Close
Enter your
text here

Electronic Discovery

Court Rules that Unilateral Predictive Coding is Not Progressive – eDiscovery Case Law

In Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Delaney, No. 2:11-cv-00678-LRH-PAL (D. Nev. May 19, 2014), Nevada Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen determined that the plaintiff’s unannounced shift from the agreed upon discovery methodology, to a predictive coding methodology for privilege review was not cooperative.  Therefore, the plaintiff was ordered to produce documents that met agreed-upon search terms without conducting a privilege review first.

This declaratory relief action had been plagued by delays in discovery production, which led to the defendants filing a Motion to Compel the plaintiffs to produce discovery in a timely fashion. Following a hearing, both sides were ordered to meet and confer, and hold meaningful discussions about resolving outstanding ESI issues pursuant to discovery. The plaintiff contended that the defendant’s discovery requests, as standing, would require them to produce approximately 1.8 million documents, which would be unduly burdensome. Both parties agreed to search terms that would reduce the number of potentially responsive documents to around 565,000, which the plaintiff would manually review for privileged documents before producing discovery to the defendant.

Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff determined that manual review would be too expensive and time-consuming, and therefore after consulting with a “nationally-recognized authority on eDiscovery,” elected to apply predictive coding to the identified 565,000 documents. Plaintiff selected a software program that they began using to identify relevant documents with the intention of applying a further predictive coding layer in order to determine which documents were “more likely privileged” and which were “less likely privileged.”

However, the plaintiff did not consult with either the court or the requesting party regarding their intentions to change review methodology. As a result, the defendant objected to the use of predictive coding in this case for several reasons, including the plaintiff’s lack of transparency surrounding its predictive coding methodology and its failure to cooperate, as well as the plaintiff’s failure to adhere to the best practices for the chosen software program which were recommended to them by the authority they chose. Finally, the defendants cited a likelihood of satellite disputes revolving around discovery, should the plaintiff proceed with the current predictive coding, which would further delay production discovery that had already been “stalled for many months.”

The defendant requested that either the plaintiff be required to proceed with predictive coding according to the defendant’s suggested protocol, which would include applying the predictive methodology to all of the originally collected 1.8 million documents, or that the plaintiff produce the non-privileged keyword hits without any review, but allowing them to be subject to a clawback order—which was a second option included in the originally stipulated ESI protocol that both parties had agreed to. Although this option would shift the burden of discovery to the defendant, it was noted that the defendant was “committed to devot[ing] the resources required to review the documents as expeditiously as possible” in order to allow discovery to move forward.

Judge Leen acknowledged potential support for the general methodology of predictive coding in eDiscovery, and stated that a “transparent mutually agreed upon” protocol for such a method would likely have been approved. However, Judge Leen took issue that the plaintiff had refused to “engage in the type of cooperation and transparency that its own eDiscovery consultant has so comprehensibly and persuasively explained is needed for a predictive coding protocol to be accepted by the court or opposing counsel” and instead had “elected and then abandoned the second option—to manually review and produce responsive ESI documents. It abandoned the option it selected unilaterally, without the [defendant’s] acquiescence or the court’s approval and modification of the parties’ stipulated ESI protocol.”

Therefore, Judge Leen elected to enforce the second option described in the agreed-upon ESI protocol, and required the plaintiff to produce all 565,000 documents that matched the stipulated search terms without review, with a clawback option in place for privileged documents as well as permission to apply privilege filters to the documents at issue, and withhold those documents that returned as “most likely privileged.”

So, what do you think? Should parties need to obtain approval regarding the review methodology that they plan to use?  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.

Government Ordered to Maintain Expensive Custom Database Shared with Criminal Defendant – eDiscovery Case Law
 

In the criminal case of United States v. Shabudin, No. 11-cr-00664-JSW-1 (NJV) (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2014), California Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas ordered the Government to continue to provide access to a Relativity Database used by the parties to review documents produced by the Government, instead of discontinuing access for the defendants several weeks before trial was to begin due to budgetary issues.

