Close
Enter your
text here
Posts By :

Doug Austin

eDiscovery Case Law: Court Grants Adoption of Model Order for Patent Case

Model orders to limit discovery for patent cases have gained popularity in various jurisdictions, including this recent order proposed in Texas.  Here’s one patent case where the defendant sought to adopt such a model order.

In DCG Sys., Inc. v. Checkpoint Techs., LLC, No. C-11-03792 PSG, (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2011), defendant Checkpoint asked the court to enter a version of the model order. (The proposed version differed from the model order in the number of keywords and custodians and on an issue of metadata.) The court granted defendant’s motion.

Plaintiff DCG objected to the entry of the order. It argued that since this was a case between competitors, and not a case brought by a nonpracticing entity (an “NPE,” or sometimes called a “patent troll”), the discovery would be improperly impeded by the model order’s limitations on email discovery.

NPE or patent troll cases often involve asymmetrical discovery – the plaintiff has few documents but the defendant has many. And some commentators have proposed that the model eDiscovery order seeks to reduce the ill-effects of this asymmetry. In this case plaintiff argued that it would need discovery on legitimate issues that may have arisen with an actual competitor, e.g., whether defendant copied plaintiff’s technology and whether plaintiff was entitled to an injunction. Plaintiff’s argument presupposed that the model order’s limitations would cut into the scope of that purported legitimate discovery.

The court rejected plaintiff’s arguments. It found that: (1) nothing in the model order or the Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit’s speech unveiling the order suggested that it was intended only for NPE cases, and (2) there was no reason to believe that non-NPE (competitor) cases presented less compelling circumstances in which to impose reasonable restrictions on the timing and scope of email discovery.

The court also addressed the notion that the model order would help only in NPE cases or cases involving asymmetrical eDiscovery. It observed that the model order could have double the benefit in competitor cases. If using the model order to relieve the burden on the producing party in an NPE case was a good thing, then using it in a suit between competitors benefit both sides and be twice as good.

So, what do you think?  Are model orders to limit discovery a good idea?  If so, should they apply to other types of cases? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: Practical eDiscovery Blog, by Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP.

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 101: Simply Deleting a File Doesn’t Mean It’s Gone
 

This subject came up recently in discussion with one of my clients and since he was confused as to what happens when a file is deleted, I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss the topic on the blog.

Disk drives use an index or table to keep track of where each file begins and ends on the disk.  You may have heard terms such as “FAT” (file allocation table) or NTFS ({Windows} NT File System) – these filing systems enable the file to be retrieved quickly on the drive.  They’re like a “directory” of all of the active files on the disk.  When a file is “deleted” (i.e., actually deleted, not just moved to the Recycle Bin), the data for that file isn’t actually removed from the disk (in most cases).  Instead, the entry pertaining to it is removed from the filing system.  As a result, the area on the disk where the actual data is located becomes unallocated space.

Unallocated space, also known as inactive data or drive free space, is the area of the drive not allocated to active data. On a Windows machine, deleted data is not actually destroyed, but the space on the drive that can be reused to store new information. Until the unallocated space is overwritten with new data, the old data remains.  This data can be retrieved (in most cases) using forensic techniques. On MAC O/S 10.5 and higher, there is an application that overwrites sectors when a file is deleted. This process more securely destroys data, but even then it may be possible to recover data out of unallocated space.

Because the unallocated space on a hard drive or server is that portion of the storage space to which data may be saved, it is also where many applications “temporarily” store files when they are in use. For instance, temporary Internet files are created when a user visits a web page, and these pages may be “cached” or temporarily stored in the unallocated space.  Rebooting a workstation or server can also clear some data from the unallocated space on its drive.

Since computers are dynamic and any computer operation may write data to the drive, it is nearly impossible to preserve data in the unallocated space on the hard drive and that data is not accessible without special software tools. To preserve data from the unallocated space of a hard drive, the data must be forensically collected, which basically copies the entire drive’s contents, including every sector (whether those sectors contain active data or not). Even then, data in the unallocated space may not be complete. Because the unallocated space is used to store new data, writing a new file may overwrite part of a deleted file, leaving only part of that file in the unallocated space.

