Close
Enter your
text here

Electronic Discovery

eDiscovery Best Practices: Judge Facciola Discusses Competency and Ethics
 

The American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct (Model Rules) require that an attorney possess and demonstrate a certain requisite level of knowledge in order to be considered competent to handle a given matter.  Specifically, Model Rule 1.1 states that, "[a] lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation."

As noted in Law Technology News, eDiscovery vendor iConect hosted a free webinar last week entitled "Duty of Competency and E-Discovery", in which Joshua Gilliland, author of Bow Tie Law's Blog and founder of legal iPad app developer Majority Opinion, discussed ethics and eDiscovery with Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.  The “sheriff” speaks!

The LTN article notes that, according to Judge Facciola, the requirement for competency now requires "a fundamental understanding of the way information is produced." This entails: 1) some understanding of the information systems you and your client are relying upon; 2) knowing your own limitations; and 3) if you don't understand, have someone at your side, i.e. an expert, who does, he declared.

With regard to ethics and eDiscovery, Judge Facciola gave an example of what might occur in a 26(f) meet and confer, which he called "the linchpin" of the 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Two lawyers are meeting in discovery in a case involving pharmaceuticals. One lawyer knows that the drug Pharmadine is spelled with an "e" not an "a" but doesn't correct the opposing party even though he knows it will disrupt his opponent's search, prolonging the discovery period by six months. Labeling this the difference between a material fact and not speaking to correct a mistake, Facciola says there's "no ethical rule" for this, but, ultimately that lawyer is going to have to go before a judge and account for those extra six months. Model rules regulate a profession's ethics, they don't influence a judge's decision. "Ethics rules are not a safe harbor," Facciola warned.

For more observations from Judge Facciola topics such as cooperation, preservation and search methodology, click on this link to access the article from Law Technology News.  And, for more on the subject of competency and ethics as it relates to eDiscovery, check out this post and this post from our archives.

So, what do you think?  Are you addressing ethics and competency requirements in your firm as it relates to eDiscovery?  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 Milestones: 100,000 Visits!
 

While it may not be “billions and billions served” like McDonalds nor quite as electrifying as 1.21 jigawatts, we’re proud to announce that yesterday eDiscoveryDaily reached the 100,000 visit milestone!  As of this morning, we have had 100,160 visits to the site (reading 447 posts).  On behalf of everyone at CloudNine Discovery who has worked on the blog over the last 21+ months, thanks to all of you who read the blog every day!  In addition, thanks to the other publications that have picked up and either linked to or republished our posts!  We really appreciate the support!  Now, on to 200,000!

And, 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 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 Case Law: “Naked” Assertions of Spoliation Are Not Enough to Grant Spoliation Claims
 

In Grabenstein v. Arrow Electronics, Inc., No. 10-cv-02348-MSK-KLM, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56204 (D. Colo. Apr.23, 2012), Colorado Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix denied the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, finding that their claims of spoliation were based on “naked” assertions that relevant eMails must exist even though the plaintiff could not demonstrate that such other eMails do or did exist.  The motion was also denied because the plaintiff could not establish when the defendant had deleted certain eMail messages, thereby failing to prove claims that the defendant violated its duty to preserve electronic evidence. Judge Mix noted that sanctions are not justified when documents are destroyed in good faith pursuant to a reasonable records-retention policy, if that’s prior to the duty to preserve such documents.

In this employment discrimination case, the plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions, claiming that the defendant failed to retain all eMail messages exchanged internally as well as between the defendant and the plaintiff’s insurer, MetLife, regarding the plaintiff’s short-term disability leave.

Defining the requirement for a finding of spoliation, Judge Mix stated, “A spoliation sanction is proper where (1) a party has a duty to preserve evidence because it knew, or should have known, that litigation was imminent, and (2) the adverse party was prejudiced by the destruction of the evidence.”

Here, Judge Mix found the plaintiff’s contentions that relevant eMails were missing to be “fatally unclear” since neither the plaintiff nor the defendant knew whether other such eMails existed. The plaintiff was also unable to provide any verification that MetLife’s log of relevant eMails exchanged with the defendant was incomplete or had been altered. As a result, Judge Mix was “unable to find that the e-mails produced by MetLife are incomplete and that Defendant destroyed the only complete versions of those e-mails”.

