Close
Enter your
text here

Electronic Discovery

The Forecast is for Way More Clouds by 2018: eDiscovery Trends

According to a new Gartner report released earlier this month, by 2018, at least 30% of the data reviewed in eDiscovery will be stored in the cloud, up from 5% this year.

The report, titled “Critical Capabilities for E-Discovery Software”, identifies six critical capabilities and three use cases to provide detailed ranking on software products from 20 eDiscovery vendors.  Other key findings include:

  • Not surprisingly, there is a disconnection between IT and legal and, as a result, “[e]ach e-discovery case is often an isolated event and handled as a project”. This project-based approach means that “organizations invest in multiple tools and providers for their e-discovery technology needs”.
  • The eDiscovery market is still “relatively mature”, but “still faces a new wave of first-time buyers as litigation and investigation impact more and more nonregulated industries”.
  • The current market “lacks effective and cohesive technologies” to address new data sources (such as social media and other Web data) in collection and preservation.

The report recommends creating an eDiscovery stakeholder group which consists of IT, inside counsel, risk and security leaders to oversee projects, seek to identify eDiscovery tools and/or manual processes now in use by both IT and legal and consolidate solutions where overlapping capabilities may exist.

The Critical Capabilities document uses the same criteria for vendor inclusion as the “Magic Quadrant for E-Discovery Software” report released by Gartner earlier this year (and covered by us here).  The report ranks the vendors for each of the three use cases, provides a table showing the product score for each vendor for both the three use cases and six critical capabilities and also provides a written summary of each vendor’s capabilities.

To learn more about the report and purchase a copy, click here.

So, what do you think? Are you surprised by the trend toward cloud-based eDiscovery review?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

A Long Time Litigation Support Professional Gets a Deserved Recognition: eDiscovery Trends

When people ask me how long I’ve been working in the litigation support/eDiscovery industry, I generally tell them “25+ years” (after 25, I just stopped counting).  But, there is someone who has been a litigation support professional for over 40(!) years, who recently received a well-deserved recognition for her work over the years.  Her name is Robin Athlyn Thompson.

Earlier this month, Robin, who is VP of Marketing at BIA, received the first ever Lifetime Achievement Award by the Association of Certified eDiscovery Specialists (ACEDS).  In the press release announcing her award, Susan Kavanagh, Director of Client & Member Services for ACEDS was quoted as saying “No one can dispute Robin’s fiercely loyal commitment to innovation, creativity and the continued progression of eDiscovery, which is why she is the perfect recipient for this first ever ACEDS Lifetime Achievement Award.”

Robin was nominated for the award by her peers who noted, among other things, her service to the profession, her dedication to multiple industry associations, and her never ending drive to provide one of the best educational programs available, including the industry’s first cyclical education series.

In the past year, Robin also received the Silver Lifetime Achievement Award for her service to the eDiscovery, Information Governance and Records Management communities from The Stevies, a group which honors women in business.

An interview with Robin is available on the ACEDS site, where Robin talks about the award and also her thoughts about where the industry is heading.

Despite the serious look in the picture above, every time I’ve been around Robin, she has been smiling and is very personable and delightful to talk to, and I don’t think the award could have gone to a better person.  Congratulations, Robin!

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

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

What Do Daegis, Credence Corporation and Elysium Digital All Have in Common?: eDiscovery Trends

All three of these eDiscovery providers have been acquired within the last 2 1/2 months.  Evolve Discovery?  Ditto.  Believe it or not, there have been a whopping 35 mergers, acquisitions and investments in the eDiscovery industry so far this year!  That’s busy!

How do I know that?  Rob Robinson to the rescue!  When it comes to compilations of information about eDiscovery, no one does it better than Rob.  His Complex Discovery site keeps a running list of mergers, acquisitions and investments in the eDiscovery industry and goes all the way back to 2001, when LexisNexis acquired CourtLink – that was even before Kroll merged with Ontrack!  He calls it a “non-comprehensive overview”, but there are 242 transactions, so it’s got a lot of useful information.

Rob’s list not only keeps you abreast of changes in the industry, it’s a great “way back” machine for those who have been in the industry for a number of years and remember some of the providers who were acquired and no longer exist as their old names.  In a few weeks, he will have to change the title of the page as it will be a full 14 years of eDiscovery merger, acquisition and investment that he is providing on his site.

