Close
Enter your
text here

Case Law

Court Affirms Ruling in Battle Between eDiscovery Providers Over Hired Sales Agents: eDiscovery Case Law

Remember the lawsuit filed by DTI against LDiscovery and four former sales agents of DTI who were hired by LDiscovery, claiming they misappropriated trade secrets, interfered with client relationships and breached their contracts?  Last year, an opinion provided by New York District Judge Jed S. Rakoff last week detailed his rejection of all arguments by DTI that led to his denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction.  Last week, the Second Circuit affirmed the ruling, determining that there is no basis to infer that LDiscovery engaged in any wrongdoing.

An article in Bloomberg Law (E-Discovery Firm Dodges Rival’s Trade Secrets Suit, written by Michael Greene, hat tip to Rob Robinson’s Complex Discovery blog) covered last week’s ruling by the appellate court.  In its ruling, the Court stated “there appears no basis in the amended complaint from which we can plausibly infer that LDiscovery is liable for the misconduct alleged”, noting that the “amended complaint did not identify a single customer who was actually brought to LDiscovery”.  The court also noted “Nor does there appear any support for DTI’s contention that the Individual Defendants had not fully complied with their one-year non-competition covenants.”

DTI filed its lawsuit last April against four salesman (who had originally worked for Epiq prior to DTI’s acquisition of Epiq) and LDiscovery, after they resigned from DTI in January.  DTI had contended that the salesman had breached their nondisclosure covenants by failing to return two thumb drives in their possession, and that they had breached their employee non-solicitation clauses by jointly searching for new employment and also by allegedly soliciting two other DTI employees, but Judge Rakoff stated that agreement was “unenforceable insofar as it purports to prohibit at-will employees, who have yet to accept an offer of new employment, from “inducing” or even “encouraging” their coworkers to leave their present employer.”

As a result, Judge Rakoff dismissed the claims against LDiscovery and the appellate court affirmed the ruling last week.  The case is Doc. Techs., Inc. v. LDiscovery, LLC, 2018 BL 143523, 2d Cir., 17-2659-CV, 4/24/18.

So, what do you think?  How enforceable should non-compete agreements be?  As always, please share any comments you might have with us or let us know 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 Compels Discovery in Response to Party That Was Using Outdated Rule 26 Standard: eDiscovery Case Law

In Cen Com, Inc. v. Numerex Corp., No. C17-0560 RSM, (W.D. Wash., April 11, 2018), Washington Chief District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez ruled that the Plaintiff’s refusal to comply with the Defendant’s request for discovery using specific search terms was not justified, and that the Plaintiff must “fully comply with the subpoenas that Defendants served upon them and shall produce all responsive documents in a format that is accessible/readable by Defendants.”

Case Background

A request for discovery was issued by the Defendant for the founder and owner of the Plaintiff, along with two current employees of the Plaintiff, all of whom were former employees of the Defendant. The plaintiffs objected to the subpoenas “on the basis that it was an improper attempt to obtain discovery from a party employee,” and “that the subpoena is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and that the costs outweigh the potential for acquiring relevant information.”

The Defendant also filed a motion to compel the Plaintiff to use specific electronic search terms (“attorney w/2 general” and “consent w/2 decree”) related to a 2012 consent decree that Plaintiff entered into with Washington State’s Attorney General. The Plaintiff objected to the search terms regarding the consent decree as irrelevant.

As part of a counterclaim, the Plaintiff requested sanctions against the Defendant, claiming they withheld certain documents because of a pending motion for protective order, which was later denied by the Court. However, the Plaintiff continued to seek sanctions for the time period that it alleges Defendants were not in compliance with the stipulated ESI Order.

Judge’s Ruling

In Judge Martinez’s ruling, all of the Defendants’ motions were granted. Regarding the scope and relevance of the discovery request, it was noted that the Plaintiff was basing their refusal to comply on the former FRCP Rule 26 standard and not in line with the current version of Rule 26, which states discovery must be relevant to the claim and proportional to the needs of the case, while taking into account the parties’ access to relevant information and available resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the matter, and whether the burden or expense of discovery outweighs its likely benefit.

