Close
Enter your
text here
Posts By :

Doug Austin

eDiscovery Case Law: Award for Database Costs Reversed Due to Cost Sharing Agreement
 

An award of costs of $938,957.72, including the winning party’s agreed half share of the cost of a database or $234,702.43, was reversed in Synopsys, Inc. v. Ricoh Co. (In re Ricoh Co. Patent Litigation), No. 2011-1199 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 23, 2011). While the cost of the database could have been taxed to the losing party, the agreement between the parties on cost sharing controlled the ultimate taxation of costs.

After almost seven years of litigation, Synopsys obtained summary judgment and a declaration in Ricoh’s action against seven Synopsys customers that a Ricoh software patent on integrated circuits had not been infringed. During the litigation, Ricoh and Synopsis were unable to agree on a form of production of Synopsis email with its customers, and Ricoh suggested using an electronic discovery company to compile and maintain a database of the email. Synopsis agreed to use of the company’s services and to pay half the cost of the database. After Synopsis obtained summary judgment, the district court approved items in the Synopsis bill of costs totaling $938,957.72, including $234,702.43 for Synopsis’ half share of the cost of the database and $234,702.43 for document production costs.

The court on appeal of the taxation of costs agreed that 28 U.S.C.S. § 1920 provided for recovery of the cost of the database, which was used to produce email in its native format. According to the court, “electronic production of documents can constitute ‘exemplification’ or ‘making copies’ under section 1920(4).” However, the parties had entered into an agreement on splitting the cost of the database and nothing in the 14-page agreement or communications regarding the agreement indicated that the agreement was anything other than a final agreement on the costs of the database. Faced with “scant authority from other circuits as to whether a cost-sharing agreement between parties to litigation is controlling as to the ultimate taxation of costs,” the court concluded the parties’ cost-sharing agreement was controlling. It reversed the district court’s award of $234,702.43 for Synopsis’ half share of the cost of the database.

The court also reversed and remanded the award of an additional $234,702.43 for document production costs because those costs were not adequately documented. For example, many of the invoices simply stated “document production” and did not indicate shipment to opposing counsel. The court stated that the “document production” phrase “does not automatically signify that the copies were produced to opposing counsel.”

So, what do you think?  Should the agreement between parties have superseded the award?  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).

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.

eDiscovery Case Law: Lilly Fails to Meet its eDiscovery Burden, Sanctions Ordered

In Nacco Materials Handling Group, Inc. v. Lilly Co., No. 11-2415 AV, (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 16, 2011), the court required the defendant to bear the costs of discovery where its preservation and collection efforts were “woefully inadequate.” Parties must cooperate and voluntarily preserve, search for, and collect ESI to avoid the imposition of sanctions.

In this case, Nacco, a manufacturer and seller of lift trucks and aftermarket parts, accused Lilly, a former Nacco dealer, of illegally accessing its proprietary, password-secured website on over 40,000 occasions. Nacco asserted a host of claims, including violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, computer trespass, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference with contract and business relations, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.

Nacco filed a motion seeking expedited discovery so that its forensic expert could search Lilly’s computers and determine which computers accessed Nacco’s proprietary information. The expert turned up evidence of inappropriate access on 17 of the 35 computers he examined.

As discovery continued, Nacco also requested the deposition of a 30(b)(6) witness. However, the witness Lilly offered was unprepared to answer questions on the topics outlined in the deposition notice. Based on the witness’s statements in the deposition and evidence found during the forensic examination, Nacco filed a motion to prevent the further spoliation of evidence and sought sanctions.

The court decided that Lilly’s attempts to preserve evidence were “woefully inadequate.” The company “failed to take reasonable steps to preserve, search for, and collect potentially relevant information, particularly electronic data, after its duty to preserve evidence was triggered by being served with the complaint.” Specifically, U.S. Magistrate Judge Diane Vescovo found that the company “failed to timely issue an effective written litigation hold, to take appropriate steps to preserve any existing electronic records, to suspend or alter automatic delete features and routine overwriting features, and to timely and effectively collect ESI.”