The Government had voluntarily created the database to manage the vast quantities of documents being produced for discovery in this action, “because it was in its interest to do so”. An agreement had been negotiated between the parties that would allow the defendants to access the database and review discovery documents, and to employ third-party “project managers” for technical and substantive support.  Although the parties stipulated that the database has been “completed” in January of 2013, after more than 9 million documents had been uploaded, the defendants did not gain access until February of 2014.

At some point after beginning to work with the database, the defendants came to realize that not all of the documents produced in the action had been uploaded. Specifically, absent from the database were the contents of three hard drives, and 159 boxes of hard copy material amounting to nearly 1 million pages of documents. Defendants filed a motion to compel the Government to add the missing documents to the database, but, during a hearing on the motion to compel, the Government voluntarily offered to upload 2 of the 3 hard drives, and scan the hard copy materials into the database, asking that they not be ordered to do so.

Following this commitment, the Government indicated for the first time during the proceedings that “the ‘extra cost’ associated with this ‘voluntary’ commitment would draw down on the $1.8 million budget that had been allocated to Database, and ‘for this reason, we anticipate funding for the Database will end” four months from that point. Further, the Government stated that they had looked into “new – and more expensive – alternatives,” namely that they would expend resources to have the materials uploaded to the database within 2 months, and that the defendants would have 2 months to access and review the “old” documents plus the new material, at which point the database would be “transferred to a Concordance database that Defendants could maintain at their own cost.”

The defendants objected to this proposal, and Judge Vadas ordered the Government to provide more information about the effects of transferring the documents to a Concordance database. The Government declared that the cost of the transfer alone would be $118,000, and that it would take 6 to 8 weeks to complete. Further, the Government explained that due to the transfer, some user-created metadata would no longer be viewable or searchable, specifically including “(1) Database user actions (‘audit history’); (2) user searches including save search syntax; (3) image annotations; and (4) Database ‘artifacts’ such as batches, views, or layouts.” The defendants responded that they would “lose our saved searches compiled in files within the database, the very work that we have spent months and many hours putting together. These files essentially represent the virtual entirety of the defense work on the data base.”

Aside from these concerns, when asked when it first explained the possibility that the database could “wind down” before trial, the Government “could not point to a single instance where it had actually informed Defendants that this was a possibility.” Instead, the Government claimed that the “projected” two-year project duration should have been understood by the defendants to have been calculated based on the start of the project in June 2012, rather than the completion of the database as the defendants assumed.

Judge Vadas noted that if the Government had indicated that the database might be shut down prior to trial, and taken this position “when it broached the possibility of using the Database to manage discovery in this case, Defendants would have objected strenuously.” Ultimately, Judge Vadas found that since the Government had “chose to use an eDiscovery platform for this action, selected and managed the eDiscovery provider, and negotiated and agreed to Terms and Conditions for Access to the Database with the Defendants,” and that the Government had never disclosed that the database might wind down, “that winding down the Database before Defendants are ready for trial in December 2014 would prejudice Defendants' ability to prepare for trial and would offend the court's notion of fairness.” Therefore, the Government was ordered to continue to pay for the database through December 2014, and to continue providing the services agreed to in the Terms and Conditions.

So, what do you think? Should the Government have been required to continue to pay for the database, or should exporting it to a Concordance database for the defendants to use have been sufficient? 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.

eDiscovery at the Movies – eDiscovery Trends
 

While we don’t have Siskel & Ebert around to review movies anymore, there is a new documentary that will certainly merit review by many eDiscovery professionals out there.

The Decade of Discovery was written and directed by Joe Looby, who, according to his LinkedIn profile, served in the U.S. Navy's Judge Advocate General Corps, practiced as an environmental enforcement attorney for New York state and was a founder of the forensic technology practices at Deloitte and FTI.  His film production company is called 10th Mountain Films, named in honor of his father, who served in the 10th Mountain Division, a U.S. Army ski patrol that fought in World War II.

As noted in Law Technology News (E-Discovery Hits the Silver Screen, written by Monica Bay), Looby’s 61-minute film has already premiered last Saturday in Middletown, N.Y., at the  Hoboken International Film Festival and is also set to be shown at the Manhattan Film Festival on June 21.

