Close
Enter your
text here

Case Law

Today is the Day to Learn How eDiscovery Case Law from Earlier This Year Can Guide You in Future Cases: eDiscovery Case Week

eDiscovery Case Week continues during The Discovery Channel’s Shark Week (that’s the other discovery)!  Legal precedents set by past case law decisions remain one of the best ways to guide lawyers on how to do their job and avoid mistakes made by others, especially when it relates to eDiscovery best practices.  Are you aware of recent case law decisions related to eDiscovery best practices and what that those decisions mean to your organization?  Get up to date today!

Today at noon CST (1:00pm EST, 10:00am PST), CloudNine will conduct the webcast Key eDiscovery Case Law Review for First Half of 2018.  This one-hour webcast will cover key case law covered by the eDiscovery Daily Blog during the first half of 2018 to enable lawyers to learn from these cases — 22 cases in all! Key topics include:

  • Is there a template for how parties should cooperate in a Technology Assisted document review?
  • Should a plaintiff be allowed to email all defendant employees to see if they have responsive documents?
  • Will fabrication of text messages result in sanctions post Rule 37(e)?
  • Can Twitter be compelled to produce direct messages between their own employees?
  • Can an individual be compelled to produce private Facebook photos by the opposing party?
  • How have proportionality considerations in the 2015 Federal rules affected scope of discovery?
  • Should a receiving party be granted a quick peek at privileged documents to resolve privilege disputes?
  • Should border searches of electronic devices require a warrant?
  • Can you be sanctioned for discovery violations even after a jury verdict?

As always, I’ll be presenting the webcast, along with Tom O’Connor.  To register for it, click here.  Even if you can’t make it, go ahead and register to get a link to the slides and to the recording of the webcast (if you want to check it out later).  If you want to learn from past eDiscovery case law decisions, this is the webcast for you!  It’s not too late!

So, what do you think?  Do you think case law regarding eDiscovery issues affects how you manage discovery?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

SCOTUS Says Warrantless Access of Cell Phone Locations Violates Fourth Amendment: eDiscovery Case Week

eDiscovery Case Week continues!  We’re catching up on cases leading up to our webcast tomorrow where Tom O’Connor and I will be talking about key eDiscovery case law for the first half of 2018.  With that in mind, this is a key case decision that happened when I was on a family vacation last month.  Did you miss it?  In case you did, here it is.

In Carpenter v. U.S., No. 16–402 (U.S. June 22, 2018), The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) held, in a 5–4 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, that the government violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution by accessing historical records containing the physical locations of cellphones without a search warrant.

In 2011, Timothy Carpenter was arrested on suspicion of participating in a string of armed robberies at RadioShack and T-Mobile stores in Michigan and Ohio. In the course of the investigation, FBI agents acquired transactional records from Carpenter’s cell phone carrier. The government sought this data pursuant to the Stored Communications Act of 1986, which allows law enforcement to obtain communications records by demonstrating “specific and articulable facts” that the records are relevant to an ongoing investigation, rather than probable cause that a crime has been committed. The trial court denied Carpenter’s motion to suppress the records, and a jury convicted him of firearms violations and violations of the Hobbs Act. On appeal, Carpenter maintained that the acquisition of his cellular data without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but the Sixth Circuit held that such a seizure did not constitute a “search” under the Fourth Amendment.  Carpenter petitioned to have the case heard by SCOTUS, which heard arguments in November 2017.

The Court issued its decision on June 22, 2018, with the court split 5–4 to reverse and remand the decision by the lower courts. In a very lengthy ruling, Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, with associate Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joining Roberts’ opinion. The majority determined that the third-party doctrine applied to telephone communications in Smith v. Maryland could not be applied to cellphone technology and ruled that the government must obtain a warrant in order to access historical cellphone records. Roberts argued that technology “has afforded law enforcement a powerful new tool to carry out its important responsibilities. At the same time, this tool risks Government encroachment of the sort the Framers [of the US Constitution], after consulting the lessons of history, drafted the Fourth Amendment to prevent.”

Roberts also considered that “detailed, encyclopedic and effortlessly” tracking a person by cell towers was similar to that of using a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device as determined by United States v. Jones. Roberts stressed that the decision is a very narrow ruling; it does not affect other parts of the third-party doctrine, such as banking records, nor does it prevent collection of cell tower data without a warrant in emergencies or for national security issues.

Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch each wrote dissenting opinions.  Justice Alito wrote in his dissent:

“I share the Court’s concern about the effect of new technology on personal privacy, but I fear that today’s decision will do far more harm than good. The Court’s reasoning fractures two fundamental pillars of Fourth Amendment law, and in doing so, it guarantees a blizzard of litigation while threatening many legitimate and valuable investigative practices upon which law enforcement has rightfully come to rely.”

So, what do you think?  Does this ruling appropriately limit law enforcement use of private cell phone location data without a warrant or does it hamstring the ability for law enforcement to adequately investigate suspects?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily 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 Declines to Compel Defendant to Produce Direct Messages Between its Employees: eDiscovery Case Week

eDiscovery Case Week is here!  We got a head start on it by catching up on a case on Friday, leading up to our webcast on Wednesday where Tom O’Connor and I will be talking about key eDiscovery case law for the first half of 2018.  With that in mind, let’s discuss a key case regarding custody and control by Twitter of the direct messages of its employees.

In Shenwick v. Twitter, Inc., No. 16-cv-05314-JST (SK) (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2018), California Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim ruled on several discovery disputes between the parties, including denial of a request by the plaintiffs to order the defendants to produce protected direct messages of individual custodians who are not parties.

In this securities class action on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of the defendant, there were six issues in dispute.  One key dispute involved a request from the plaintiffs that the defendants search Twitter private direct messages that each custodian sent and received.  The defendants had agreed to provide direct messages for individual defendants Anthony Noto and Richard Costolo only (who had consented to their production). The defendants argued that the Stored Communications Act prevents the disclosure of direct messages from anyone other than a named individual defendant.

In agreeing with the defendants, Judge Kim stated:

“’The Stored Communications Act prevents ‘providers’ of communication services from divulging private communications to certain entities and individuals… Courts have held that the Stored Communications Act prevents a court from enforcing a subpoena issued to a third party ECS or RCS for the protected information.’ Crispin v. Christina (sic) Audigier, Inc., 717 F.Supp.2d 965, 971-72 (C.D. Cal. 2010)… Plaintiffs are correct that a court can compel a party to produce information within the party’s custody and control, but they confuse the identity of the party with the identity of the individual custodians. Here, for purposes of analysis, the Court will treat Twitter as if it is separate from the individual custodians who have direct messages stored with Twitter. The individual custodians other than Costolo and Noto are not parties. In other words, because Defendants claim, without opposition, that Twitter did not require its employees to use direct messages for communications, the Court must evaluate Twitter separately from the individual custodians who have privacy rights protected by the Stored Communications Act. The two named individual defendants, Costolo and Noto, are allowing discovery of their direct messages, as Plaintiffs can issue to them requests for information pursuant to Rule 34 and obtain their direct messages… Plaintiffs merge Twitter and its individual custodians’ rights. They are not the same. If Plaintiffs issued a third party subpoena to a company—not Twitter—for direct messages that the individual custodians sent and received, there is no question that the Court could not enforce such a subpoena. Under the same reasoning, the Court cannot compel Twitter, a party in this litigation, to produce protected direct messages of individual custodians who are not parties simply because Twitter is also the provider of the direct messaging service.”

Ruling on other disputes, Judge Kim: 1) ordered the defendants to search the files of an additional custodian, Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter and former CEO; 2) denying without prejudice the plaintiff’s request that the defendants produce documents from Falquora, Twitter’s internal message board; 3) ordered the defendants to produce documents in unredacted form that were covered by a stipulated Protective Order; 4) denying the plaintiff’s motion to compel documents containing terms “DAU” (daily active users) and “MAU” (monthly active users) WITHOUT PREJUDICE as potentially overbroad (allowing the plaintiffs to re-file the motion with a more specific, targeted approach if they are concerned the other requests for production are not yielding relevant documentation); 5) that the search “engag*” be conducted for documents with that term within 10 words of 20 terms proposed by defendants and up to 10 additional terms proposed by plaintiffs; and 6) denying WITHOUT PREJUDICE the plaintiff’s motion to compel the defendants to produce documents concerning Defendants’ efforts to “maintain, search for and preserve all documents” (which the defendants deemed to be privileged).