There were some eMails which the defendant admittedly did not preserve.  As to whether those eMails had been deleted after the duty to preserve them had arisen, Judge Mix discussed the standard under the spoliation doctrine: “‘[I]n most cases, the duty to preserve evidence is triggered by the filing of a lawsuit. However, the obligation to preserve evidence may arise even earlier if a party has notice that future litigation is likely.’” Here, Judge Mix found that the plaintiff had not produced any evidence that the defendant should have anticipated litigation prior to receiving actual notice of the filing of the lawsuit. The plaintiff was also unable to show any evidence at all when the defendant had destroyed the eMails that would rebut the defendant’s attorney’s statement that the eMails were deleted prior to the start of litigation. As a result, the plaintiff did not meet its burden of establishing that the defendant had violated its duty to preserve.

While finding that the defendants had violated a records retention policy regulation applicable to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when it deleted the eMails, Judge Mix found that it had not done so in bad faith, and it had been simply following its own eMail retention policy in the normal course of business. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions was denied.

So, what do you think?  Was the ruling fair or should the defendants have been sanctioned for the deleted 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 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 Trends: Costs, Outside Counsel and Vendor Performance Chief Among GC Concerns
 

A survey was recently conducted by eDiscovery Solutions Group (eDSG) that of Global 250 General Counsel on various aspects of eDiscovery processes and concerns regarding eDiscovery.  The results were summed up in a post in the blog, The eDiscovery Paradigm Shift, written by Charles Skamser.  With a little over half (127 out of 250 organizations or 51%) responding, the post noted some interesting findings with regard to how organizations handle various eDiscovery tasks and their concerns regarding the process overall.

eDiscovery Services

According to the survey, organizations are (not surprisingly) still highly dependent on outside counsel for eDiscovery services, with over half of the organizations (51%) relying on them for eDiscovery collections and Early Case Assessment (ECA) services and 43% relying on them for document review services.  Organizations rely on third party forensics groups 35% of the time for eDiscovery collections and rely on Legal Process Outsource (LPO) providers 29% of the time for ECA services and 43% of the time for document review services.  Organizations handle ECA internally 20% of the time and handle collection and review 13% of the time each.

The author notes surprise that 51% of the respondents identified outside counsel for their ECA and wondered if there was confusion by respondents about the term “LPO” and whether it applied to litigation service providers.  It’s also possible that the term “ECA” might have been confusing as well – to many in the legal profession it means estimating risk (in terms of time and cost to proceed with the case instead of settling) and not analysis of the data.

Frustrations and Pet Peeves

eDSG also asked the respondents about their top frustrations and top pet peeves over the past 12 months (respondents could select more than one in each category).  Top frustrations were “Cost of eDiscovery not declining as rapidly as expected” (95%) and “Increase in the Amount of ESI” (90%).  Also notable are the respondents that are frustrated with “Dealing with eDiscovery Software Vendors” (80%) and “Outside Counsel Not Providing Adequate Support for eDiscovery Requirements” (75%).  Sounds like most of the respondents have multiple frustrations!

Top pet peeves were “Outside Counsel and LPOs Knowingly Low Balling Cost Estimates” (80%) and “eDiscovery Cost Overruns”, “LPOs dropping the ball on eDiscovery Projects” and “Anyone that states that litigation in now all about technology” (all at 75%).  Also, 65% of respondents find eDiscovery Vendor sales people “annoying”.  🙂

Concerns

With regard to the next 12 months, eDSG asked the respondents about their top concerns going forward (again, respondents could select more than one in each category).  Top concerns were “Managing the Cost of eDiscovery” (a perfect 100%) and “Collaboration between internal stakeholders” (91%).  Other concerns included “Education and Training of Staff ” (79%) and “Understanding the Impact of Social Media” (75%).

Summary

A link to the blog post with more information and survey results is available here.  Based on the responses, most organizations outsource their eDiscovery activities to either outside counsel and litigation support vendors; yet, many of them don’t appear to be happy with the results their outsource providers are giving them.  It sounds like there’s lots of room for improvement.  The cost of eDiscovery appears to be the biggest frustration and the biggest concern of in-house counsel personnel going forward.