We’ve covered his merger and acquisition list at least a couple of times before – here and here.  It’s a useful resource to check periodically to get a sense of where the industry is heading.  And, if you want to know who is investing in eDiscovery companies, Rob has that list too.  :o)

Speaking of “Ditto”, they’ve been acquired too, by Advanced Discovery.  So, even Ditto has been ditto’d!

So, what do you think?  Are you surprised by the number of eDiscovery transactions this year?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. 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 States that Duty to Meet and Confer is Not an “Empty Formality”, Denies Request for Sanctions: eDiscovery Case Law

In Whitesell Corporation v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc. et. al., No. 103-050 (S.D. Ga., Sept. 10, 2015), Georgia District Judge J. Randal Hall denied the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against the defendant for identifying a deponent that (according to the plaintiff) had no particularized information regarding the defendant’s efforts to produce documents, stating that he was “unimpressed” by the plaintiff’s effort to confer on the matter and stating that the “duty-to-confer is not an empty formality”.

Case Background

In its Third Set of Interrogatories to Defendants, the plaintiff requested that the defendant “[i]dentify every person who has knowledge regarding your document retention policies and procedures and your efforts to preserve and produce documents and information relevant to this litigation, and describe the subject matter of his or her knowledge.”  In response, the defendant identified three individuals, including one whom they described as having “general information” “regarding [the defendant’s] efforts to produce documents and information relevant to this litigation”.

At his deposition, that deponent expressed a lack of knowledge regarding the defendant’s document retention policies, so the plaintiff filed a Motion for Sanctions, arguing that the court should sanction the defendant’s identification of that deponent because he had no particularized information regarding the defendant’s efforts to produce documents “and certainly possesses no information that is different than any other of the dozens of other EHP employees whose computer was reviewed by EHP’s IT department in connection with this litigation.”  In response, the defendant pointed out that it had never identified that deponent as specifically knowledgeable about document retention policies, but that it did identify him has having knowledge regarding the document production (regarding which he adequately testified about during his deposition).

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Hall remarked initially that “At first blush, Whitesell’s motion for sanctions appears well-grounded. From Whitesell’s perspective, Mr. Edwards’s deposition seemed needless and unproductive.”  However, “upon a more contemplative look at the issue”, Judge Hall stated that he “cannot reach the conclusion that EHP violated its certification of discovery responses under the circumstances.”

Noting that the “interrogatory generally asks for persons with knowledge about efforts to produce documents and information relevant to the litigation, but then Whitesell complains that the witness does not have particularized knowledge of all areas pertinent to that subject matter”, Judge Hall stated that “the Court is unimpressed by Whitesell’s effort to confer on the matter…The duty-to-confer is not an empty formality.”

As a result, Judge Hall denied that motion stating that “the Court’s decision on this matter is influenced by the fact that there is now a mechanism in place, the monthly discovery hearings, to address the perceived gaps and failings in discovery almost immediately as they arise.”

So, what do you think?  Should more courts hold monthly discovery hearings to minimize disputes?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. 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.

Do You Test Your Search Terms Before Proposing Them to Opposing Counsel?: eDiscovery Best Practices

If you don’t, you should.  When litigation is anticipated, it’s never too early to begin collecting potentially responsive data and assessing it by performing searches and testing the results.  However, if you wait until after the meet and confer with opposing counsel, it can be too late.

On the very first day we introduced eDiscovery Daily, we discussed the danger of using wildcards in your searches (and how they can retrieve vastly different results than you intended).  Let me recap that example.

Several years ago, I provided search strategy assistance to a client that had already agreed upon several searches with opposing counsel.  One search related to mining activities, so the attorney decided to use a wildcard of “min*” to retrieve variations like “mine”, “mines” and “mining”.

That one search retrieved over 300,000 files with hits.

Why?  Because there are 269 words in the English language that begin with the letters “min”.  Words like “mink”, “mind”, “mint” and “minion” were all being retrieved in this search for files related to “mining”.  We ultimately had to go back to opposing counsel and attempt to negotiate a revised search that was more appropriate.

What made that process difficult was the negotiation with opposing counsel.  My client had already agreed on over 200 terms with opposing counsel and had proposed many of those terms, including this one.  The attorneys had prepared these terms without assistance from a technology consultant (or “geek” if you prefer) – I was brought into the project after the terms were negotiated and agreed upon – and without testing any of the terms.