Additionally, under Rule 37, “The party who resists discovery has the burden to show that discovery should not be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.” Here the Plaintiff failed to explain specifically why the documents are not relevant, or that a search of the documents would be unduly burdensome, and instead only made the blanket statement that the documents sought “do not concern this matter and could not lead to relevant information.”

In regard to the Plaintiff’s counterclaim, Judge Martinez denied the motion for sanctions, citing Rule 37(d)(2): “A failure described in Rule 37(d)(1)(A) is not excused on the ground that the discovery sought was objectionable, unless the party failing to act has a pending motion for a protective order under Rule 26(c).”

So, what do you think?  Was the ruling correct or were the Defendant’s requests “overly burdensome”?  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.

Defendant Sanctioned for “Deliberately” Altering a Skype Communication: eDiscovery Case Law

In GoPro, Inc. v. 360Heros, Inc., No. 16-cv-01944-SI (N.D. Cal. March 30, 2018), California District Judge Susan Illston denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied the defendant’s motion in limine to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s forensic analysis expert, but granted (in part) the plaintiff’s motion for partial terminating sanctions against the defendant for forging evidence in two Skype conversations, opting for an adverse inference instruction sanction and reimbursement of expenses related to forensic analysis and testimony instead of the terminating sanctions sought.

But first, this week’s eDiscovery Tech Tip of the Week is about Saving Searches.  Documentation is a key component of a sound discovery process. The ability to automatically save the searches that you have performed not only saves time in retrieving those documents later, but it also helps document the process for performing searches should you have to defend your approach in court.  Saving searches is just one component of an overall program for documenting your approach in eDiscovery.

To see an example of how Saving Searches is conducted using our CloudNine platform, click here (requires BrightTalk account, which is free).

Case Background

In this case regarding federal and state trademark infringement and unfair competition, the defendant (in November 2016) produced to the plaintiff two emails (in a single PDF format) containing the transcript of two 2014 Skype conversations between representatives of the plaintiff and defendant where . In the Skype conversations as produced by the defendant, the plaintiff referenced the term “abyss” twice (the parties had a dispute over plaintiff’s ABYSS mark).

At his deposition, the defendant representative testified under oath that the PDF document was a true and correct copy of the Skype conversation, stating that he had copied and pasted the Skype conversation into an email, and then sent it to himself. He claimed the only alteration he made to the document was to highlight the two lines of conversation containing the word “abyss”. In response to the plaintiff’s request for the Skype files in their native form, the defendant representative claimed the original Skype conversation was no longer available to him.

As part of its investigation into the defendant’s claims, the plaintiff accessed equipment containing its end of the Skype conversation and its Skype records did not contain the two highlighted lines referencing “abyss.” To confirm their findings, GoPro retained a forensic expert (Derek Duarte of Blackstone Discovery) to conduct a forensic analysis, which determined that it’s representative’s imaged Skype database did not contain the two highlighted lines referencing “abyss”, leading to the motion for partial terminating sanctions.  In response, the defendant claimed that the expert’s results were unverifiable and unreliable because he could not verify that the data on the hard drive contained the same data as it did in 2014.

Judge’s Ruling

In ruling on the motion, Judge Illston ruled, as follows:

“The Court is not persuaded by defendant’s explanation of the suspect document, and concludes on the present record that defendant deliberately altered it in an effort to strengthen its legal position with respect the ABYSS mark. GoPro argues it has been prejudiced because as part of its investigation into 360Heros’ prior use defense, GoPro incurred various expenditures, including having to locate and hire an expert to forensically investigate the Skype chat. Sanctions less drastic than terminating sanctions are available to remedy any potential prejudice to GoPro. Accordingly, the Court finds that sanctions are warranted, and that the appropriate sanctions in this case are twofold: (1) an adverse inference instruction at trial, related to Mr. Kintner’s conduct; and (2) reimbursement to GoPro of the costs incurred in retaining Mr. Duarte, including expenses paid to Mr. Duarte and the cost of attorney time required to locate and retain Mr. Duarte. Plaintiff shall submit its statement of costs so incurred in a sworn document to be filed no later than April 13, 2018.”

Judge Illston also denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, finding that “defendant raises material issues of fact as to numerous of the factors”.  She also denied the defendant’s motion in limine to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s forensic analysis expert, but Judge Illston found the expert to be “qualified to testify on these matters” and that his proposed testimony was “directly relevant to the authenticity of the disputed Skype conversation.”