Nonetheless, “deleted” files have been recovered, collected and produced in numerous lawsuits, despite efforts of some producing parties to destroy that evidence.

So, what do you think?  Have you ever recovered deleted data that was relevant to litigation?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Could This Be the Most Expensive eDiscovery Mistake Ever?
 

Many of you have Android phones.  I do, as well.  As you may know, Android is Google’s operating system for phones and Android phones have become extraordinarily popular.

However, as noted in this Computerworld UK article, it may be a failure in searching that ironically may cost Google big time in its litigation with Oracle over the Android operating system.

Google is currently involved in a lawsuit with Oracle over license fees associated with Java.  Oracle acquired Java when it purchased Sun Microsystems and many companies license Java.  Java forms a critical part of Google’s Android operating system and Google has leveraged free Android to drive mobile phone users to their ecosystem and extremely profitable searches and advertising.  Android has been so successful for Google that a loss to Oracle could result in billions of dollars in damages.

To cull down a typically large ESI population, Google turned to search technology to help identify potentially responsive and potentially privileged files.  Unfortunately for Google, a key email was produced that could prove damaging to their case.  The email was written by Google engineer Tim Lindholm a few weeks before Oracle filed suit against Google. With Oracle having threatened to sue Google for billions of dollars, Lindholm was instructed by Google executives to identify alternatives to Java for use in Android, presumably to strengthen their negotiating position.

"What we've actually been asked to do (by Larry and Sergey) is to investigate what technical alternatives exist to Java for Android and Chrome," the email reads in part, referring to Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin. "We've been over a bunch of these, and think they all suck. We conclude that we need to negotiate a license for Java under the terms we need."

Lindholm added the words “Attorney Work Product” and sent the email to Andy Rubin (Google’s top Android executive) and Google in-house attorney Ben Lee.  Unfortunately, Lindholm’s computer saved nine drafts of the email while he was writing it – before he added the words and addressed the email to Lee.  Because Lee's name and the words "attorney work product" weren't on the earlier drafts, they weren't picked up by the eDiscovery software as privileged documents, and they were sent off to Oracle's lawyers.

Oracle's lawyers read from the email at two hearings over the summer and Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court in Oakland, California, indicated to Google's lawyers that it might suggest willful infringement of Oracle's patents.  Google filed a motion to "clawback" the email on the grounds it was "unintentionally produced privileged material." Naturally, Oracle objected, and after a three-month legal battle, Alsup refused last month to exclude the document at trial.

How did Google let such a crucial email slip through production?  It’s difficult to say without fully knowing their methodology.  Did they rely too much on technology to identify files for production without providing a full manual review of all files being produced?  Or, did manual review (which can be far from perfect) let the email slip through as well?  Conceivably, organizing the documents into clusters, based on similar content, might have grouped the unsent drafts with the identified “attorney work product” final version and helped to ensure that the drafts were classified as intended.

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

 

eDiscovery Case Law: KPMG Denied in Request for “Proportionality Test” to Preservation

In Pippins v. KPMG LLP, No. 11 Civ. 0377 (CM)(JLC), (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2011), defendant’s request for a protective order allowing it to maintain only a random sample of 100 hard drives from 2,500 laptops or to require plaintiffs to bear the cost of maintaining 2,500 hard drives was denied.

It was not shown that information on the hard drives was duplicative, and it was too early in the litigation to know whether the cost of maintaining the hard drives was proportional to plaintiffs’ potential recovery. In an action concerning whether accountants should be considered exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act, defendant sought an order allowing it to preserve only a random sample of 100 hard drives from laptops of former and departing accountant employees. Defendant already was preserving almost 2,500 such hard drives at a cost of $1.5 million. As an alternative, defendant sought an order requiring plaintiffs to bear the cost of maintaining more than 100 of the hard drives.

Plaintiffs were willing to use sampling to lessen the number of hard drives but contended that a random sample of the hard drives would not be a meaningful sample. Plaintiffs also contended that keyword searching of the random samples suggested by defendant was outmoded and not likely to cull out information sought by plaintiffs, including work product and hours worked by defendant’s accountant associates. Plaintiffs sought an order requiring production of five of the hard drives for inspection so that the parties could negotiate a resolution to the hard drive preservation issue. The court denied defendant’s motion for a protective order and directed defendant to preserve hard drives of members of the New York class that plaintiffs sought to represent.