Despite the six issues being ruled on, Judge Kim stated “it is clear that the parties have worked hard in meeting and conferring to narrow the issues of dispute. The Court commends the parties for doing so and for presenting the remaining issues for dispute in a clear and cogent matter. The Court is confident that the parties will continue to meet and confer in good faith, narrow the areas of their dispute, and only present to the Court matters which they cannot resolve and which are significant.”

So, what do you think?  Should the direct messages of Twitter employees have been ruled out of the custody and control of Twitter?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Don’t Be “Chicken”! Consider Having a Good Protocol for Handling eDiscovery: eDiscovery Case Week

We’re getting a head start on next week’s shark week, er, case week here on the blog!  With that in mind, we’re catching up on a couple of cases leading up to our webcast on Wednesday where Tom O’Connor and I will be talking about key eDiscovery case law for the first half of 2018.  With that in mind, let’s discuss the most notable search methodology order having to do with broiler chicken litigation ever!

In the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:16-cv-08637 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 3, 2018), Illinois Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Gilbert appointed a special master (noted Technology Assisted Review expert Maura Grossman) to help the parties resolve eDiscovery disputes.  Judge Gilbert and Special Master Grossman issued a very detailed procedure (Order Regarding Search Methodology for Electronically Stored Information) for how the parties were to conduct TAR, including search, validation and document sourcing approaches, split into three primary sections: (1) how the parties will act, (2) what search technologies will be used, and (3) an outline of a document review validation protocol.

In this class action lawsuit filed on September 2016, the plaintiffs alleged that companies in the broiler chicken industry were colluding to limit the supply of chickens to raise, by almost 50%, the prices consumers would need to pay for chicken.  In February 2017, the plaintiffs filed their first set of requests for production.  With 3 putative plaintiff classes, nearly 30 defendants, multiple theories of liability, and activity covering close to ten years in a $20 billion plus dollar industry, Judge Gilbert appointed Special Master Grossman in October 2017 to address and resolve disputes regarding eDiscovery, which led to this order right after the first of the year.

The order set forth expectations with regard to:

  1. Transparency and the use of culling technologies prior to search, including de-duplication, email threading, email domains, targeted collections, exception reporting and other culling;
  2. Search methods, divided into “TAR/CAL” (Technology Assisted Review/Continuous Active Learning) and Keyword Search Processes;
  3. Document review validation protocol involving specifications for QC sampling, regardless whether TAR or “exhaustive manual review” was used.

The Order also included an appendix, detailing the recall estimation method for a review process involving TAR as well as the method for manual review.

In terms of a model protocol to not only cover how to conduct TAR and/or keyword search, but manage eDiscovery in general, this is a terrific protocol which will certainly be referenced for some time to come.

So, what do you think?  Have you been involved in a case where the court ordered a protocol for managing eDiscovery?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily 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 Rules Search Terms Overly Broad Under Rule 26 in Convertible Top Patent Case: eDiscovery Case Law

In Webastro Thermo & Comfort v. BesTop, Inc., No.16-13456 (E.D. Mich. June 29, 2018), Michigan Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen ruled in favor of the plaintiff’s protective order, requesting the narrowing of search terms for ESI production in this patent dispute.

Case Background

The plaintiff manufactures an automobile roof and also a roof-opening mechanism for which it has a patent and claimed that the defendant manufactures a roof-opening mechanism under the name “Sunrider for Hartop” that infringes on their patent. The defendant contended that its Sunrider product is based on prior art, invalidating the plaintiff’s patent.

The defendant requested emails during discovery, but the plaintiff claimed the total emails generated and received by these companies was voluminous and many would encompass matters having nothing to do with this lawsuit. The ESI order from the court contemplated that search terms should be narrowed to exclude extraneous and irrelevant information and that production requests should be limited to eight key custodians and ten search times on each side.