So, what do you think?  Did the judge go far enough with her sanctions?  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 Grants Key Parts of Motion to Compel Against Safeway: eDiscovery Case Law

In U.S. ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway, Inc., No. 11-cv-3406 (C.D. Ill. Mar. 08, 2018), Illinois Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins allowed the Relator’s motion to compel in part, ordering the defendant to conduct and complete a TAR process on 575,000 issue files previously produced based on key number search alone and also ordering the defendant to produce PDX pharmacy transaction data (PDX Data) – all by March 16.  However, Judge Schanzle-Haskins declined to order the defendant to produce the issue files as Image Files since it had previously produced them in native form and instructions only directed the defendant to produce image files if it created a litigation database.

Case Background

In this case regarding alleged overcharging for pharmaceuticals by the defendant Safeway to federal and state government programs, the relator served his First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to the defendant in February 2017, which requested the documents to be produced, as follows: “Unless otherwise agreed to by counsel, electronically stored information (“ESI”) shall be produced in its unaltered native form and as it is maintained in the ordinary course of business. If, however, you have created a litigation database to facilitate the production of documents, the ESI shall be produced in multi-page TIFF format (minimum 300 dpi resolution) with searchable text files and native files using ‘(beginning Bates number).(extension)’ for each document as the filename.”

The parties negotiated over the production of the requested materials and the defendant produced 260,640 Bates numbered documents and an additional 575,000 Issue Files in native format.  The defendant used a key word search to collect Issue Files, but did not otherwise review the Issue Files to determine the documents produced by the key word search were responsive to the relator’s request and some of the files produced were a mass of incomprehensible special characters and other symbols.  The defendant also had not produced PDX Data that had been requested.  As a result, the relator filed a motion to compel the defendant to review the Issue Files to identify non-privileged responsive documents and produce those files in Bates numbered TIFF or PDF format and to produce the PDX data immediately.  The defendant responded that “Proctor’s request is overly burdensome, cost prohibitive, and cannot be accomplished within the timeframe of the discovery schedule”.

Judge’s Ruling

Noting that “[t]he Request ESI Instructions directed Safeway to produce Image Files if it created a litigation database”, but that “Safeway…was not required to produce documents in more than one form”, Judge Schanzle-Haskins stated he “will not order Safeway to produce the Issue Files as Image Files.”

However, Judge Schanzle-Haskins also ruled that “Safeway must also place a unique Bates number on each Issue File produced”, noting that “Safeway stated during the parties’ negotiations that it would number Native Files with a Bates number.”  He also ruled that “Safeway must review the Issue Files to identify the responsive documents. A party must make reasonable inquiry and certify that discovery is complete and responsive. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1). Under the facts of this case, Safeway’s key number search alone was not a reasonable inquiry under Rule 26(g).”

Also noting that “Safeway has had more than a year to respond to this request”, Judge Schanzle-Haskins ordered the defendant to produce the PDX data.  The defendant was ordered to produce that data and also identify the responsive Issue Files with Bates numbers by March 16.

So, what do you think?  Was the ruling correct or were the relator’s requests “overly burdensome”?  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.

NY Appellate Court Reverses Ruling on Discovery of “Private” Facebook Posts: eDiscovery Case Law

In Forman v. Henkin, No. 1. (N.Y. Feb. 13, 2018), the Court of Appeals of New York reinstated a trial judge’s ruling requiring the plaintiff who was disabled in a horse riding accident to turn over “private” photos to the defendant taken before and after her injuries.

But first, this week’s eDiscovery Tech Tip of the Week is about Fuzzy Searching.  When performing keyword searching, you may know what terms you’re searching for, but it’s easy to miss important search hits if the term is misspelled or has OCR inaccuracies.  So, if you’re looking for the term “petroleum”, you can find variations such as “peroleum”, “petoleum” or even “petroleum” – misspellings or OCR errors that could be relevant.  Fuzzy searching is a way to catch many of those variations, expanding the potential recall of your search.  The ability that fuzzy searching provides to find words that are one or two characters off from the correct spelling of the term could enable you to locate important ESI to your case that would otherwise be missed, simply because the term is not spelled correctly.