Described as a “documentary about a government attorney on a quest to find a better way to search White House e-mail, and a teacher who takes a stand for civil justice on the electronic frontier”, Looby notes in a radio interview with the Mid Hudson News that the documentary includes comments by “a government attorney, a teacher, seven judges and two professors”, which includes several well-known names in eDiscovery: U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin, of the Southern District of New York, Jason R. Baron, former director of litigation for the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration and now of counsel at Drinker Biddle & Reath, and Richard Braman, founder and executive director emeritus of The Sedona Conference, among others.  Looby refers to those who have advanced tremendous progress made over the past decade in eDiscovery practice as “true American heroes”.

Consider this:

  • When the President of the United States leaves office, White House emails generated during that president’s term cannot be released to the general public (via the US National Archives) until they are reviewed and declassified,
  • When Bill Clinton left office in 2001, there were 32 million emails to be reviewed and declassified,
  • That number rose to over 200 million emails when George W. Bush left office in 2009,
  • And is expected to rise to over 1 billion emails once Barack Obama leaves office at the end of his term.

The movie addresses the considerable advancements to address problems like this in both the government and litigation arenas.

Here is a link to the trailer for the movie – it looks very interesting and informative.  Hopefully, the movie will eventually be shown or available via a nationwide outlet (Netflix, anyone?) for those of us not in the Manhattan area.

So, what do you think? Is this a movie you would like to see? 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.

Here’s a Chance to Help Shape the Future of Information Governance – eDiscovery Trends

Back on Valentine’s Day, we discussed the launching of the Information Governance Initiative (IGI), a cross-disciplinary consortium and think tank focused on advancing information governance.  The IGI has been busy, with two of its co-chairs, Bennett B. Borden & Jason R. Baron, having written a recent report on predictive analytics for information governance.  Now, the IGI is inviting you to help shape the future of information governance by participating in the IGI’s 2014 Annual Survey.

As noted on their blog, one of the IGI’s major projects this year is their 2014 (and first!) IGI Annual Report, “which will strive to provide much-needed clarity on IG concepts, definitions, markets, and practices”. As part of their research for the report, IGI is conducting a survey of information governance professionals.

As they note on their blog, the survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete (it took me about 10-12 minutes).  The survey asks a number of questions related to your role in information governance and how your organization handles IG, as well as questions regarding the future of information governance.  A link to the survey is available here.

According to Barclay Blair, founder & executive director of IGI, the deadline for taking the survey is June 15, with the results expected to be published on August 4.  Barclay also noted that IGI will also be reporting out on a series of benchmarking interviews that they are conducting right now with working IG practitioners.  Sounds like plenty of information to come!

With information governance clearly identified as the most widely discussed topic at this year’s LegalTech New York show (reflected by our recent thought leader interview series), the efforts of IGI will bear watching.  If you’re an information governance professional and want to make your voice heard, this survey is your chance!

So, what do you think? How does your organization handle information governance? 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.

Plaintiffs Denied Motion to Depose Defendants Regarding ESI Processes Prior to Discovery Requests – eDiscovery Case Law

In Miller v. York Risk Servs. Grp., No. 2:13-cv-1419 JWS (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2014), Arizona Senior District Judge John W. Sedwick denied the plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, requesting permission to conduct depositions in order to determine the defendant’s manner and methods used for storing and maintaining Electronically Stored Information (ESI) prior to submitting their discovery requests.

This action involves two claims against the defendant revolving around workers’ compensation benefits: (1) that the defendant “fraudulently denied [plaintiffs’] workers’ compensation benefits in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”),” and (2) that the defendant aided and abetted the plaintiffs’ employer or former employer with a “breach of its duty of good faith and fair dealing” by denying the claims. In filing the Motion to Compel, the plaintiffs sought a wide ranging inquiry pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) that would enable them to “tailor their discovery requests to avoid potential disputes over what may be discovered” by deposing the defendant regarding their process of storing and maintaining ESI.