However, the plaintiff contended that the defendant’s proposed search terms were “overbroad, indiscriminate, and contrary to BesTop’s obligations under the Court’s ESI Order,” and despite pre-motion communication between counsel, the parties were at an impasse, leading to the plaintiff seeking a protective order “sparing Webasto from unduly burdensome email discovery, until such time as BesTop propounds reasonable email search requests containing appropriate narrowing criteria.”  The plaintiff also requested an order requiring the defendant to cover costs associated with the plaintiff’s production.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Whalen stated in his discussion, “The majority of BesTop’s search terms are overly broad, and in some cases violate the ESI Order on its face. For example, the terms ‘throwback’ and ‘swap top’ refer to Webasto’s product names, which are specifically excluded under…the ESI Order. The overbreadth of other terms is obvious, especially in relation to a company that manufactures and sells convertible tops: ‘top,’ ‘convertible,’ ‘fabric,’ ‘fold,’ ‘sale or sales. Using ‘dwg’ as an alternate designation for ‘drawing’ (which is itself a rather broad term) would call into play files with common file extension .dwg.”

Judge Whalen continued: “Apart from the obviously impermissible breadth of BesTop’s search terms, their overbreadth is borne out by Mr. Carnevale’s [plaintiff’s attorney] declarations, which detail a return of multiple gigabytes of ESI potentially comprising tens of millions of pages of documents, based on only a partial production. In addition, the search of just the first 100 records produced using BesTop’s search terms revealed that none were related to the issues in this lawsuit.  Contrary to BesTop’s contention that Webasto’s claim of prejudice is conclusory, I find that Webasto has sufficiently ‘articulate[d] specific facts showing clearly defined and serious injury resulting from the discovery sought….’”

Counsel for the parties was ordered to meet and confer in order to show a good-faith effort in focusing and narrowing the defendant’s search terms, so that the plaintiff’s production of ESI would remain relevant within the meaning of Rule 26 and exclude ESI that would have no relationship to this case.  The defendant was also ordered to submit an amended discovery request with the narrowed search terms within 14 days, after which, a new deadline for production of the ESI would be determined.

Because the opportunity was granted to the defendant to reformulate its discovery request to conform to the ESI Order, the plaintiff’s request for cost-shifting was denied, but Judge Whalen indicated the court “may reconsider” if the defendant “does not reasonably narrow its requests”.

So, what do you think? Is this ruling within the correct interpretation of proportionality under FRCP 26? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

P.S. – The case style refers to the plaintiff as “Webastro”, while the body of the order correctly refers to the plaintiff as “Webasto”.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily 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 Vacates Order Requiring Defendant to Review and Produce as Much as Three Million Emails: eDiscovery Case Law

As we approach “case week” in a couple of weeks and our webcast on Key eDiscovery Case Law Review for the First Half of 2018 on Wednesday, July 25th, we’re catching up on a handful of cases from earlier this year.  Enjoy!

In Nece v. Quicken Loans, Inc., No. 8:16-cv-2605-T-23CPT. (M.D. Fla. Feb. 27, 2018), Florida District Judge Steven D. Merryday sustained the defendant’s objection to an order requiring the defendant to produce all documentation related to do-not-call requests received between September 2012 and June 2013 and also required the plaintiff to move for class certification by April 13.

Case Background

In this case involving a dozen calls to an individual who had placed her number on the national do-not-call registry but had inquired about a mortgage from the defendant, the plaintiff sued the defendant for calling with an artificial or prerecorded voice, for calling a number on the national do-not-call registry (a violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)), and for calling the plaintiff before “institut[ing]” several procedures required by a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) regulation.  The court eventually granted summary judgment on the first two claims, but denied summary judgment on the Section 64.1200(c) claim because of “two predominant disputes of material fact.”

The plaintiff had originally all documentation related to requests received by the defendant requesting that it not contact (or revoking consent to contact) consumers, even though the TCPA contains a four-year limitation for documentation requested.  The defendant objected for several reasons, including the burden and the relevance of the plaintiff’s requests, stating that the requests require collecting and reviewing at least three million e-mails, a review that might cost millions of dollars.  Nonetheless, on May 5, 2017, the magistrate judge partially granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel, calling the plaintiff’s requests “overly broad and disproportionate to Plaintiff’s needs at this stage of the proceedings”, but also “not wholly irrelevant to Plaintiff’s allegations” and ordered the documentation to be provided for the period between September 2012 and June 2013.  The magistrate judge also denied the defendant’s quick motion for clarification or reconsideration of the May 5 order, even after the defendant indicated that compliance would require dozens of employees to spend months on document review and would cost at least hundreds of thousands of dollars.  The defendant objected to both orders, arguing that it had “already produced 12,000-plus pages of records relating to 450,000 phone numbers and individuals,” and that complying with the order “might require 15,000 hours of a Quicken employee’s or of outside counsel’s time.”