To see an example of how Fuzzy Searching is conducted using our CloudNine platform, click here (requires BrightTalk account, which is free).

Case Background

In this case regarding allegations that the plaintiff was injured when she fell from a horse owned by defendant and maintained that, since the accident, she had become reclusive as a result of her injuries and also had difficulty using a computer and composing coherent messages.  In particular, she contended that a simple email could take hours to write because she had to go over written material several times to make sure it made sense.  The defendant sought an unlimited authorization to obtain plaintiff’s entire “private” Facebook account, contending the photographs and written postings would be material and necessary to his defense of the action under CPLR 3101(a).  When the plaintiff failed to provide the authorization, the defendant moved to compel, asserting that the Facebook material sought was relevant to the scope of plaintiff’s injuries and her credibility.  The plaintiff opposed the motion arguing that the defendant failed to establish a basis for access to the “private” portion of her Facebook account because, among other things, the “public” portion contained only a single photograph that did not contradict the plaintiff’s claims or deposition testimony.

In February 2014, the trial court ordered the plaintiff to give the defendant pre-accident photos she intended to use at trial, post-accident photos not depicting nudity or romantic encounters, and access to post-accident records of her messages.  However, in December 2015, the appeals court limited the disclosure to photos intended for trial, saying the defendant could not go on a “fishing expedition” for evidence.  Two Justices dissented, concluding the defendant was entitled to broader access to the plaintiff’s Facebook account and calling for reconsideration of that court’s recent precedent addressing disclosure of social media information as unduly restrictive and inconsistent with New York’s policy of open discovery. The Appellate Division granted the defendant leave to appeal to this Court, asking whether its order was properly made.

Appellate Court’s Ruling

In considering that appeal, the Court observed that “a threshold rule requiring [the party seeking disclosure] to ‘identify relevant information in [the] Facebook account’ effectively permits disclosure only in limited circumstances, allowing the account holder to unilaterally obstruct disclosure merely by manipulating ‘privacy’ settings or curating the materials on the public portion of the account. Under such an approach, disclosure turns on the extent to which some of the information sought is already accessible – and not, as it should, on whether it is ‘material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of an action’”.  So, while the Court stated that “we reject the notion that the account holder’s so-called ‘privacy’ settings govern the scope of disclosure of social media materials”, it also stated that “we agree with other courts that have rejected the notion that commencement of a personal injury action renders a party’s entire Facebook account automatically discoverable”.

Nonetheless, the Court acknowledged that “even private materials may be subject to discovery if they are relevant. For example, medical records enjoy protection in many contexts under the physician-patient privilege…But when a party commences an action, affirmatively placing a mental or physical condition in issue, certain privacy interests relating to relevant medical records – including the physician-patient privilege – are waived”.  With that in mind, the Court stated:

“Applying these principles here, the Appellate Division erred in modifying Supreme Court’s order to further restrict disclosure of plaintiff’s Facebook account, limiting discovery to only those photographs plaintiff intended to introduce at trial. With respect to the items Supreme Court ordered to be disclosed (the only portion of the discovery request we may consider), defendant more than met his threshold burden of showing that plaintiff’s Facebook account was reasonably likely to yield relevant evidence.”  So, the Court reversed the Appellate Division order and reinstated the lower court order.

So, what do you think?  Should “private” Facebook posts be discoverable?  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 Rules on Scope of Plaintiff Discovery Requests: eDiscovery Case Law

In Performance Pulsation Control, Inc. v. Sigma Drilling Techs., LLC, et al., No. 4:17-CV-00450 (E.D. Tex. Fe. 13, 2018), Texas District Judge Amos L. Mazzant granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel in part, ordering the defendants to produce documents related to four specific categories, but within certain parameters.

Case Background

In this case regarding claims of misappropriation of trade secrets and confidential information by a former employee of the plaintiff who formed a competing company, the parties had discovery disputes and the plaintiff contended that the defendants failed to produce any of the materials they generally described in their Rule 26 disclosures or state when they intended to produce such materials.  In September 2017, the plaintiff sent more than 850 Requests for Production to the Defendants and, about a month later, the defendants objected and responded to their requests.  In response to a letter by the plaintiff detailing stated issues with the defendants’ production, the defendants produced additional documents, but the parties still needed a telephonic conference with the Court in December 2017 to discuss the discovery dispute and the Court recommended that the parties file briefing on the issue.  Six days later, the plaintiff filed its motion to compel.