The court explained that Lilly sent the litigation hold to seven of its 160 employees without adequate instructions—and the seven did not include the “key players” to the litigation. The company made no further efforts to prevent the deletion of e-mail, data, or backup tapes. Finally, the company apparently “left collection efforts to its employees to search their own computers with no supervision or oversight from management. Lilly did not follow up with its employees to determine what efforts were taken to preserve and collect relevant evidence, and Lilly failed to document any of its search and collection efforts.” Therefore, the court found that Lilly breached its duty to preserve relevant evidence.

After finding the company negligent, the court imposed sanctions against Lilly that included the expense of additional discovery, including the cost of a second 30(b)(6) deposition, the forensic examinations and imaging already complete, the costs of additional analysis of computers of the nine employees who accessed Nacco’s website, and the costs of imaging the computers in its service department. In addition, the court ordered Lilly to pay monetary sanctions equal to plaintiff’s reasonable costs, including attorney’s fees, in bringing the motion.

Finally, the court ordered Lilly to provide an affidavit describing its preservation and collection efforts and certifying that it had suspended its automatic delete functions and preserved backup tapes.

So, what do you think?  Were the sanctions justified? If so, did the court go far enough?  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).

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.

eDiscovery Trends: Interview with Joseph Collins Delayed
 

We were unable to finalize the interview with Joseph Collins, president and co-founder of VaporStream in time for publication today as originally scheduled.  The interview will be published at a later date.  Our apologies for the delay.

eDiscovery Best Practices: When is it OK to Produce without Linear Review?
 

At eDiscoveryDaily, the title of our daily post usually reflects some eDiscovery news and/or analysis that we are providing our readers.  However, based on a comment I received from a colleague last week, I thought I would ask a thought provoking question for this post.

There was an interesting post in the EDD Update blog a few days ago entitled Ediscovery Production Without Review, written by Albert Barsocchini, Esq.  The post noted that due to “[a]dvanced analytics, judicial acceptance of computer aided coding, claw back/quick-peek agreements, and aggressive use of Rule 16 hearings”, many attorneys are choosing to produce responsive ESI without spending time and money on a final linear review.

A colleague of mine sent me an email with a link to the post and stated, “I would not hire a firm if I knew they were producing without a doc by doc review.”

Really?  What if:

  • You collected the equivalent of 10 million pages* and still had 1.2 million potentially responsive pages after early data assessment/first pass review? (reducing 88% of the population, which is a very high culling percentage in most cases)
  • And your review team could review 60 pages per hour, requiring 20,000 hours to complete the responsiveness review?
  • And their average rate was a very reasonable $75 per hour to review, resulting in a total cost of $1.5 million to perform a doc by doc review?
  • And you had a clawback agreement in place so that you could claw back any inadvertently produced privileged files?

“Would you insist on a doc by doc review then?”, I asked.

Let’s face it, $1.5 million is a lot of money.  That may seem like an inordinate amount of money to spend on linear review and the data volume for some large cases may be so voluminous that an effective argument might be made to rely on technology to identify the files to produce.

On the other hand, if you’re a company like Google and you inadvertently produced a document in a case potentially worth billions of dollars, $1.5 million doesn’t seem near as big an amount to spend given the risk associated with potential mistakes.  Also, as the Google case and this case illustrate, there are no guarantees with regards to the ability to claw back inadvertently produced files.  The cost of linear review will, especially in larger cases, need to be weighed against the potential risk of not conducting that review for the organization to determine what’s the best approach for them.

So, what do you think?  Do you produce in cases where not all of the responsive documents are reviewed before production? Are there criteria that you use to determine when to conduct or forego linear review?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

*I used pages in the example to provide a frame of reference to which most attorneys can relate.  While 10 million pages may seem like a large collection, at an average of 50,000 pages per GB, that is only 200 total GB.  Many laptops and desktops these days have a drive that big, if not larger.  Depending on your review approach, most, if not all, original native files would probably never be converted to a standard paginated document format (i.e., TIFF or PDF).  So, it is unlikely that the total page count of the collection would ever be truly known.