While the court considered defendant’s preservation efforts “comprehensive,” it did not appear that other information being preserved duplicated information on the hard drives. Also, the cost of preserving the hard drives could be substantial but it was too early to know whether that cost would be proportional to the value of the litigation. The court added that courts in the Southern District of New York “have cautioned against the application of a proportionality test as it relates to preservation.” While the court would not order defendant to provide plaintiffs with five sample hard drives, it encouraged the parties to seek agreement on sampling pending a ruling on class certification and a lifting of the stay of discovery in the action.

So, what do you think?  Do proportionality and preservation mix?  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 Rewind: Eleven for 11-11-11
 

Since today is one of only 12 days this century where the month, day and year are the same two-digit numbers (not to mention the biggest day for “craps” players to hit Las Vegas since July 7, 2007!), it seems an appropriate time to look back at some of our recent topics.  So, in case you missed them, here are eleven of our recent posts that cover topics that hopefully make eDiscovery less of a “gamble” for you!

eDiscovery Best Practices: Testing Your Search Using Sampling: On April 1, we talked about how to determine an appropriate sample size to test your search results as well as the items NOT retrieved by the search, using a site that provides a sample size calculator. On April 4, we talked about how to make sure the sample set is randomly selected. In this post, we’ll walk through an example of how you can test and refine a search using sampling.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Your ESI Collection May Be Larger Than You Think: Here’s a sample scenario: You identify custodians relevant to the case and collect files from each. Roughly 100 gigabytes (GB) of Microsoft Outlook email PST files and loose “efiles” is collected in total from the custodians. You identify a vendor to process the files to load into a review tool, so that you can perform first pass review and, eventually, linear review and produce the files to opposing counsel. After processing, the vendor sends you a bill – and they’ve charged you to process over 200 GB!! What happened?!?

eDiscovery Trends: Why Predictive Coding is a Hot Topic: Last month, we considered a recent article about the use of predictive coding in litigation by Judge Andrew Peck, United States magistrate judge for the Southern District of New York. The piece has prompted a lot of discussion in the profession. While most of the analysis centered on how much lawyers can rely on predictive coding technology in litigation, there were some deeper musings as well.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?: Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care? OK, it’s an old song by Chicago (back then, they were known as the Chicago Transit Authority). But, the question of what time it really is has a significant effect on how eDiscovery is handled.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Message Thread Review Saves Costs and Improves Consistency: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. But, in ESI review, it can be even worse when you get a different result. Most email messages are part of a larger discussion, which could be just between two parties, or include a number of parties in the discussion. To review each email in the discussion thread would result in much of the same information being reviewed over and over again. Instead, message thread analysis pulls those messages together and enables them to be reviewed as an entire discussion.

eDiscovery Best Practices: When Collecting, Image is Not Always Everything: There was a commercial in the early 1990s for Canon cameras in which tennis player Andre Agassi uttered the quote that would haunt him for most of his early career – “Image is everything.” When it comes to eDiscovery preservation and collection, there are times when “Image is everything”, as in a forensic “image” of the media is necessary to preserve all potentially responsive ESI. However, forensic imaging of media is usually not necessary for Discovery purposes.

eDiscovery Trends: If You Use Auto-Delete, Know When to Turn It Off: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(f), adopted in 2006, is known as the “safe harbor” rule. While it’s not always clear to what extent “safe harbor” protection extends, one case from a few years ago, Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington v. Washington Metrop. Trans. Auth., D.D.C. June 2007, seemed to indicate where it does NOT extend – auto-deletion of emails.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Checking for Malware is the First Step to eDiscovery Processing: A little over a month ago, I noted that we hadn’t missed a (business) day yet in publishing a post for the blog. That streak almost came to an end back in May. As I often do in the early mornings before getting ready for work, I spent some time searching for articles to read and identifying potential blog topics and found a link on a site related to “New Federal Rules”. Curious, I clicked on it and…up popped a pop-up window from our virus checking software (AVG Anti-Virus, or so I thought) that the site had found a file containing a “trojan horse” program. The odd thing about the pop-up window is that there was no “Fix” button to fix the trojan horse. So, I chose the best available option to move it to the vault. Then, all hell broke loose.