In its motion, the plaintiff sought an order compelling the defendants to produce four general categories of documents and tangible items from time periods before, during, and after employment by the former employee, as follows:

“(1) Emails and documents sent to or received from any “PPC Contact” and similar documents sent to or received from relevant third parties.

(2) Emails and documents relating to PPC trade secrets, specific pulsation control products, and pulsation control generally.

(3) Emails and documents relating to Defendants’ scope of work with PPC, information owned by PPC, and emails to and from PPC.

(4) Emails and documents relating to Defendants’ competitive business.”

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to the first category, the parties had already further refined the scope of “PPC Contacts” and “relevant third parties” and the defendants had produced additional documents and were “conducting additional searches based on that information.”  With that in mind, Judge Mazzant stated: “The Court finds that to the extent Defendants have not already done so, they must produce documents sent to or received from any “PPC Contact” or “third party” as limited in the conference letter. However, the Court narrows such production to documents and communications dated during and after the time of Defendants’ employment.”

With regard to category #2, Judge Mazzant stated: “The Court finds production of such information and documents is warranted as limited in PPC’s conference letter, with the exception that such production is narrowed to documents and communications dated during or after Defendants’ employment with PPC.”  He also reminded the defendants that such trade secret related information could be produced subject to the Court’s protective order with an Attorney’s Eyes Only or Confidential designation.

With regard to category #3, Judge Mazzant stated: “The Court finds that to the extent that Defendants have not produced such information, they must do so. However, any production is limited to information dated or obtained during and after Defendants’ employment with PPC. Further, to the extent Defendants are concerned that any information is confidential or relates to any trade secrets, the Court reiterates Defendants’ ability to produce any information pursuant to the Court’s Protective Order and/or in a reasonably redacted format.”

In discussions with the defendant on category #4, the plaintiff, in its conference letter, described “competitive business activities” to include “formation documents, corporate governance documents, revenues and net profits earned, employees, agreements with third parties, contacts, types of work, etc.”  With that in mind, Judge Mazzant stated: “The Court finds to the extent Defendants have not already done so, they must produce all emails and documents related to Defendants’ formation documents, corporate governance documents, revenues and net profits earned, employees, agreements with third parties, contacts, and types of work. However, such production is limited to during and after Defendants’ employment with PPC.”

So, what do you think?  Did the court manage the discovery disputes effectively?  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.

No Sanctions for Failing to Preserve Cell Phone Records and Call Logs: eDiscovery Case Law

In Dotson, et al. v. Edmonson, et. al., No. 16-15371 (E.D. La. Jan. 22, 2018), Louisiana District Judge Susie Morgan denied the plaintiff’s motion in limine seeking sanctions for spoliation of evidence, finding that the plaintiff had “not met his burden of establishing that the Trooper Defendants had a duty to preserve” cell phone records and call logs from the evening of October 7, 2015 from Louisiana State Police (LSP) issued cell phones that were used that night by LSP officers during an undercover operation, or that their destruction of the evidence was intentional.

Case Background

In this case related to a civil suit over a drug bust involving the plaintiff, the defendants provided interrogatory responses deposition testimony which indicated that LSP troopers relied on their LSP-issued (or LSP-funded) cell phones to communicate during the course of operations in general, and specifically on the night of October 7, 2015.  The plaintiff asserted that this “establishes the existence of electronically stored information such as call logs and text messages on those cell phones” and argued that, as early as October 7, 2016, when the defendants were named in an article on nola.com and the case was filed, the defendants and the LSP were on notice that litigation was pending, and thus should have known that any ESI relating to the investigatory stop and arrest of the plaintiff was required to be preserved. Nonetheless, Defendants traded in their cell phones one month after Plaintiff filed his suit.

The plaintiff issued multiple discovery requests and subpoenas, and filed several motions to compel in efforts to obtain the call logs and text messages and develop an understanding of the officers’ movements and observations on the night of the arrest to no avail and claimed the loss of these records prejudiced his case, because the movements and communications among these officers were crucial to establishing whether reasonable suspicion existed to stop the plaintiff.  In response, the defendants argued that the plaintiff’s proposed remedy unfairly targeted Defendant Bodet (one of the Trooper Defendants), “as the Fifth Circuit makes clear that sanctions for spoliation should be taken against the alleged spoliator” and argued there is no evidence to suggest that Bodet acted in bad faith, or that he should have known of a need to preserve any electronically stored information on his phone.