Judge’s Ruling

In ruling on the defendant’s objection, Judge Merryday stated: “For too long, Nece has avoided confronting the reality that individualized issues often predominate in putative TCPA class actions involving a dispute about consent or the revocation of consent…The resolution of Nece’s claim will require the jury to parse Nece’s words and to determine when Nece revoked consent to a call. As the February 14 order explains, several ‘unique’ or idiosyncratic facts (including the phrasing of Nece’s comments and Nece’s repeated submissions) contribute to the determination whether Quicken stopped calling Nece within a reasonable time. In this circumstance, Nece’s class-discovery requests impose on Quicken a burden disproportional to the needs of this action. Because the May 5 order clearly erred by requiring Quicken to respond to the requests, Quicken’s objection (Doc. 77) is SUSTAINED, and the May 5 order is VACATED to the extent the May 5 order conflicts with this order.”

As for the plaintiff’s request to extend the deadline for class certification, Judge Merryday stated: “Class-certification discovery remained available to Nece for eleven months. In that time, Nece ‘propounded [sixty-one] requests for production, [ten] interrogatories, and [twenty-five] requests for admission.’…Quicken provided more than ten-thousand records about the putative class.”  However, Judge Merryday allowed the plaintiff to move for class certification by April 13, 2018 (earlier than the plaintiff requested date of August 16, 2018), even though the local rule deadline to do so was December 7, 2016.

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

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Learn How eDiscovery Case Law from Earlier This Year Can Guide You in Future Cases: eDiscovery Webcasts

Legal precedents set by past case law decisions remain one of the best ways to guide lawyers on how to do their job, especially when it relates to eDiscovery best practices.  Case law examples help lawyers avoid mistakes made by others, as well as saving time and money for their clients.  Are you aware of recent case law decisions related to eDiscovery best practices and what that those decisions mean to your organization?

On Wednesday, July 25th at noon CST (1:00pm EST, 10:00am PST), CloudNine will conduct the webcast Key eDiscovery Case Law Review for First Half of 2018.  So, why the shark?  Once again, we’re conducting our eDiscovery case week (which includes our case law review webcast) on The Discovery Channel’s Shark Week (that’s the other discovery).  Why Shark Week?  Why not?

This one-hour webcast will cover key case law covered by the eDiscovery Daily Blog during the first half of 2018 to enable lawyers to learn from these cases. Key topics include:

  • Is there a template for how parties should cooperate in a Technology Assisted document review?
  • Should a plaintiff be allowed to email all defendant employees to see if they have responsive documents?
  • Will fabrication of text messages result in sanctions post Rule 37(e)?
  • Can Twitter be compelled to produce direct messages between their own employees?
  • Can an individual be compelled to produce private Facebook photos by the opposing party?
  • How have proportionality considerations in the 2015 Federal rules affected scope of discovery?
  • Should a receiving party be granted a quick peek at privileged documents to resolve privilege disputes?
  • Should border searches of electronic devices require a warrant?
  • Can you be sanctioned for discovery violations even after a jury verdict?

As always, I’ll be presenting the webcast, along with Tom O’Connor.  To register for it, click here.  Even if you can’t make it, go ahead and register to get a link to the slides and to the recording of the webcast (if you want to check it out later).  If you want to learn from past eDiscovery case law decisions, this is the webcast for you!

So, what do you think?  Do you think case law regarding eDiscovery issues affects how you manage discovery?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

At Long Last, Apple v. Samsung is Finally Over: eDiscovery Trends

Without a doubt, the case that has generated more eDiscovery Daily blog posts than any other over our nearly eight years of existence has been the Apple v. Samsung case.  We published at least fifteen posts regarding the case since 2012 (click here to search our blog for “Samsung” and the first fifteen posts are about the case) and could have easily published more – if there were more notable eDiscovery issues to discuss.  Now, finally – quietly – it’s all over.

In this Legaltech News article (Apple and Samsung Call a Truce in Long-Running Smartphone War, written by Scott Graham), the author notes that lawyers for Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. informed U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California on Wednesday that “they have agreed to drop and settle their remaining claims and counterclaims in this matter.”  Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

Koh, who has presided over four trials between the parties, wasted no time, entering an order of dismissal minutes later.