eDiscovery Trends: An Insufficient Password Will Thwart Even The Most Secure Site: Several months ago, we talked about how most litigators have come to accept that Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) systems are secure. However, according to a recent study by the Ponemon Institute, the chance of any business being hacked in the next 12 months is a “statistical certainty”. No matter how secure a system is, whether it’s local to your office or stored in the “cloud”, an insufficient password that can be easily guessed can allow hackers to get in and steal your data.

eDiscovery Trends: Social Media Lessons Learned Through Football: The NFL Football season began back in September with the kick-off game pitting the last two Super Bowl winners – the New Orleans Saints and the Green Bay Packers – against each other to start the season. An incident associated with my team – the Houston Texans – recently illustrated the issues associated with employees’ use of social media sites, which are being faced by every organization these days and can have eDiscovery impact as social media content has been ruled discoverable in many cases across the country.

eDiscovery Strategy: "Command" Model of eDiscovery Must Make Way for Collaboration: In her article "E-Discovery 'Command' Culture Must Collapse" (via Law Technology News), Monica Bay discusses the old “command” style of eDiscovery, with a senior partner leading his “troops” like General George Patton – a model that summit speakers agree is "doomed to failure" – and reports on the findings put forward by judges and litigators that the time has come for true collaboration.

So, what do you think?  Did you learn something from one of these topics?  If so, which one?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscoveryDaily would like to thank all veterans and the men and women serving in our armed forces for the sacrifices you make for our country.  Thanks to all of you and your families and have a happy and safe Veterans Day!

eDiscovery Best Practices: Cluster Documents for More Effective Review
 

With document review estimated to up to 80% of the total cost of the eDiscovery process and the amount of data in the world growing at an exponential rate, it’s no wonder that many firms are turning to technology to make the review process more efficient.  Whether using sophisticated searching capabilities of early case assessment (ECA) tools such as FirstPass®, powered by Venio FPR™ to filter collections more effectively or predictive coding techniques (as discussed in these two recent blog posts) to make the coding process more efficient, technology is playing an important role in saving review costs.  And, of course, review tools that manage the review process make review more efficient (like OnDemand®), simply by delivering documents efficiently and tracking review progress.

How the documents are organized for review can also make a big difference in the efficiency of review, not only saving costs, but also improving accuracy by assigning similar documents to the same reviewer.  This process of organizing documents with similar content into “clusters” (also known as “concepts”) helps each reviewer make quicker review decisions (if a single reviewer looks at one document to determine responsiveness and the next few documents are duplicates or mere variations of that first document, he or she can quickly “tag” most of those variations in the same manner or identify the duplicates).  It also promotes consistency by enabling the same reviewer to review all similar documents in a cluster (for example, you don’t get one reviewer marking a document as privileged while another reviewer fails to mark a copy of the that same document as such, leading to inconsistencies and potential inadvertent disclosures).  Reviewers are human and do make mistakes.

Clustering software such as Hot Neuron’s Clustify™ examines the text in your documents, determines which documents are related to each other, and groups them into clusters.  Clustering organizes the documents according to the structure that arises naturally, without preconceptions or query terms.  It labels each cluster with a set of keywords, providing a quick overview of the cluster.  It also identifies a “representative document” that can be used as a proxy for the cluster.

Examples of types of documents that can be organized into clusters:

  • Email Message Threads: Each message in the thread contains the conversation up to that point, so the ability to group those messages into a cluster enables the reviewer to quickly identify the email(s) containing the entire conversation, categorize those and possibly dismiss the rest as duplicative (if so instructed).
  • Document Versions: As “drafts” of documents are prepared, the content of each draft is similar to the previous version, so a review decision made on one version could be quickly applied to the rest of the versions.
  • Routine Reports: Sometimes, periodic reports are generated that may or may not be responsive – grouping those reports together in a cluster can enable a single reviewer to make that determination and quickly apply it to all documents in the cluster.
  • Published Documents: Have you ever published a file to Adobe PDF format?  Many of you have.  What you end up with is an exact copy of the original file (from Word, Excel or other application) in content, but different in format – hence, these documents won’t be identified as “dupes” based on a HASH value.  Clustering puts those documents together in a group so that the dupes can still be quickly identified and addressed.