The plaintiffs contended that other courts have “allowed discovery of the very sort they seek” for the purpose of tailoring discovery requests, and cited several appellate decisions to reinforce the contention. While most of the decisions cited by the plaintiffs were from trial courts in other circuits, two of the district court cases cited were within the Ninth Circuit—specifically, Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Vegas Constr. Co., Inc., and Starbucks Corp. v. ADTSec. Services, Inc.

In reviewing these appellate decisions, Judge Sedwick noted that the first cited Ninth Circuit case was inapplicable, as it discussed extensively “a corporation’s duty to identify and prepare a witness for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, but nothing in the opinion suggests that the case involved any request to conduct discovery into the manner and methods used by the defendant to store and maintain electronic data.” Regarding the second case, it was noted that the plaintiffs had in fact submitted a substantive request for discovery prior to the court ordered Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, which only attempted to conclude whether the discovery would actually be “unduly burdensome and difficult to retrieve,” as the defendants alleged.

Therefore, Judge Sedwick stated that the cited decisions were inconclusive in determining “whether starting the discovery process with a wide ranging inquiry into the manner and method by which a party stores and manages ESI is a helpful and appropriate approach to obtaining substantive information,” and therefore starting discovery with an inquiry as requested by the plaintiffs “puts the cart before the horse and likely will increase, rather than decrease, discovery disputes.” Hence, the plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel was denied.

So, what do you think? Are there circumstances under which taking depositions prior to discovery would be helpful and appropriate? Should depositions be reserved for resolving discovery disputes, rather than preventing them? 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.

Another Case Where Some eDiscovery Costs are Disallowed – eDiscovery Case Law

We haven’t covered a good eDiscovery cost reimbursement case in a while (here is a link to those we covered last year), so here is a case from earlier this month where, once again, the prevailing party had its awarded costs for eDiscovery reduced.

In Kwan Software Engineering v. Foray Technologies, 2014 U.S. Dist. (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2014), the amount of the defendant’s previously awarded costs were significantly reduced following the partial granting of the plaintiff’s Motion for Review of Clerk’s Taxation of Costs, after California District Judge Susan Illston ruled that the majority of the costs requested were not recoverable.

In this copyright infringement and breach of contract case, the motion for review had been filed after a motion for summary judgment was granted and entered in favor of the defendant, who was awarded $88,848.13 in costs. The plaintiff disputed these costs, and filed a motion that requested to specifically disallow “(1) $453.29 in costs for service of summons and subpoena; (2) $6,818.54 in costs for printed or electronically recorded transcripts; and (3) $61,312 in costs for exemplification and the costs of making copies.”

With regard to the larger sum of $61,312, the plaintiff specifically challenged the costs related to eDiscovery, citing the defendant’s submission of a total of eight invoices which the plaintiff contended they should not have been awarded any costs for. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was “seeking a broad range of eDiscovery related costs that go well beyond the costs associated with the actual production of the documents,” and further that the defendant “failed to provide sufficient detail of its eDiscovery costs to allow the Court to determine what are actual copying costs and what are non-taxable intellectual efforts.”

Additionally, the plaintiff noted that there was a discrepancy between the invoices at issue and the actual production submitted by the defendant. During discovery, the defendant produced approximately 229,000 pages of documents, yet the invoices showed charges for producing 344,445 pages of documents, and thus the defendant was seeking to recover costs for documents that were not used in the litigation.

It was noted that with respect to eDiscovery, other courts in the same district have found recoverable copying fees to be defined as “.TIFF and OCR conversion, Bates stamping, load file and other physical media generation.” However, the invoices submitted by the defendant for cost recovery contained, in addition to costs for documents that were not produced to the plaintiff, other charges for “data storage and data management,” as well as “Project Management” fees. The information that the defendant submitted was not sufficient to show that these costs should have been recoverable.