Since the terms had been agreed upon, opposing counsel was understandably resistant to modifying any of them.  It wasn’t their problem that my client faced having to review all of these files – it was my client’s proposed term that they now wanted to modify.  Fortunately, for this term, we were ultimately able to provide a clear indication that many of the retrieved documents in this search were non-responsive and were able to get opposing counsel to agree to a modified list of variations of “mine” that included “minable”, “minefield”, “minefields”, “miner” and “minings” (among other variations).  We were able to reduce the result set to less than 12,000 files with hits, saving our client a “mint”, which they certainly didn’t “mind” (because we were able to drop “mint” and “mind” and over 200 other words from the responsive hit list).

However, there were several other inefficient terms that opposing counsel refused to renegotiate and my client was forced to review thousands of additional files that they shouldn’t have had to review.  Had the client included a technical member on the team at the beginning and had they tested each of these searches before negotiating terms with opposing counsel, they would have been able to figure out which terms were overbroad and would have been able to determine more efficient search terms to propose, saving thousands of dollars in review costs.

So, what do you think?  Do you test your search terms before proposing them to opposing counsel?  If not, why not?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. 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 Defendant to Produce Metadata for Previously Produced Emails: eDiscovery Case Law

In Prezio Health, Inc. v. Schenk, et. al., No. 13-1463 (D. Conn., Sept. 9, 2015), after “a careful in camera review” of emails responsive to eighteen keyword search terms, Connecticut Magistrate Judge Joan Glazer Margolis ordered the defendant to produce metadata for eight specific emails which had already been produced to the plaintiff.

Case Background

In this dispute over a non-compete provision, the plaintiff provided a list of 18 search terms to be used in searching the defendants’ computers for emails sent and received by the individual defendant during an 8 month period in 2013. When the defendants produced no documents in response to the search request, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel, requesting that the defendants produce all computers or hard drives in their possession on which the individual defendant might have sent or received emails during the relevant timeframe.

In their brief in opposition, the defendants argued, inter alia, that defense counsel had conducted a search of the eighteen search terms and would produce all non-privileged documents that relate to the individual defendant’s employment with either plaintiff or the defendant company, all of which probably were previously produced in this litigation.  The defendants also suggested that they conduct a search of the individual defendant’s email account in an in camera setting for the Court.  In its reply brief, plaintiff countered, inter alia, that it was still entitled to the metadata from these documents.  Per their suggestion, in August, the court ordered the defendants to produce the items responsive to the eighteen search terms for in camera review, and both parties produced emails for the in camera review.

Judge’s Ruling

Regarding the plaintiff’s request for metadata, Judge Margolis stated: “After a careful in camera review, plaintiff is entitled to the metadata for the following eight emails: the two May 6, 2013 emails; the May 13, 2013 email; the two June 6, 2013 emails; the two October 16, 2012 emails; and the December 13, 2012 email. Unless counsel agree otherwise, defense counsel shall make the necessary arrangements and plaintiff promptly shall reimburse defendants for any expenses borne as a result.”

Judge Margolis also stated that “[t]his is not a Recommended Ruling, but a ruling on a non-dispositive motion… As such, it is an order of the Court unless reversed or modified by the District Judge upon timely made objection.”

So, what do you think?  Was an in camera review the best way to rule on the request for metadata?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. 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.

ICYMI Weekly Summary Newsletter for the Week Ending October 10, 2015

Here are your ICYMI (In Case You Missed It) weekly summaries of the posts for this week (with links to the full post on our blog site) for you to check out:

Defendant Ordered to Produce Emails Between Non-Attorney Employees That Were Deemed Privileged: eDiscovery Case Law – In Cicon v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., Pennsylvania District Judge Richard P. Conaboy denied the plaintiff’s request for the defendant to produce attorney-client communications that occurred before the filing of the complaint, but granted his request regarding communications between non-attorney employees before the plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter threatening litigation, ordering the defendant to produce those emails, while allowing the defendant to redact explicit discussion of an attorney’s advice.

Europe’s Highest Court Strikes Down 15 Year Old Safe Harbor Agreement: eDiscovery Trends – International eDiscovery just became more difficult. A 27-year-old Austrian law graduate may have brought an end to a 15 year old agreement enabling transatlantic data transfers between the U.S. and European Union because of – wait for it – privacy concerns.