Judge’s Ruling

Citing Rule 37(e), Judge Morgan stated: “The Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing that the Trooper Defendants had a duty to preserve the electronically stored information related to the cell phone records from October 7, 2015 at the time the information was destroyed or that their destruction of the evidence was intentional. The Court will not provide the requested instruction to the jury based on an adverse inference.”

However, Judge Morgan excluded the Trooper Defendants from speculating at trial that they “may have” called a particular trooper based on deposition testimony to the contrary.  She also stated that “the Court’s ruling does not preclude the Plaintiff from eliciting testimony regarding the loss of the cell phone records and text messages”, nor did it prohibit questioning “regarding the cell phone record preservation policies of the Louisiana State Police, as such testimony is relevant and its relevance is not outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice.”

So, what do you think?  Should the defendants have received some sanctions?  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.

No Sanctions for Failing to Preserve Videos and Photos of Prisoner Accident: eDiscovery Case Law

In Hernandez v. Tulare Cnty. Correction Center, et al., No. 1:16-cv-00413-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2018), the California Magistrate Judge denied the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, ruling that the defendants did not act with the intent to deprive there was no prejudice to the plaintiff from loss of videos and photos of an accident suffered by the plaintiff, a state prisoner at the defendant’s correctional facility.

Case Background

In this case, the plaintiff tripped and fell when going through an x-ray scanning machine while shackled, suffering injuries – as a result, he filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendants.  In August 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel claiming that Tulare County failed to preserve relevant videos as well as photos (stored on a memory card) of the accident.  In a discovery hearing held in September 2017, defendant’s counsel confirmed that relevant ESI had, in fact, been mistakenly deleted by Tulare County officials and could not be replaced. The motion to compel was denied because there was nothing to produce and the plaintiff was instructed on the procedure to file a motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  He filed the motion for sanctions a few days later, requesting monetary sanctions and entry of default judgment based upon intentional deprivation of relevant evidence and serious prejudice suffered to his case that cannot be cured.  Defendant Tulare County filed a response in opposition arguing that the loss of the ESI was inadvertent and did not prejudice the plaintiff.

Judge’s Ruling

Noting that Subdivision (e)(1) of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) applies only “upon finding prejudice to another party from loss of the information” and that Subdivision (e)(2) applies “only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation”, the court proceeded to consider those two factors with respect to the plaintiff’s motion.

With regard to the intent to deprive consideration, the Court stated: “While the Court is troubled by the the failure to preserve the relevant video, there is no indication from the evidence in the record that Tulare County acted with intent to deprive Plaintiff of use of the video in this case. Upon consideration of the evidence in the record, it appears that this failure was a result of Tulare County either being misinformed about the relevant scope of this litigation or that the staff responsible for the preservation were poorly trained. However, the record does not contain any evidence suggesting that the failure to preserve the video was a result of bad faith or intent to deprive.”

With regard to the claim of prejudice suffered, the Court noted that “Tulare County does not dispute that: 1) Plaintiff was in shackles and other detainees were not; 2) Plaintiff tripped and fell when stepping onto the platform of the body scanner; or 3) others assisted Plaintiff to his feet after he fell.”  The Court also noted that “the video surveillance in question does not capture sound so the footage would not have been helpful regarding Plaintiff’s allegations that he informed correctional staff about his disability and the information was ignored”, that “Tulare County has produced relevant documents in this case, including photos of Plaintiff’s injuries” and “Plaintiff has also located eye-witnesses of the April 21, 2015 incident, who have reportedly agreed to provide testimony in support of his case.”  As a result, the Court ruled that the plaintiff was not prejudiced by loss of the information and denied the motion for sanctions.

So, what do you think?  Should the defendants have received at least some level of sanctions?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

February 19 has always been an important day to me, as this was my dad’s birthday (he would have been 89 today) and it’s my wife Paige’s birthday now!  Happy birthday, honey!