The agreement comes a month after a damages retrial that ended in a $538 million award for Apple. Although Samsung had persuaded the U.S. Supreme Court to adopt a more favorable rule on lost profits in design patent cases, the amount was roughly $140 million more than awarded against Samsung for design patent damages following the parties’ first two trials, in 2012 and 2013. (It was, however, $238 million less than the total originally awarded for patent design and trade dress dilution across all infringing products).

Samsung had vowed to appeal, and also was seeking to claw back $145 million awarded at the first trial on a utility patent that has since been invalidated by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  However, the parties have also since been conducting settlement talks, though the details—including who’s been presiding over them—have remained secret.

The first jury that heard the case, in 2012, awarded Apple $1.049 billion for infringement of design and utility patents and for trade dress dilution.  Over the years, the award was revised a number of times and the award dispute even made it to the Supreme Court, where SCOTUS told the federal appeals court to take another look at the $399 million award won by Apple.  This case had it all – adverse inference instruction sanctions on both sides and, of course, the “patentgate” disclosure (by Samsung and their outside counsel firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) of confidential agreements that Apple had with Nokia (which cost Samsung and Quinn Emanuel a $2 million sanction).

Now, it’s all over.  We think.

What would you think if I sang out of tune, would you stand up and walk out on me?  Since I’m a blog writer and not a singer, it’s a moot point, but – just like John Lennon (and Joe Cocker) – I get by with a little help from my friends.  Thanks to Tom O’Connor for his Litigate or Settle? Info You Need to Make Case Decisions white paper last week and to Jim Gill for his post about facial recognition software in airports, I was able to take a week off with my family last week and we were able to give you fresh new posts instead of re-run posts like we have done in past years.  Thanks guys!

So, what do you think?  Will we see a “battle of titans” like Apple v. Samsung again anytime soon?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily 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 Sanctions Plaintiff After Jury Verdict for Failing to Disclose Third Party Communications: eDiscovery Case Law

In Singer Oil Co., LLC v. Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent, Inc., No. CIV-16-768-M (W.D. Okla. June 5, 2018), Oklahoma District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange ruled that the plaintiff did violate Federal rules by not disclosing the communications its counsel had with the third parties referenced in plaintiff’s counsel’s time records, but found that the defendant’s proposed sanction was an “extremely harsh sanction not warranted by the circumstances involved” and limited the plaintiff sanction to require the plaintiff to pay the attorneys’ fees the defendant incurred in filing its motion for sanctions and its reply.

Case Background

In November 2016, the plaintiff served its responses to the defendant’s discovery requests, representin that it had fully and truthfully answered the interrogatories and had produced or would produce all responsive documents to the requests for production.  The plaintiff subsequently confirmed that all responsive documents had been produced, did not claim privileged status for any unproduced documents and did not supplement its response to interrogatories or requests for production in the case.

After this case was tried to a jury in November 2017, the plaintiff filed its Amended Motion to Recover Attorney’s Fees. During review of the time records associated with that motion, the defendant became aware for the first time that throughout the course of this litigation, the plaintiff’s attorney frequently corresponded by e-mail with numerous third parties regarding several of the issues that were disputed in this litigation and the two wells at issue in the case, with the defendant asserting that at least two of the communications took place before plaintiff served its discovery responses.  In its response, plaintiff asserted that it did not violate the Court’s orders, did not violate the spirit of the Court’s orders, did not violate the letter or spirit of the discovery code and contended that the majority of the communications would fall under the work product doctrine.

Judge’s Ruling

After considering Federal Rules 26(g)(1),(3), 26(e)(1)(A) and 37(c)(1), Judge Miles-LaGrange found that “while plaintiff may not have intentionally violated the above-referenced discovery rules, plaintiff did violate those rules by not disclosing the communications its counsel had with the third parties referenced in plaintiff’s counsel’s time records. Request for Production No. 5 specifically requests any and all correspondence between plaintiff (including plaintiff’s counsel) and any other person or entity with respect to Newfield, the Smith Well, the Edgar Well, or the subject of this lawsuit; the Court finds the communications at issue would fall within this request for production. Additionally, while these communications likely would be protected by the work product doctrine, plaintiff did not assert such and did not provide Newfield with a privilege log such that Newfield could contest any claim of privilege. However, the Court finds that based upon plaintiff’s description of the communications at issue, any lack of production only had a very minimal, if any, impact on this case.”