Samsung Doesn’t Have to Write a Check After All…Yet: eDiscovery Case Law – A couple of weeks ago, we revisited the Apple v. Samsung case, which we covered so much last year, it had its own category in our annual case law review. On September 18, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh granted Apple’s motion for partial final judgment in the case that Apple lodged against Samsung in 2011, seemingly clearing the way for Apple to collect $548 million in damages from Samsung. But, on Friday, Samsung received an emergency stay on that order.

EDRM Has a Twist on its Fall Workshop (and a Webinar Today!): eDiscovery Trends – Around this time of year, EDRM members (like me) expect to convene for our semi-annual visit to St. Paul for the mid-year meeting. This year, EDRM has a twist on the mid-year meeting, which they’re now calling the “fall workshop”. There was also a webinar on Tuesday!

Redactions Aren’t Always as Straightforward as You Think: eDiscovery Best Practices – On the surface, it may seem easy enough to redact a document during eDiscovery review to obscure confidential or privileged information. You may think that all you need to do is draw a black box over the affected text, but there’s actually a lot more to consider in order to ensure that you don’t inadvertently produce information that was intended to be redacted. Here are some redaction failures and how to avoid them.

As always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. 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 Ordered to Produce Emails Between Non-Attorney Employees That Were Deemed Privileged: eDiscovery Case Law

In Cicon v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., No. 14-2187 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 21, 2015), Pennsylvania District Judge Richard P. Conaboy denied the plaintiff’s request for the defendant to produce attorney-client communications that occurred before the filing of the complaint, but granted his request regarding communications between non-attorney employees before the plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter threatening litigation, ordering the defendant to produce those emails, while allowing the defendant to redact explicit discussion of an attorney’s advice.

Case Background

In this case, the plaintiff sued the defendant insurance company regarding coverage of the plaintiff’s injuries in an automobile accident.  During the course of litigation, the defendant produced a privilege log which cursorily described communications between the defendant and legal counsel as well as internal communications between various of its claims personnel.  The plaintiff filed a motion to compel, seeking documents that detailed communications between the defendant and its attorneys in relation to this case, as well as documents that detailed communications between the defendant’s employees or agents regarding this matter.  With regard to the attorney-client communications, the plaintiff argued that they should be produced because many of the attorney-client communications referenced in the defendant’s privilege log occurred before the filing of the complaint that initiated the case.

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to the plaintiff’s argument for producing the attorney-client communications, Judge Conaboy stated “The Court cannot agree. Because Plaintiff retained counsel and threatened litigation via the aforementioned letter of February 18, 2014, all communications between Defendant and its various attorneys that post-date February 18, 2014 are very likely, if not presumptively, concerned with the Defendant’s defense of this matter. Simply put, Plaintiff has cited no evidence that the attorney-client communications Defendant seeks to shield were related to mere business purposes.”  As a result, Judge Conaboy denied the plaintiff’s request to have these documents produced.

With regard to communications between the defendant’s employees, Judge Conaboy ruled to “categorically exclude from production those that post-date Plaintiff’s counsel’s letter of February 18, 2014 threatening litigation”, deciding to “presume that all inter-office communications in this file after that date were prepared in anticipation of litigation and are, thus, properly excluded from discovery except in the redacted form Defendant has proposed.”  However, with regard to the “numerous” inter-office communications in the privilege log that pre-dated the plaintiff’s counsel’s letter, Judge Conaboy concluded that “inter-office communications before that date were prepared in the ordinary course of business, and, consequently, are not subject to work product protection”.  He did note, that “[t]o the extent that any of these documents contain explicit discussion of an attorney’s advice or direction, Defendant may redact the document to exclude such excerpts consistent with the earlier discussion of attorney-client privilege.”

So, what do you think?  Should the defendant have been ordered to produce the non-attorney emails?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. 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.

Europe’s Highest Court Strikes Down 15 Year Old Safe Harbor Agreement: eDiscovery Trends

International eDiscovery just became more difficult.  A 27-year-old Austrian law graduate may have brought an end to a 15 year old agreement enabling transatlantic data transfers between the U.S. and European Union because of – wait for it – privacy concerns.

According to Law 360 (subscription required), on Tuesday, the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) ruled that the safe harbor pact enabling transatlantic data transfers between the U.S. and European Union should be struck down, agreeing with its top legal adviser in finding that the deal fails to provide an adequate level of protection for EU citizens’ data.