Judge Illston stated that the court declined to award costs to the defendant for data storage, data management, project management, and copying costs for documents that were not actually produced in litigation. Therefore, of the original $61,312 in copying costs, the defendant’s awarded recoverable costs were reduced to $6,870, an amount that represented “a charge of $0.03 per document for Bates stamping and TIFF conversion for 229,000 documents.”  With regard to the lesser divided costs of $24,199.14 and $1,752.32 which the Clerk awarded to the defendant, these costs were challenged by the plaintiff on the assertion that some of the costs were not recoverable.

Broadly summarizing, the plaintiff argued that delivery invoices for subpoena and summons, and costs related to printed or electronically recorded transcripts, specifically “(1) expedited deposition transcripts; (2) multiple copies of deposition transcripts; (3) additional CDs containing deposition transcripts and exhibits; (4) synchronization of video depositions; (5) multiple copies of DVDs; (6) rough transcripts; (7) color exhibits; (8) shipping of transcripts; and (9) transcripts of proceedings” should not be recoverable.

Judge Illston accordingly reduced the amounts to disallow categories 1 and 2 above ($453.29 and $6,818.54) respectively, leaving the defendant with a total of $32,983.59 in awarded costs.

So, what do you think? Should the costs of labor or intellectual effort be considered recoverable with regard to eDiscovery? How detailed should the level of reporting be when requesting recoverable costs following a judgment? 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.

Everything You Wanted to Know about Forms of Production, Don’t Be Afraid to Ask – eDiscovery Best Practices

Last week, we discussed the upcoming Georgetown E-Discovery Training Academy, which will be held starting this Sunday and mentioned in Craig Ball’s excellent blog, Ball in Your Court.  His latest post offers a very comprehensive guide to forms of production that covers all aspects of forms of production from the different types of forms to how to request electronically stored information (ESI) from opposing counsel.

The Lawyer’s Guide to Forms of Production, described by Craig as a “public comment” and “beta” version, “explains the significance of forms of production and lays out options to guide the reader in making sensible selections. It seeks to help lawyers eschew the wasteful and outmoded practice of downgrading digital information to paper-like forms and, instead, embrace forms that function—that is, forms of production that preserve the integrity, efficiency and functionality of digital evidence.”

It’s a 46 page Guide, with another 20 pages of attachments, and covers numerous topics, including:

  • Growing Tension between parties striving to receive productions in useful formats and producing parties seeking to “downgrade” the production format to paper-like images;
  • Options for Forms of Production including Paper, Images, Native, Near-Native (such as enterprise e-mail, databases and social networking content which can’t be produced as-is) and Hosted Production (more frequently, parties turn over access to ESI in a hosted application, typically cloud-based);
  • Federal Rules handling of forms of production, including Rule 34(b)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which allows a requesting party to “specify the form or forms in which electronically stored information is to be produced”;
  • Learning the Language of Forms where Craig breaks down a fictional example of a typical production proposal from opposing counsel and the pitfalls of the proposed formats;
  • Load Files, what they are, different format examples, and how they are used;
  • The Case against Native Format and how each component of the case is debunked;
  • The Case against Imaged Production and at least half a dozen “needless” expenses associated with it.

Craig also covers best practices for crafting production requests that are modern and clear and “cut the crap” of “including, but not limited to” and “any and all” that “don’t add clarity” and are “lightning rods for objection”.  He addresses Bates numbers, redaction and “exemplar” production protocols (in Appendices 2 and 3).  And, many other topics as well!  It’s a very comprehensive guide that covers introductory and advanced topics alike to help lawyers develop a much better understanding of how ESI is stored, organized and should be requested.

You can download a copy of the guide in PDF format here.  It will be interesting to see what feedback Craig gets on his “beta” version.

So, what do you think? Have you dealt with forms of production disputes with opposing counsel?  If so, how did you resolve them?  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.

Defendants – and Defendants’ Counsel – Sanctioned for Delays in Producing ESI – eDiscovery Case Law
 

In Knickerbocker v Corinthian Colleges, Case No. C12-1142JLR, (WDWA, April 7, 2014), Washington District Judge James L. Robart imposed sanctions against the defendants and the defendants’ counsel for their delays in producing Electronically Stored Information (ESI) during discovery, despite the fact that spoliation of evidence was ultimately avoided.