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 Denies Plaintiffs’ Request to Email All Defendant Employees as “Simply Unreasonable”: eDiscovery Case Law

In Firefighters’ Ret. Sys., et al. v. Citco Grp. Ltd., et al., No. 13-373-SDD-EWD (M.D. La. Jan. 3, 2018), Louisiana Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes denied the plaintiffs’ renewed motion to compel after the parties previously agreed upon search terms and document custodians, stating that the plaintiffs’ request to “email everyone in every Citco entity to ask whether anyone employed by any Citco entity has knowledge relevant to this litigation, and thereafter require the Citco Defendants to conduct additional electronic and hard copy searches for documents” was “simply unreasonable” and would be “unduly burdensome”.

Case Background

In this case regarding claims of unjust enrichment and breach of contract (among others) regarding fund shares purchased for $100 million that ultimately turned out to be worthless, the plaintiffs previously filed a Motion to Compel seeking an order compelling Citco Group to respond to multiple interrogatories and requests for production based upon the knowledge of entities controlled by Citco Group and/or possession of documents by entities controlled by the Citco Group.  In response, the Citco Defendants argued that granting Plaintiffs’ motion would ignore the substantial discovery efforts already made in the case (as the parties had previously agreed to a scope of 56 search terms to be applied against 21 custodians) and would be incompatible with the proportionality requirement of the federal rules.

The Initial Motion to Compel was discussed during an October 2017 status conference with the parties, and the court found that Plaintiffs’ concerns should be addressed with a 30(b)(6) deposition of defendant’s corporate counsel to describe the process for locating responsive documents (and denied the Initial Motion without prejudice to re-urging following the corporate deposition).  After the 30(b)(6) deposition, the plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion to Compel, contending that the defendants’ responses to these interrogatories “were incomplete and inaccurate” and resulted in “a flawed list of custodians” and a “flawed electronic search for documents.”  They also contended that the defendants’ 30(b)(6) deponent confirmed that “one email can be sent to everyone in the Citco organization and ask them limited questions about their personal knowledge of the issues in this lawsuit”.  The defendants objected, asserting that any additional searches (beyond the previously agreed scope) based on an e-mail questionnaire to all employees “would be disproportional to the needs of this case”.  A December 2017 status conference failed to resolve the dispute.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Wilder-Doomes reiterated that “Based on the parties’ correspondence, the parties agreed upon 56 search terms and…21 document custodians”.  She also observed that “Plaintiffs still have not explained why the custodians and search terms used were unreasonable. Moreover, although the Citco Defendants have been willing to add additional search terms during the course of this litigation, and note in opposition to the Renewed Motion to Compel that they are ‘prepared to discuss with Plaintiffs additional document custodians (if Plaintiffs identify any),’ Plaintiffs failed to identify proposed additional custodians in either their Renewed Motion to Compel or during the December 12, 2017 status conference.”

In denying the Renewed Motion to Compel, Judge Wilder-Doomes stated: “Instead, Plaintiffs seek permission from this court to email everyone in every Citco entity to ask whether anyone employed by any Citco entity has knowledge relevant to this litigation, and thereafter require the Citco Defendants to conduct additional electronic and hard copy searches for documents. That is simply unreasonable, and in essence is a request for the Citco Defendants to ‘go back to square one’ of their document production efforts despite the parties’ agreement regarding custodians and search terms, the Citco Defendants apparent willingness to consider additional custodians and search terms, and Plaintiffs failure to identify or explain the necessity of any additional custodians or search terms. Further, such a large scale search raises proportionality concerns and, especially in light of the parties’ previous agreements and efforts, would be unduly burdensome.”

So, what do you think?  Was this request a “fishing expedition” by the plaintiffs?  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 Orders Plaintiff to Reproduce ESI and Produce Search Term List As Agreed: eDiscovery Case Law

In Youngevity Int’l Corp., et al. v. Smith, et al., No: 16-cv-00704-BTM (JLB) (S.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2017), California Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt, granted the defendants’ motion to compel proper productions against the plaintiffs and ordered the plaintiffs to either provide its search hit list to the plaintiffs, meet and confer on the results and screen the results for responsiveness and privilege OR produce 700,000 additional responsive documents and pay for the defendants to conduct Technology Assisted Review (TAR) on the results.  Judge Burkhardt also ordered the plaintiffs to designate “only qualifying documents” as confidential or Attorney’s Eyes Only (AEO) and to pay for the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, of bringing the motion.