So, what do you think?  Did any of these survey results surprise you?  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 Best Practices: Documentation is Key to a Successful Discovery Effort
 

We like to point out good articles about eDiscovery on this blog to keep our readers aware of trends and best practices.  I recently read an article on InsideCounsel titled E-discovery: Memorializing the e-discovery process, written by Alvin Lindsay, which had some good specific examples of where good documentation is important to prevent sanctions and save litigation costs.

Litigation Holds

The author notes that, since the Zubulake opinions issued by Judge Shira Scheindlin in 2003 and 2004, 1) most jurisdictions have come to expect that parties must issue a litigation hold “as soon as litigation becomes reasonably foreseeable”, and 2) “oral” litigation holds are unlikely to be sufficient since the same Judge Scheindlin noted in Pension Committee that failure to issue a “written” litigation hold constitutes “gross negligence”.  His advice: “make sure the litigation hold is in writing, and includes at minimum the date of issue, the recipients and the scope of preservation”.  IT personnel responsible for deleting “expired” data (outside of retention policies) also need to receive litigation hold documentation; in fact, “it can be a good idea to provide a separate written notice order just for them”.  Re-issuing the hold notices periodically is important because, well, people forget if they’re not reminded.  For previous posts on the subject of litigation holds, click here and here.

Retention Policies and Data Maps

Among the considerations for documentation here are the actual retention and destruction policies, system-wide backup procedures and “actual (as opposed to theoretical) implementation of the firm’s recycle policy”, as well as documentation of discussions with any personnel regarding same.  A data map provides a guide for legal and IT to the location of data throughout the company and important information about that data, such as the business units, processes and technology responsible for maintaining the data, as well as retention periods for that data.  The author notes that many organizations “don’t keep data maps in the ordinary course of business, so outside counsel may have to create one to truly understand their client’s data retention architecture.”  Creating a data map is impossible for outside counsel without involvement and assistance at several levels within the organization, so it’s truly a group effort and best done before litigation strikes.  For previous posts on the subject of data maps, click here and here.

Conferences with Opposing Counsel

The author discusses the importance of documenting the nature and scope of preservation and production and sums up the importance quite effectively by stating: “If opposing parties who are made aware of limitations early on do not object in a timely fashion to what a producing party says it will do, courts will be more likely to invoke the doctrines of waiver and estoppel when those same parties come to complain of supposed production infirmities on the eve of trial.”  So, the benefits of documenting those limitations early on are clear.

Collecting, Culling and Sampling

Chain of custody documentation (as well as a through written explanation of the collection process) is important to demonstrating integrity of the data being collected.  If you collect at a broad level (as many do), then you need to cull through effective searching to identify potentially responsive ESI.  Documenting the approach for searching as well as the searches themselves is key to a defensible searching and culling process (it helps when you use an application, like FirstPass®, powered by Venio FPR™, that keeps a history of all searches performed).  As we’ve noted before, sampling enables effective testing and refinement of searches and aids in the defense of the overall search approach.

Quality Control

And, of course, documenting all materials and mechanisms used to provide quality assurance and control (such as “materials provided to and used to train the document reviewers, as well as the results of QC checks for each reviewer”) make it easier to defend your approach and even “clawback” privileged documents if you can show that your approach was sound.  Mistakes happen, even with the best of approaches.

So, what do you think?  These are some examples of important documentation of the eDiscovery process – can you think of others?  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 Case Law: There’s a New Sheriff in Town – Judge Facciola
 

In Taydon v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., District of Columbia Magistrate Judge John Facciola laid down the law to the parties in the case requiring cooperation on eDiscovery issues after “[t]he filing of forty-page discovery motions accompanied by thousands of pages of exhibits” and made it clear that the parties would be expected to “meet and confer in person in a genuine, good faith effort to plan the rest of discovery”.

According to the plaintiffs, defendant infringed on their wireless technology by utilizing the plaintiffs’ technology on its buses. Each side claimed discovery deficiencies and delays by the parties and filed motions accordingly.  The case was referred to Judge Facciola for discovery and in his 12 page Memorandum Opinion on June 6, he denied both motions.  However, he did note that the defendant’s application for sanctions has merit based on Rule 37, which indicates that “if a motion to compel is denied, the court may order the moving party to pay the opposing party’s expenses, including attorney’s fees, unless the motion was “substantially justified.””  Finding that not to be the case, Judge Facciola ordered the plaintiffs “to show cause why a sanction, in the form of attorney’s fees, should not be awarded against them for the time defendant spent opposing plaintiffs’ motion to compel”.