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.

eDiscovery Trends: Announcing Holiday Thought Leader Series!
 

eDiscoveryDaily thought quite a bit about what to get for our readers to celebrate these holidays, and what better to give you than interviews with some of the most influential thought leaders in eDiscovery today!  We haven’t had this much fun since the last round of thought leader interviews we conducted at Legal Tech New York earlier this year!  For a recap of those interviews, click here.

Jason Krause has been working hard and “chased” down several well respected individuals and, as a result, we’re pleased to introduce the schedule for the series, which will begin this Wednesday, December 14.

Here are the interviews that we will be publishing over the next two weeks:

Wednesday, December 14: Jason Baron, National Archives' Director of Litigation since 2000 and Co-Chair of the Working Group on Electronic Document Retention and Production for the Sedona Conference.  Jason is also one of the founding coordinators of the TREC Legal Track, a search project organized through the National Institute of Standards and Technology to evaluate search protocols used in eDiscovery. This year, Jason was awarded the Emmett Leahy Award for Outstanding Contributions and Accomplishments in the Records and Information Management Profession.

Thursday, December 15: Bennett Borden, Co-Chair of Williams Mullen’s eDiscovery and Information Governance Section.  Based in Richmond, Va., Bennett’s practice is focused on Electronic Discovery and Information Law. Bennett has published several papers on the use of predictive coding in litigation and is a frequent speaker on eDiscovery topics.

Friday, December 16: John Simek, Vice President of Sensei Enterprises, a computer forensics firm in Fairfax, Va, where he has worked since 1997. He is an encase Certified Examiner and is a nationally known testifying expert in computer forensic issues.

Monday, December 19: Joshua Poje, Research Specialist with the American Bar Association’s Legal Technology Resource Center, which publishes the Annual Legal Technology Survey. He is a graduate of DePaul University College of Law and Augustana College.

Tuesday, December 20: Joseph Collins, co-founder and president of VaporStream, which provides recordless communications. Collins previously worked in the energy marketplace, but has become an advocate for private communication in business, even within the legal community.

Wednesday, December 21: Sharon Nelson, President of Sensei Enterprises, where she had worked on the front lines of computer forensics and EDD- topics also discusses on the blog Ride the Lightning (one of my favorites!).  She is a graduate of the Georgetown University Law Center and is the president elect of the Virginia Bar Association.

Thanks to everyone for their time in participating in these interviews!  And, thanks to Jason for securing interviews with these key individuals for eDiscoveryDaily.

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

eDiscovery Case Law: Another Losing Plaintiff Taxed for eDiscovery Costs

As noted yesterday and back in May, prevailing defendants are becoming increasingly successful in obtaining awards against plaintiffs for reimbursement of eDiscovery costs.

An award of costs to the successful defendants in a patent infringement action included $64,295 in costs for conversion of data to TIFF format and $5,950 for an eDiscovery project manager in Jardin v. DATAllegro, Inc., No. 08-CV-1462-IEG (WVG), (S.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2011).

Defendants in a patent infringement action obtained summary judgment of non-infringement and submitted bills of costs that included $64,295 in costs for conversion of data to TIFF format and $5,950 for an eDiscovery project manager. Plaintiff contended that the costs should be denied because he had litigated the action and its difficult issues in good faith and there was a significant economic disparity between him and the corporate parent of one of the defendants.

The court concluded that plaintiff had failed to rebut the presumption in Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 in favor of awarding costs. The action was resolved through summary judgment rather than a complicated trial, and there was no case law suggesting that the assets of a parent corporation should be considered in assessing costs. The financial position of the party having to pay the costs might be relevant, but it appeared plaintiff was the founder of a company that had been sold for $500 million.

Taxing of costs for converting files to TIFF format was appropriate, according to the court, because the Federal Rules required production of electronically stored information and “a categorical rule prohibiting costs for converting data into an accessible, readable, and searchable format would ignore the practical realities of discovery in modern litigation.” The court stated: “Therefore, where the circumstances of a particular case necessitate converting e-data from various native formats to the .TIFF or another format accessible to all parties, costs stemming from the process of that conversion are taxable exemplification costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4).”

The court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that costs associated with an eDiscovery “project manager” were not taxable because they related to the intellectual effort involved in document production:

Here, the project manager did not review documents or contribute to any strategic decision-making; he oversaw the process of converting data to the .TIFF format to prevent inconsistent or duplicative processing. Because the project manager’s duties were limited to the physical production of data, the related costs are recoverable.