As for an appropriate sanction against the plaintiff, Judge Miles-LaGrange stated: “In light of the amount of attorneys’ fees requested by plaintiff and the amount of costs taxed, the Court finds Newfield’s proposed sanction is an extremely harsh sanction not warranted by the circumstances involved. Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds an appropriate sanction would be to require plaintiff to pay the attorneys’ fees Newfield incurred in filing its motion for sanctions and its reply.”

So, what do you think?  Do you think that was a sufficient sanction for failing to produce relevant ESI?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily 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 Rejects Search Terms by Both Sides as Overly Inclusive: eDiscovery Case Law

Monday, I asked for a call for key eDiscovery case law cases in 2018 to cover.  While this one wasn’t overtly suggested, it was covered by Ralph Losey in his excellent e-Discovery Team® blog the same day, so that works too… :o)

In Am. Municipal Power, Inc. v. Voith Hydro, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-708 (S.D. Ohio June 4, 2018), Ohio Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers ruling on the parties’ arguments from a May discovery conference, concluded that search terms proposed by both parties in the case were overly inclusive.

Case Background

The parties provided extensive letter briefing for a discovery conference on May 24, 2018 regarding discovery disputes relating to the production of ESI and other documents, with the parties’ dispute centered around two ESI-related issues: (1) the propriety of a single-word search by Project name proposed by the defendant which it sought to have applied to the plaintiff’s ESI and (2) the propriety of the plaintiff’s request that the defendant run crafted search terms which the plaintiff proposed that were not limited to the Project’s name.

Judge’s Ruling

After careful consideration of the parties’ letter briefing and their arguments during the discovery conference, Judge Deavers concluded as follows with regard to the defendant’s proposed search terms:

“Voith’s single-word Project name search terms are over-inclusive. AMP’s position as the owner of the power-plant Projects puts it in a different situation than Voith in terms of how many ESI “hits” searching by Project name would return. As owner, AMP has stored millions of documents for more than a decade that contain the name of the Projects which refer to all kinds of matters unrelated to this case. Searching by Project name, therefore, would yield a significant amount of discovery that has no bearing on the construction of the power plants or Voith’s involvement in it, including but not limited to documents related to real property acquisitions, licensing, employee benefits, facility tours, parking lot signage, etc. While searching by the individual Project’s name would yield extensive information related to the name of the Project, it would not necessarily bear on or be relevant to the construction of the four hydroelectric power plants, which are the subject of this litigation. AMP has demonstrated that using a single-word search by Project name would significantly increase the cost of discovery in this case, including a privilege review that would add $100,000 — $125,000 to its cost of production. The burden and expense of applying the search terms of each Project’s name without additional qualifiers outweighs the benefits of this discovery for Voith and is disproportionate to the needs of even this extremely complicated case.”

Judge Deavers also concluded this with regard to the plaintiff’s proposed search terms:

“AMP’s request that Voith search its ESI collection without reference to the Project names by using as search terms including various employee and contractor names together with a list of common construction terms and the names of hydroelectric parts is overly inclusive and would yield confidential communications about other projects Voith performed for other customers. Voith employees work on and communicate regarding many customers at any one time. AMPs proposal to search terms limited to certain date ranges does not remedy the issue because those employees still would have sent and received communications about other projects during the times in which they were engaged in work related to AMP’s Projects. Similarly, AMP’s proposal to exclude the names of other customers’ project names with “AND NOT” phrases is unworkable because Voith cannot reasonably identify all the projects from around the world with which its employees were involved during the decade they were engaged in work for AMP on the Projects. Voith has demonstrated that using the terms proposed by AMP without connecting them to the names of the Projects would return thousands of documents that are not related to this litigation. The burden on Voith of running AMP’s proposed search terms connected to the names of individual employees and general construction terms outweighs the possibility that the searches would generate hits that are relevant to this case. Moreover, running the searches AMP proposes would impose on Voith the substantial and expensive burden of manually reviewing the ESI page by page to ensure that it does not disclose confidential and sensitive information of other customers. The request is therefore overly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the case.”

So, what do you think?  Are these parties overreaching, do they need a course in search best practices or do they need a TAR approach?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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