However, it’s the closing of the opinion where he laid down the law to the parties regarding the cooperation he expects moving forward on eDiscovery issues:

“III. High Noon

As explained at the discovery status hearing held on April 30, 2012, there is a new sheriff in town—not Gary Cooper, but me. The filing of forty-page discovery motions accompanied by thousands of pages of exhibits will cease and will now be replaced by a new regimen in which the parties, without surrendering any of their rights, must make genuine efforts to engage in the cooperative discovery regimen contemplated by the Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation…First, the parties will meet and confer in person in a genuine, good faith effort to plan the rest of discovery. They shall discuss and agree, if they can, on issues such as the format of any additional productions, the timing and staging of all depositions, the submission to each other of discovery reports, and the scope and timing of any Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) depositions. The parties will then jointly submit their discovery plan for my approval. I commit myself to work with them in resolving any disagreements, whether they arise initially or during discovery. To that end, I will schedule a telephonic status conference every two weeks in which I will ask the parties about their progress (or lack thereof) and try to resolve any disagreements they have.”

To download a copy of the Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation, click here.

Requiring a conference every two weeks to discuss discovery issues when parties can’t agree – sounds like a great idea to me!  So, what do you think?  Are attorneys taking the responsibility to conduct a Rule 26(f) conference to discuss discovery issues seriously?  Would Judge Facciola look good in a ten gallon hat?  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 Case Law: Judge Peck Denies Recusal Motion in Da Silva Moore
 

It’s been a few weeks since we heard anything from the Da Silva Moore case.  If you’ve been living under a rock the past few months, Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion in this case in February making it one of the first cases to accept the use of computer-assisted review of electronically stored information (“ESI”).  However, the plaintiffs objected to the ruling and questioned Judge Peck’s relationship with defense counsel and with the selected vendor for the case, Recommind and ultimately formally requested the recusal of Judge Peck.  For links to all of the recent events in the case that we’ve covered, click here.

Last Friday, in a 56 page opinion and order, Judge Peck denied the plaintiffs’ motion for recusal.  The opinion and order reviewed the past several contentious months and rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments for recusal in the following areas:

Participation in conferences discussing the use of predictive coding:

“I only spoke generally about computer-assisted review in comparison to other search techniques…The fact that my interest in and knowledge about predictive coding in general overlaps with issues in this case is not a basis for recusal.”

“To the extent plaintiffs are complaining about my general discussion at these CLE presentations about the use of predictive coding in general, those comments would not cause a reasonable objective observer to believe I was biased in this case. I did not say anything about predictive coding at these LegalTech and other CLE panels that I had not already said in in my Search,Forward article, i.e., that lawyers should consider using predictive coding in appropriate cases. My position was the same as plaintiffs’ consultant . . . . Both plaintiffs and defendants were proposing using predictive coding in this case.  I did not determine which party’s predictive coding protocol was appropriate in this case until the February 8, 2012 conference, after the panels about which plaintiffs complain.”

“There are probably fewer than a dozen federal judges nationally who regularly speak at ediscovery conferences. Plaintiffs' argument that a judge's public support for computer-assisted review is a recusable offense would preclude judges who know the most about ediscovery in general (and computer-assisted review in particular) from presiding over any case where the use of predictive coding was an option, or would preclude those judges from speaking at CLE programs. Plaintiffs' position also would discourage lawyers from participating in CLE programs with judges about ediscovery issues, for fear of subsequent motions to recuse the judge (or disqualify counsel).”

Relationship with defense counsel Ralph Losey:

“While I participated on two panels with defense counsel Losey, we never had any ex parte communication regarding this lawsuit. My preparation for and participation in ediscovery panels involved only ediscovery generally and the general subject of computer-assisted review. Losey's affidavit makes clear that we have never spoken about this case, and I confirm that. During the panel discussions (and preparation sessions), there was absolutely no discussion of the details of the predictive coding protocol involved in this case or with regard to what a predicative coding protocol should look like in any case. Plaintiffs' assertion that speaking on an educational panel with counsel creates an appearance of impropriety is undermined by Canon 4 of the Judicial Code of Conduct, which encourages judges to participate in such activities.”