So, what do you think?  Will more prevailing defendants seek to recover eDiscovery costs from plaintiffs? 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.

eDiscovery Case Law: Plaintiff Responsible for Taxation of eDiscovery Costs

Back in May, we discussed a case where the plaintiff, after losing its lawsuit, was responsible for repaying the defendant more than $367,000 in eDiscovery costs.  It appears that making plaintiffs responsible for eDiscovery costs when they lose is becoming a trend.

In re Aspartame Antitrust Litig., No. 2:06-CV-1732-LDD, (E.D. Pa. Oct. 5, 2011),a case with a “staggering” volume of discovery, successful defendants were awarded about $500,000 of their electronic discovery costs for a litigation database, imaging hard drives, keyword searches, de-duplication, and data extraction that allowed for cost-effective discovery. However, the court refused to award costs for defendants’ use of an eDiscovery program that provided visual clustering of documents and went beyond necessary keyword search and filtering functions.

Defendants in an artificial sweetener market allocation and price fixing class action obtained summary judgment against two representative plaintiffs that had not purchased the sweetener within the four-year statute of limitations. Defendants filed bills of costs, and the plaintiffs asked the court to deny or reduce those costs.

The court granted about $500,000 in disputed costs, most of which were incurred by defendants during electronic discovery. The volume of discovery was “staggering,” according to the court, and “in cases of this complexity, eDiscovery saves costs overall by allowing discovery to be conducted in an efficient and cost-effective manner.” Defendants’ use of third party vendors for keyword searches and culling of duplicates allowed one defendant to reduce over 366 gigabytes of potentially responsive data by 85%. The court stated:

“We therefore award costs for the creation of a litigation database, storage of data, imaging hard drives, keyword searches, de-duplication, data extraction and processing. Because a privilege screen is simply a keyword search for potentially privileged documents, we award that cost as well. In addition, we award costs associated with hosting data that accrued after defendants produced documents to plaintiffs because, as the plaintiffs themselves acknowledged earlier in the proceedings, discovery was ongoing in this case up until summary judgment was issued.”

The court also awarded costs for technical support and the creation of load files. However, it would “draw the line” at awarding costs for use of a “sophisticated eDiscovery program” that provided concept-based visual clustering of document collections. Such a service was “undoubtedly helpful,” but it was “squarely within the realm of costs that are not necessary for litigation but rather are acquired for the convenience of counsel.”

So, what do you think?  Should plaintiffs have to reimburse eDiscovery costs to defendants if they lose? 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.

eDiscovery Project Management: “Belt and Suspenders” Approach for Effective Communication
 

eDiscovery Daily has published 57 posts to date related to Project Management principles (including this one).  Those include two excellent series by Jane Gennarelli, one covering a range of eDiscovery Project Management best practice topics from October thru December last year, and another covering management of a contract review team, which ran from January to early March this year.

Effective communication is a key part of effective project management, whether that communication is internally within the project team or externally with your client.  It is so easy for miscommunications to occur that can derail your project and cause deadlines to be missed, or work product to be incomplete or not meet the client’s expectations.

I like to employ a “belt and suspenders” approach to communication with clients as much as possible, by discussing requirements or issues with the client and then following up with documentation to confirm the understanding.  That seems obvious and many project managers start out that way – they discuss project requirements and services with a client and then formally document into a contract or other binding agreement.  However, as time progresses, many PMs start to lax in following up to document changes discussed to scope or approach to handling specific exceptions with clients.  Often, it’s the little day to day discussions and decisions that aren’t documented that can come back to haunt you. Or PMs communicate solely via email and keep the project team waiting for the client to respond to the latest email.  Unless there is a critical decision for which documented agreement is required to proceed, discussing and documenting keeps the project moving while ensuring each decision gets documented.