This workplace discrimination, harassment, and retaliation action involved three plaintiffs who were former employees of the defendants, and had been terminated from their positions. The plaintiffs filed first and second motions for sanctions, alleging in the first that the defendants had failed to preserve evidence, and in the second that the defendants had shown bad faith in their subsequent delay in producing evidence.

During discovery, the plaintiffs first expressed concern over the defendants’ “meager document production,” prompting several discovery conferences and correspondences between the counsel for the plaintiffs and the counsel for the defense. Eventually, the defendants’ counsel represented that as per the defendants’ policies, the plaintiffs’ email accounts had been deleted 30 days after their termination. Further, counsel stated regarding backup sources that the relevant ESI “could not be extracted without shutting down the servers; in other words, it was not extractable.”

Owing to the defendants’ apparent failure to preserve evidence, plaintiffs filed a motion to compel responses to particular discovery requests. In response, both parties stipulated to an order requiring that the defendant conduct a “full and complete search” at its own expense for all responsive documents, including “documents on backup servers.” The defendants complied and submitted more documents with a Verification of Compliance with Stipulation and Order Compelling Further Discovery, which stated in part that the defendants had conducted a complete search “on all available electronic sources and/or servers.”

After reviewing the defendants’ production, plaintiffs continued to allege that evidence had not been adequately preserved and collected. Further questioning revealed that although the defendants had issued litigation holds in previous litigation actions against them, they had not issued a litigation hold in this particular case. While the defendants’ previous policy had been to issue a company-wide notice to halt destruction of ESI, with respect to this case, the defendants claimed to have selected certain employees and asked them to retrieve and retain relevant documents. Yet in depositions, the employees at issue stated that they “had not searched, did not recall searching, and had not been asked to search for documents relevant to the litigation.”

At this point, the defendants’ total document production had consisted of only 1,272 pages. Defendants claimed that the document search was sufficient, alleging that the plaintiffs’ email accounts had been deleted prior to notification of pending litigation, thus before the duty to preserve had been triggered. However, the defendants admitted that the emails at issue existed on its backup tapes, but argued that they were not required to produce them because “the Stipulated Order only referred to backup ‘servers’, not backup ‘tapes’, and retrieval of information on the backup tapes would require ‘unreasonable’ cost and effort.”

Facing sanctions for spoliation, the defendants counsel changed their tune and represented that they were not only able to access the backup tapes and solve the spoliation issue, but that the total expense of producing the relevant ESI would be “a thousand dollars per day of recovery time,” and that the expenses would not be as great as previously warranted. Citing the counsel for the defendants’ representation that expenses would not be burdensome, Judge Robart deferred ruling on the plaintiffs’ most recent motion in favor of issuing an order to compel production specifically from the backup tapes.

Briefly summarized, the defendants far exceeded the time limit set for discovery production over a series of delays, difficulties, and missed deadlines, as the backup tapes were alternately reviewed and documents extracted by a third party vendor and the defendants themselves. Ultimately, an additional 3,000 emails were produced from the backup tapes, with the bulk of the production delivered 7 weeks after the final deadline.

Judge Robart found that the defendants had acted in bad faith, specifically stating that “there is clear and convincing evidence showing that [defendants] and [defendants’ counsel] have refused to participate forthrightly in the discovery process and that this refusal constitutes or is tantamount to bad faith…[t]herefore, sanctions are warranted.” The defendants were sanctioned in the amount of $25,000, and the defense counsel was sanctioned another $10,000.

So, what do you think? Does this case demonstrate clear bad faith, or simply incompetence on behalf of counsel? Should sanctions be ordered in cases where spoliation of evidence has ultimately not occurred? 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.

Surprisingly Few States Have an Ethics Opinion Regarding Lawyer Cloud Usage – eDiscovery Best Practices
 

The Legal Technology Resource Center (LTRC) of the American Bar Association’s (ABA) web site has a great resource for those who want more information regarding the ethics for lawyers in using and storing client data in the cloud.  Though, surprisingly few states have published ethics opinions on the topic.