Within the parameters of a review tool which manages the review process and delivers documents quickly and effectively for review, organizing documents into clusters can speed decision making during review, saving considerable time and review costs.

So, what do you think?  Have you used software to organize documents into clusters or concepts for more effective review?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Full disclosure: I work for CloudNine Discovery, which provides SaaS-based eDiscovery review applications FirstPass® (for early case assessment) and OnDemand® (for linear review and production).  CloudNine Discovery has an alliance with Hot Neuron and uses Clustify™ software to provide conceptual clustering and near-duplicate identification services for its clients.

eDiscovery Trends: Madoff Ponzi Scheme Case Documents May Be Turned Over to eData Rooms and Special Masters
 

The trustee responsible for coordinating the recovery of assets and data involved in Bernard L. (“Bernie”) Madoff's $65 billion Ponzi fraud investigation is presently seeking to secure special masters and create an "eData room" to ensure that the enormous volume of data accumulated during this worldwide investigation is collected and retained.  For more on the increasing use of special masters to facilitate eDiscovery cases, click here).

Almost three years after Madoff's arrest in December 2008, the massive fraud investigation has now spawned roughly 900 lawsuits worldwide involving 16,000 parties in 30 countries. The number of files and documents related to Madoff's Ponzi scheme is equally astronomical – and as perhaps the most significant fraud case of the decade – or even the century – these documents and lawsuits contain information vital as precedent for future criminal cases.

As a result, trustee Irving Picard has determined to collect all of the ESI related to these cases in a single eData room with the help of special masters that would be appointed by US bankruptcy Judge Burton Lifland.  eData rooms are web-based review platforms that can support centralized access of the ESI in question for all approved parties.

As the use of technology becomes more of a key issue in fraud cases, discovery of ESI associated with that technology is becoming ever more important in the practice of law, making a historic case like Madoff's vital as precedent. In November 2010, Picard created the first "e-discovery room", but the new "eData room" would be a much bigger project, containing all the ESI related in any way to Madoff's Ponzi scheme and making it available through a web-based platform for access and review. This new eData room, proposed in January 2011, would be limited to roughly 100,000 potentially responsive documents from 77 parties associated with a related case in which the defendant (J. Ezra Merkin) demanded production of every subpoenaed document in the initial bankruptcy proceeding as well as depositions in other proceedings.

The prospect of this eData room necessitates a complex series of discovery requests and confidentiality agreements, but Irving has already secured the tacit approval of all but 15 of the 16,000 parties, (large financial institutions, including UBS, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch International, Bank of New York Mellon and Sterling Equities, the investment group chaired by New York Mets owner Fred Wilpon) who objected to the prospect of pooling confidential documents where they could be accessed by thousands of parties including their business competitors. To address those concerns, Picard submitted a revised proposed order in September to exclude certain types of documents as confidential and give producing parties 60 days to object to the inclusion of “highly sensitive commercial information” in the eData room.  It will be interesting to see if the revisions pave the way for full acceptance to implement the eData room.

So, what do you think? Are eData rooms going to become commonplace in complex cases involving eDiscovery? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Special Masters Increasingly Used to Facilitate Complex eDiscovery Cases
 

Retired Washington DC superior court judge Richard Levie was recently appointed as a special master to oversee the eDiscovery demands of an ongoing high profile acquisition case. In the wake of several Department of Justice (DOJ) eDiscovery battles with Honeywell International in a recent high profile case, the DOJ and AT&T have jointly requested (and US district Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle appointed) Levie as special master to resolve any matters involving electronic evidence in the case focused on the $39 billion proposed acquisition of T-Mobile by AT&T.

The case is expected to benefit from the assistance of a special master because of the rapid pace as which it is expected to move forward: the case was filed on August 31 and the trial date is in February 2012 – very quickly for a case of this magnitude (and expected large data population) to begin in trial.

Due to the very fast-paced discovery schedule, the judge has set strict limits on the requests and submissions that both parties can make to the special master. Motions must be under 750 words and briefs 250 words or less – sheer torture for many attorneys(!).  Motions relating to discovery can only be submitted after a "substantive meet and confer" conference has been conducted between the parties.