In its opinion, issued two weeks after the Advocate General Yves Bot offered a nonbinding opinion recommending that the safe harbor agreement be struck down, the CJEU ruled that the popular U.S.-EU safe harbor data transfer scheme fails to adequately protect the privacy rights of EU citizens because it puts the needs of U.S. law enforcement officials ahead of these rights by allowing them unfettered access to the transferred data.  As a result, data transfers between EU member states and the US that were once authorized under the Safe Harbor provisions are now considered unlawful.

In its announcement, the CJEU stated “National security, public interest and law enforcement requirements of the United States prevail over the safe harbor scheme, so that United States undertakings are bound to disregard, without limitation, the protective rules laid down by that scheme where they conflict with such requirements…The United States safe harbor scheme thus enables interference, by United States public authorities, with the fundamental rights of persons, and the commission decision does not refer either to the existence, in the United States, of rules intended to limit any such interference or to the existence of effective legal protection against the interference.”

The CJEU also ruled the safe harbor to be inadequate because it offers EU citizens no judicial means of redress in the U.S. and denies EU data protection authorities the power to review complaints challenging the validity of the data transfers to third countries, which the court ruled that the regulators can do even though the commission had declared the safe harbor scheme to be adequate.

Bot’s opinion stemmed from a June 2013 complaint filed by Max Schrems, a 27-year-old Austrian law graduate, who alleged that Facebook’s Irish subsidiary transferred data to the U.S. and that the social media site cooperated with the National Security Agency’s PRISM program, the existence of which, thanks to former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, is now public knowledge.  Snowden congratulated Schrems on Tuesday with this tweet.  Schrems praised the ruling Tuesday, saying that he hoped it would a “milestone when it comes to online privacy.”

At a press conference Tuesday, the European Commission said it welcomed the decision as a confirmation of the need of having robust data protection safeguards in place before transferring citizens’ data as well as of its efforts to revamp the safe harbor agreement, which have been pending for more than two years.

So, what do you think?  Do you conduct eDiscovery internationally?  Will this ruling affect how you do so?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. 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.

Samsung Doesn’t Have to Write a Check After All…Yet: eDiscovery Case Law

A couple of weeks ago, we revisited the Apple v. Samsung case, which we covered so much last year, it had its own category in our four part annual case law review.  On September 18, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh granted Apple’s motion for partial final judgment in the case that Apple lodged against Samsung in 2011, seemingly clearing the way for Apple to collect $548 million in damages from Samsung.  But, on Friday, Samsung received an emergency stay on that order.

According to Law 360 (subscription required), on Friday, the Federal Circuit on Friday granted a temporary stay of the judgment’s enforcement, after Samsung argued Sept. 21 in a notice of appeal that the appeals court’s mandate did not require immediate payment.

Samsung also moved for approval of a supersedeas bond in the amount of $600 million to secure payment of the judgment and asked for a temporary, 10-day stay of execution of the judgment to ensure that there is time to implement any changes to the bond the judge may require.  Samsung had argued in its emergency motion that the judgment shouldn’t have been entered, or that the appeals court should approve the supersedeas bond it put up in district court, according to filings in the case.

In a response brief that at times got a bit spicy, Apple retorted that the Federal Circuit’s May ruling affirming the $548 million judgment “made plain” that Samsung doesn’t deserve further delay, and urged the court to ignore Samsung’s efforts to “block the court from performing the most ministerial of tasks,” according to its filing.  “Apple does not file this motion lightly, but Samsung’s appeal truly is beyond the pale,” Apple argued in its response. “It should be brought to a swift end, rather than serve Samsung’s goals of imposing greater cost and delay on the court and Apple.”

Apple has won several battles with Samsung, including ultimately being awarded over $1 billion in verdicts (ultimately reduced to the current $548 million), as well as a $2 million sanction for the inadvertent disclosure of its outside counsel firm (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) commonly known as “patentgate”, but ultimately may have lost the war when the court refused to ban Samsung from selling products that were found to have infringed on Apple products (that is still being disputed in the courts, too).  This case has also had disputes over eDiscovery cost reimbursement and an adverse inference sanction for Samsung for failing to turn off “auto-delete” of emails after the case began.  And, clearly, there is more yet to come.

So, what do you think?  Have you been following Apple v. Samsung?    Will it ever end?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. 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.