Case Background

In this case regarding alleged unlawful competition filed by the plaintiffs against Wakaya (the defendants company formed by former distributors of the plaintiffs company), the defendants proposed during discovery in May 2017 a three-step process by which: “(i) each side proposes a list of search terms for their own documents; (ii) each side offers any supplemental terms to be added to the other side’s proposed list; and (iii) each side may review the total number of results generated by each term in the supplemented lists (i.e., a ‘hit list’ from our third-party vendors) and request that the other side omit any terms appearing to generate a disproportionate number of results.”  Six days later, the plaintiffs stated that “[w]e are amenable to the three step process described in your May 9 e-mail” and the parties exchanged lists of proposed search terms to be run on their own ESI and their opponent’s ESI.

While the defendants provided the plaintiffs with a hit list of the total number of results generated by running each term in the expanded search term list across its ESI, the plaintiffs never produced its hit list.  The plaintiffs also made two large productions of approximately 1.9 million pages and 2.3 million pages and, without reviewing them beforehand, mass designated them all as confidential and/or AEO.  The produced ESI contained numerous non-responsive documents and the parties attempted without success to meet and confer (even with Court assistance) on reducing the number of documents classified as AEO.  The plaintiffs also notified the defendants (around the beginning of October 2017), that it had inadvertently failed to produce an additional 700,000 documents due to a technical error by its discovery vendor.

As a result of all of the issues associated with the plaintiffs’ production, the defendants sought an order under FRCP 26(g) or Rule 37 requiring the plaintiffs to remedy its improper production and pay the costs incurred by the defendants as a result of this motion and the costs associated with reviewing the plaintiffs’ prior productions.

Judge’s Ruling

While considering the defendants’ assertions that the plaintiffs “impermissibly certified its discovery responses because its productions amounted to a ‘document dump’ intended to cause unnecessary delay and needlessly increase the cost of litigation”, Judge Burkhardt determined that “Wakaya fails to establish that Youngevity violated Rule 26(g)”, “declin[ing] to find that Youngevity improperly certified its discovery responses when the record before it does not indicate the content of Youngevity’s written responses, its certification, or a declaration stating that Youngevity in fact certified its responses.”

However, Judge Burkhardt stated that “the record indicates that Youngevity did not produce documents following the protocol to which the parties agreed”, noting that “Youngevity failed to produce its hit list to Wakaya, and instead produced every document that hit upon any proposed search term” and that “the parties negotiated a stipulated protective order, which provides that only the ‘most sensitive’ information should be designated as AEO”.  She also stated that “Youngevity conflates a hit on the parties’ proposed search terms with responsiveness…The two are not synonymous…Search terms are an important tool parties may use to identify potentially responsive documents in cases involving substantial amounts of ESI. Search terms do not, however, replace a party’s requests for production.”

As a result, Judge Burkhardt gave the plaintiffs two options for correcting their discovery productions with specific deadlines:

“1) By December 26, 2017, provide its hit list to Defendant; by January 5, 2018, conclude the meet and confer process as to mutually acceptable search terms based upon the hit list results; by January 12, 2018, run the agreed upon search terms across Plaintiff’s data; by February 15, 2018, screen the resulting documents for responsiveness and privilege; and by February 16, 2018, produce responsive, non-privileged documents with only appropriate designations of “confidential” and “AEO” (said production to include that subset of the not-previously-produced 700,000 documents that are responsive and non-privileged); or

2) By December 26, 2017, provide the not-previously-produced 700,000 documents to Defendant without further review; pay the reasonable costs for Defendant to conduct a TAR of the 700,000 documents and the July 21, 2017 and August 22, 2017 productions for responsiveness; by January 24, 2018, designate only those qualifying documents as “confidential” or “AEO”; by that date, any documents not designated in compliance with this Order will be deemed de-designated.”

Judge Burkhardt also ordered the plaintiffs to pay for the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees for bringing the motion and for the expenses incurred by the defendants “as a result of Youngevity’s failure to abide by the Stipulated Protective Order.”

So, what do you think?  Did the plaintiffs abuse the process?  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.