I can think of several instances where this approach helped avoid major issues, especially with the follow-up agreement or email.  If nothing else, it gives you something to point back to if miscommunication occurs.  Years ago, I met with a client and reviewed a set of hard copy documents that they wanted scanned, processed and loaded into a database (we had a Master Services Agreement in place to cover those services).  The client said they had “sticky notes” on the documents that they wanted.  I took the time to go through those, ask questions and verbally confirm my understanding of which documents they wanted processed.  I then documented in an email what services they wanted and the ranges of documents they requested to be processed and they confirmed the services and those documents in their response (evidently without looking too closely at the list of document ranges).

What the client didn’t know is that one of their paralegals had removed “sticky notes” from some of the documents, so I didn’t have all of the document ranges they intended to process.  When they later started asking questions why certain documents weren’t processed, I was able to point back to the email showing their approval of the document ranges to process, verifying that we had processed the documents as instructed.  The client realized the mistake was theirs, not ours, and we helped them get the remaining documents processed and loaded.  Our reputation with that client remained strong – thanks to the “belt and suspenders” approach!

So, what do you think?  Have you had miscommunications with clients because of inadequate documentation? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Search “Gotchas” Still Get You
 

A few days ago, I reviewed search syntax that one of my clients had prepared and noticed a couple of “gotchas” that typically cause problems.  While we’ve discussed them on this blog before, it was over a year ago (when eDiscovery Daily was still in its infancy and had a fraction of the readers it has today), so it bears covering them again.

Letting Your Wildcards Run Wild

This client liberally used wildcards to catch variations of words in their hits.  As noted previously, sometimes you can retrieve WAY more with your wildcards than you expect.  In this case, one of the wildcard terms was “win*” (presumably to catch win, wins, winner, winning, etc.).  Unfortunately, there are 253 words that begin with “win”, including wince, winch, wind, windbag, window, wine, wing, wink, winsome, winter, etc.

How do I know that there are 253 words that begin with “win”?  Am I an English professor?  No.  But, I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.  Just kidding.

Actually, there is a site to show a list of words that begin with your search string.  Morewords.com shows a list of words that begin with your search string (e.g., to get all 253 words beginning with “win”, go here – simply substitute any characters for “win” in the URL to see the words that start with those characters).  This site enables you to test out your wildcard terms before using them in searches and substitute the variations you want if the wildcard search is likely to retrieve too many false hits.  Or, if you use an application like FirstPass™, powered by Venio FPR™, for first pass review, you can type the wildcard string in the search form, display all the words – in your collection – that begin with that string, and select the variations on which to search.  Either way enables you to avoid retrieving a lot of false hits you don’t want.

Those Stupid Word “Smart” Quotes

As many attorneys do, this client used Microsoft Word to prepare his proposed search syntax.  The last few versions of Microsoft Word, by default, automatically change straight quotation marks ( ' or " ) to curly quotes as you type. When you copy that text to a format that doesn’t support the smart quotes (such as HTML or a plain text editor), the quotes will show up as garbage characters because they are not supported ASCII characters.  So:

“smart quotes” aren’t very smart

will look like this…

âsmart quotesâ arenât very smart

And, your search will either return an error or some very odd results.

To learn how to disable the automatic changing of quotes to smart quotes or replace smart quotes already in a file, refer to this post from last year.  And, be careful, there’s a lot of “gotchas” out there that can cause search problems.  That’s why it’s always best to be a “STARR” and test your searches, refine and repeat them until they yield expected results.

So, what do you think?  Have you run into these “gotchas” in your searches? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

LitigationWorld Pick of the Week: Could This Be the Most Expensive eDiscovery Mistake Ever?
 

We’re pleased to announce that our blog post “eDiscovery Best Practices: Could This Be the Most Expensive eDiscovery Mistake Ever?”, regarding Google’s inadvertent disclosure during its litigation with Oracle was selected as the Pick of the Week from TechnoLawyer in the November 21, 2011 issue of LitigationWorld.  LitigationWorld is a free weekly email newsletter that provides helpful tips regarding electronic discovery, litigation strategy, and litigation technology.  It’s also a great source of ideas for blog posts!  😉

In each issue, the editorial team at LitigationWorld links to the most noteworthy articles on the litigation Web published during the previous week. From these articles, they then select one as their Pick of the Week.

Thanks to the folks at TechnoLawyer for this recognition.  We appreciate it!