This type of scenario is becoming more common in today's legal environment.  With as many as 123,000 pending civil suits in the DOJ caseload, it is becoming increasingly common for overloaded attorneys and judges to rely on the oversight provided by qualified special masters. These special masters are charged with acting as liaisons and moderators to quickly resolve discovery disputes over ESI, and to provide guidance that judges usually follow closely in making their decisions.

In the present case regarding the AT&T proposed merger with T-Mobile, special master Levie is expected to aid both parties in agreeing on eDiscovery terms, meeting compliance requirements and in finding resolution for any disputes.

So, what do you think? Have you been involved in a case where a special master coordinated eDiscovery procedures?  Did that speed up the discovery process? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: SEC Orders Its Staff to Cease Document Destruction Pending Policy Review
 

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") recently ordered all of its enforcement staff attorneys to cease the destruction of documents from investigative files after criticism that the SEC wrongfully destroyed thousands of documents associated with high profile enforcement matters, including investigations into Wall Street banks.  The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and the SEC's inspector general are currently examining whether the organization's document destruction policy requires revision. This cease order comes in the wake of information provided by a SEC whistleblower, indicating that the SEC wrongfully destroyed thousands of documents from preliminary investigations referred to as “MUIs” (Matters Under Inquiry).

  • In the past, the SEC would destroy documents pertaining to “MUIs” that had been closed, including cases that never developed into formal investigations as well as those that had been decided.
  • Some of these destroyed documents pertained, either directly or peripherally, to what would later become high profile cases. Among them were documents relevant to the Madoff Ponzi scheme and several Wall Street bank fraud investigations.
  • Although private companies routinely destroy documents and files that are closed or no longer in use, the SEC is subject to federal laws and regulations that require federal agencies to retain more records than a private firm. The SEC has been criticized by members of Congress of violating these laws and avoiding its legal compliance burden, especially where destroyed documents could have proven crucial in later legal cases.
  • As a result, the present controversy has forced the SEC to work with NARA to reconsider its document retention policies and to suspend, for now, destruction of files and documents. Parties are still arguing whether a requirement to retain all documentation distracts resources from the SEC's main objective of preventing, discovering and penalizing those involved in securities fraud.

So, what do you think? Has the SEC failed in a serious way to meet compliance standards, or is this controversy placing undue emphasis on documents that are unlikely to ever be needed? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Horrors! Does This Scare You?
 

Today is Halloween.  While we could try to “scare” you with the traditional “frights”, we’re an eDiscovery blog, so it seems appropriate to try to “scare” you in a different way.  Does this scare you?

Although the court declined to re-open the case, it found that defendant had committed discovery abuses, including failing to disclose relevant evidence and failing to issue a litigation hold; therefore, the court ordered the defendant to pay plaintiff an additional $250,000 over the previously agreed settlement amount.  The court further ordered that defendant had thirty days to furnish a copy of the court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order “to every Plaintiff in every lawsuit it has had proceeding against it, or is currently proceeding against it, for the past two years” and issued an additional $500,000 sanction to be “extinguished” upon a showing of compliance.

What about this?

Even though many (but not all) of the documents were recovered (most from backup tape), the court rejected the defendant’s argument that “there can be no spoliation finding because many documents were recovered” and eventually produced, stating: "The fact that technology permits the undoing of spoliation does not change at all the fact that spoliation has occurred."

Or this?

Then, in January of this year, Judge Grimm entered an order awarding a total of $1,049,850.04 in “attorney’s fees and costs associated with all discovery that would not have been un[der]taken but for Defendants' spoliation, as well as the briefings and hearings regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions.”

How about this?

The court concluded based on case history that “emails and text messages are documents and subject to the same requirements for authenticity as non-electronic documents generally” and found that the evidence that the defendant had authored these text messages was absent.

Scary, huh?  If the possibility of sanctions and changing court requirements keep you awake at night, then the folks at eDiscovery Daily will do our best to provide useful information and best practices to enable you to relax and sleep soundly, even on Halloween!

Of course, if you really want to get into the spirit of Halloween, click here.  This will really terrify you!

What do you think?  Is there a particular eDiscovery issue that scares you?  Please share your comments and let us know if you’d like more information on a particular topic.

Happy Halloween!