Relationship with Recommind, the selected vendor in the case:

“The panels in which I participated are distinguishable. First, I was a speaker at educational conferences, not an audience member. Second, the conferences were not one-sided, but concerned ediscovery issues including search methods in general. Third, while Recommind was one of thirty-nine sponsors and one of 186 exhibitors contributing to LegalTech's revenue, I had no part in approving the sponsors or exhibitors (i.e., funding for LegalTech) and received no expense reimbursement or teaching fees from Recommind or LegalTech, as opposed to those companies that sponsored the panels on which I spoke. Fourth, there was no "pre-screening" of MSL's case or ediscovery protocol; the panel discussions only covered the subject of computer-assisted review in general.”

Perhaps it is no surprise that Judge Peck denied the recusal motion.  Now, the question is: will District Court Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. weigh in?

So, what do you think?  Should Judge Peck recuse himself in this case or does he provide an effective argument that recusal is unwarranted?  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 Case Law: Plaintiff Compelled to Produce Mirror Image of Drives Despite Defendant’s Initial Failure to Request Metadata
 

In Commercial Law Corp., P.C. v. FDIC, No. 10-13275, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51437 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 12, 2012), Michigan District Judge Sean F. Cox ruled that a party can be compelled to produce a mirror image of its computer drives using a neutral third-party expert where metadata is relevant and the circumstances dictate it, even though the requesting party initially failed to request that metadata and specify the format of documents in its first discovery request.

The plaintiff was an attorney who sought to recover fees from the FDIC for services in its capacity as receiver for a bank. The plaintiff claimed that it held valid liens on properties of the bank, and provided an eMail to the bank as evidence. The FDIC disputed the plaintiff’s claim, contended that she was lying and sought to compel her to produce a mirror image of her computer drives to examine relevant data pertaining to the lien documents. Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen ordered the plaintiff to compel, and the plaintiff objected.

Judge Cox ruled that there was a proper basis for ordering an exact copy of her drives to be created and also agreed that it was appropriate to be performed by a neutral third-party expert, finding:

  • That such an examination would reveal relevant information pursuant to Rule 26 because “[t]he date Plaintiff executed the security lien is clearly relevant to a defense against Plaintiff’s attorney lien claim”;
  • That there were a number of factors that gave the defendant “sufficient cause for concern” as to the authenticity of the lien documents, shooting down the plaintiff’s claim that the court was simply following a “hunch”;
  • That a third-party expert is an appropriate way to execute the examination.

Despite the fact that the defendant did not request metadata nor specify the format of the documents in its initial discovery request, Judge Cox permitted an expert to obtain relevant metadata. Judge Cox noted:

“It is clear from the parties’ pleadings that Defendant’s concern regarding the legitimacy of the lien documents intensified during the course of discovery. Specifically, Defendant did not obtain the January 18, 2010 email [claiming the lien documents were attached] until it deposed Karl Haiser in August of 2011, well after it submitted its first discovery requests to Plaintiff. “

As a result, the plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate Judge Whalen’s order were overruled.

So, what do you think?  Should the defendant have been granted another opportunity at the metadata or should the plaintiff’s objections have been granted?  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 Trends: X1 Social Discovery – Social Media Discovery for Professionals
 

According to EDDUpdate.com, social media will be eclipsing email as the primary discovery resource within three years.  Social media has become a normal part of our everyday life as we share our photos on Facebook, tweet news on Twitter, and make professional connections on LinkedIn.  We’ve previously covered social media archiving tools here, highlighting a firm named Smarsh, and the need for effective electronic discovery methods is only growing by the day.  As you can imagine, the sheer amount of content being generated is astounding.  Twitter CEO Dick Costolo announced on June 6th that Twitter had broken the 400 million tweet-per-day barrier, up 18% from 340 million back in March.  These aren’t simply meaningless ones and zeroes, either. X1 Discovery has information for 689 cases related to social media discovery from 2010 and 2011 linked on their website, making it clear just how many cases are being affected by social media these days.