On their site in a page entitled Cloud Ethics Opinions Around the U.S., the ABA provides an interactive map of the states (see the image of it above), with the states that have published ethics opinions shown in blue.  On the actual site, you can either click on the state to scroll down to it or manually scroll down to the state by name alphabetically (more or less, the list has “Nevada” after “New Hampshire”, “New Jersey” and “New York”, just sayin’).  According to the ABA, here are the states that have published ethics opinions (with links to each state’s opinion):

If you counted, that’s 14 total states with opinions – less than 28% of the total state jurisdictions (when you include DC).

If you don’t feel like reading all of the opinions word for word, the ABA site provides two tabs below the interactive map:

  • Quick Reference tab that identifies whether cloud usage for client data is permitted (so far, all states say “Yes”), the standard for use (currently all states with opinions enforce a reasonable care standard) and a bullet point list of specific requirements or recommendations;
  • Opinion Summaries tab that provides a brief summary for each of the opinions.

As the site notes, “in most opinions, the specific steps or factors listed are intended as non-binding recommendations or suggestions. Best practices may evolve depending on the sensitivity of the data or changes in the technology.”  Also, the site identifies opinions (Arizona, Maine and New Jersey to date) where the opinions address issues which aren't directly labeled cloud computing or software as a service, but which share similar technology (e.g.. online backup and file storage).

Hopefully, more states will follow the examples of these 14 states and publish their own opinions soon.

Thanks to Sharon Nelson and to the Ride the Lightning blog for the tip (who, in turn, acknowledged Brett Burney for providing the info at the Virginia State Bar Techshow).  It’s great to have so many smart people in our industry!

So, what do you think? Are you surprised that more states don’t have published cloud ethics opinions?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Daily will take a holiday on Monday for Memorial Day to remember all of the men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice while serving in the US Armed Forces.  We will resume with new posts next Tuesday.

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.

Perhaps the Most Recognized Standard in eDiscovery Just Got a Facelift – eDiscovery Trends
 

Probably the most recognized standard in a very unstandardized industry is the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) diagram.  For only the second time since it was originally published in 2006, the diagram has been updated.

As announced on Monday, the new Version 3 of the EDRM diagram (see the new diagram above) offers significant updates, primarily to express the importance of information governance (IG) as a key piece of the electronic discovery process.

The leftmost item in the model has been renamed “Information Governance” and its shape has been changed from a rectangle to a circle. These edits better align this diagram with EDRM’s Information Governance Reference Model (IGRM). The adoption of a circle also is meant to show that every well-managed eDiscovery process should start and end with sound information governance, as is reflected by the IGRM diagram here:

 

In addition, the line from Presentation to Information Governance has been widened. This emphasizes that no eDiscovery process is fully completed – no matter at what stage it stops – until it has been looped back to IG.

The final update to the diagram is the increased size of the words “VOLUME” and “RELEVANCE” in the bottom corners of the diagram. This change draws greater attention to the two core objectives driving most eDiscovery projects.

For comparison purposes, here is what the previous version of the diagram looked like, in use for five years (eons in the eDiscovery world!):

 

As the announcement notes, the process of updating the diagram began during a group session at the EDRM Mid-Year Meeting in fall 2013. Members agreed that with the increased attention on IG, an update to the popular model was necessary. Much time and effort were invested in creating a new diagram that accurately reflects the current environment. EDRM would like to acknowledge and thank member Wade Peterson of the firm Bowman and Brooke, LLP, who facilitated the model’s graphic design changes. The new diagram was shared at last month’s EDRM Annual Kick-Off Meeting where members approved the updated model.

The new (Version 3) EDRM diagram is available free of charge and can be downloaded in JPG, EPS and/or PDF formats from the EDRM website here. Use of the diagram is subject to a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License, which means it may be shared, remixed, or used commercially as long as attribution is provided by citing “EDRM (edrm.net).”

So, what do you think? Do you use the EDRM diagram?  If so, do you like the updates?  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.