With regard to ESI on social media networks, X1 Discovery features a solution called X1 Social Discovery, which is described as “the industry's first investigative solution specifically designed to enable eDiscovery and computer forensics professionals to effectively address social media content.  X1 Social Discovery provides for a powerful platform to collect, authenticate, search, review and produce electronically stored information (ESI) from popular social media sites, such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.”

We reached out to X1 Discovery for more information about X1 Social Discovery, especially with regard as to what sort of challenges faces a new tool developed for a new type of information.  For example, why isn’t support for Google+, Google’s fledgling social network, offered?  X1 Discovery Executive Vice President for Sales and Business Development, Skip Lindsey, addressed that question accordingly:

“Our system can be purposed to accommodate a wide variety of use cases and we are constantly working with clients to understand their requirements to further enhance the product.  As you are aware there are a staggering number of potential social media systems to be collected from, but in terms of frequency of use, Facebook, Twitter and Linkedin are far and away the most prominent and there is a lot of constant time and attention we provide to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data we obtain from those sites. We use a combination of direct API’s to the most popular systems, and have incorporated comprehensive web crawling and single page web capture into X1 Social Discovery to allow capture of virtually any web source that the operator can access. Google + is on the roadmap and we plan support in the near future.”

So, who is going to benefit most from X1 Social Discovery, and how is it different than an archiving tool like Smarsh?  According to Lindsay:

“X1 Social Discovery is installable software, not a service. This means that clients can deploy quickly and do not incur any additional usage charges for case work. Our investigative interface and workflow are unique in our opinion and better suited to professional investigators, law enforcement and eDiscovery professionals that other products that we have seen which work with social media content. Many of these other systems were created for the purpose of compliance archiving of web sites and do not address the investigation and litigation support needs of our client base. We feel that the value proposition of X1 Social Discovery is hard to beat in terms of its functionality, defensibility, and cost of ownership.”

With so many cases requiring collection by experienced professionals these days, it seems appropriate that there’s a tool like X1 Social Discovery designed for them for collecting social media ESI.

So, what do you think?  Do you collect your own social media ESI or do you use experienced professionals for this collection?  What tools have you used?  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.

State eDiscovery Rules: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Amends eDiscovery Rules, Rejects Federal Rules
 

Last week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted amendments to the rules on how discovery of electronically stored information is handled in the state.  However, the chairwoman of Pennsylvania’s Civil Procedural Rules Committee, Diane W. Perer, has expressly rejected federal law on the subject in her explanatory comment stating that, despite the adoption of the term “electronically stored information,” “there is no intent to incorporate federal jurisprudence surrounding the discovery of electronically stored information.”  Instead, “[t]he treatment of such issues is to be determined by traditional principles of proportionality under Pennsylvania law”.

The explanatory comment also discusses the “Proportionality Standard” and its application to electronic discovery, as well as “Tools for Addressing Electronically Stored Information”.  When it comes to proportionality, Pennsylvania courts are required to consider:

“(i) the nature and scope of the litigation, including the importance and complexity of the issues and the amounts at stake;

(ii) the relevance of electronically stored information and its importance to the court’s adjudication in the given case;

(iii) the cost, burden, and delay that may be imposed on the parties to deal with electronically stored information;

(iv) the ease of producing electronically stored information and whether substantially similar information is available with less burden; and

(v) any other factors relevant under the circumstances.”

When it comes to tools for addressing ESI, the comment stated that "[p]arties and courts may consider tools such as electronic searching, sampling, cost sharing and non-waiver agreements to fairly allocate discovery burdens and costs. When using non-waiver agreements, parties may wish to incorporate those agreements into court orders to maximize protection vis-à-vis third parties."

The amendments affect rules 4009.1, 4009.11, 4009.12, 4009.21, 4009.23, and 4011.  For example, in Rule 4009.1, the court added the phrase "electronically stored information" to the "production of documents and things" a party may request. It also added a subsection that a party requesting ESI "may specify the format in which it is to be produced and a responding party or person not a party may object."  If no format is requested, the rule states the ESI can be produced in the form in which it is typically maintained.

In some cases, the amendments affect only the notes, not the substance of the rule itself.  For example, in a note to Rule 4009.11 regarding the request for production of documents and things, the court said a request for ESI should be "as specific as possible."

So, what do you think?  Was it necessary for Pennsylvania to distance themselves from the Federal rules, or was it a good idea?  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.