Close
Enter your
text here

Electronic Discovery

eDiscovery Case Law: Discovery Compelled for Social Media Content

Discoverability of social-media usage continues to be a hot topic for eDiscovery.  Information for litigants’ LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter and MySpace accounts can be the “smoking gun” for litigators looking to pursue or defend a claim.

In McMillen v. Hummingbird Speedway, Inc., No. 113-2010 CD (C.P. Jefferson, Sept. 9, 2010), defendant Hummingbird Speedway, Inc. sought to compel discovery of the plaintiff’s social network account log-in names, and passwords.  A copy of the opinion granting that Motion to Compel is available here.

The plaintiff was allegedly injured during a stock car race in the summer of 2007.  During the litigation that followed, defendant Hummingbird Speedway, Inc. requested production of plaintiff’s user names, log-in names, and passwords for any social network accounts – to which the plaintiff objected, arguing that the information was confidential.  Based on information in the public sections of the plaintiff’s social network accounts, the defendant filed a Motion to Compel.

In his opposition to the motion, the plaintiff argued that communications with friends via social media sites were private and protected from disclosure. The court disagreed, indicating that the plaintiff was essentially asking the court to recognize an evidentiary privilege for such communications, but that there is no “social media privilege” recognized by Pennsylvania’s court or legislature.

The court also noted that those communications were not privileged based on “Wigmore’s test for privilege”, which requires the plaintiff to establish four factors:

  • “His communications originated in the confidence that they would not be disclosed”;
  • “The element of confidentiality is essential to fully and satisfactorily maintain the relationship between the affected parties”;
  • “Community agreement that the relationship must be sedulously fostered”; and
  • “The injury potentially sustained to the relationship because of the disclosure of the communication outweighs the benefit of correctly disposing of litigation”.

Because the plaintiff failed to establish these factors, the court ultimately ruled that “Where there is an indication that a person’s social network sites contain information relevant to the prosecution or defense of a lawsuit…and the law’s general dispreference for the allowance of privileges, access to those sites should be freely granted”.

So, what do you think?  There have been other cases where the discoverability of social media was called into question – have you experienced any?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

P.S. – For those (like me) who didn’t know what the word “sedulously” meant, I’ve provided a link to the definition above… 🙂

eDiscovery Case Law: Adverse Interference Sanction for Lost Text Messages

As the sources of electronic files continue to become more diverse, case law associated with those different sources has become more commonplace.  One ruling in a case last month resulted in an adverse instruction against the US Government for failing to preserve text messages.

In United States v. Suarez, (D.N.J. Oct. 21, 2010), United States District Judge Jose L. Linares considered adverse inference sanctions related to the Government’s failure to preserve text messages.  In this case, the F.B.I. should have retained text messages between a cooperating witness and F.B.I. agents because it was reasonably foreseeable that the text messages would be discoverable by defendants in later criminal proceedings. However, given the lack of evidence of Government bad faith in failing to impose a litigation hold on the text messages until seven months after its investigation ended, the court imposed the “least harsh” spoliation adverse inference instruction that would allow but not require the jury to infer that missing text messages were favorable to defendants.

A cooperating witness posed as a developer and, as instructed by Federal Bureau of Investigation agents, offered payments to local public officials in exchange for expediting his projects and other assistance. During the F.B.I. investigation, the witness exchanged Short Message Service electronic communications (text messages) with F.B.I. agents. In later criminal proceedings, the government notified the court that it had incorrectly stated that no text messages were missing. The court held a hearing at which F.B.I. agents and information technology specialists described F.B.I. procedures to preserve and retrieve data generated by handheld devices. Despite an F.B.I. Corporate Policy Directive on data retention and litigation hold policies, no litigation hold was in place when the cooperating witness was “texting” with agents.

In a “not-for-publication” decision, the court pointed out that the Government’s obligation under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 to disclose information was more limited than its obligation under civil discovery rules. However, the text messages with the witness were “statements” under the Jencks Act that should have been preserved by the Government. The F.B.I. was “well-equipped” to preserve documents, and the U.S. Attorney “was aware of the importance of preserving documents relevant to the litigation and could have requested a litigation hold on the text messages from the inception of the investigation.” The request for a litigation hold was not made until seven months after the investigation ended and three months after the F.B.I. began searching its servers for missing text messages.

In determining sanctions, the court considered precedents in the civil cases of MOSAID Techs. Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 348 F. Supp. 2d 332 (D.N.J. 2004), and Pension Comm. of the Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, 685 F. Supp. 2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). The court concluded there was “little evidence” of Government bad faith leading to loss of the text messages. On the other hand, evidence indicated the defense was prejudiced by the loss of text messages with the cooperating witness, whose credibility was “of paramount importance.” The court thus denied defendants’ request for the “relatively severe” sanction of suppression of the witness’s testimony and all tape recordings in which he was a party. However, an adverse inference instruction was appropriate under MOSAID criteria. The text messages had been within the Government’s control and were intentionally deleted by F.B.I. agents, and the U.S. Attorneys’ Office failed to take steps to preserve the messages. The messages were relevant to claims or defenses, and it was reasonably foreseeable by the Government that the messages would later be discoverable. The court concluded that the “least harsh” spoliation adverse inference jury instruction described in Pension Committee would be issued because Government bad faith had not been shown. Such an instruction would allow but not require the jury to infer that missing text messages were favorable to defendants.

So, what do you think?  Have you encountered a case where preservation of text messages was a critical component?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).  For eDiscovery news and best practices, check out the Applied Discovery Blog here.

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.

SaaS and eDiscovery: Load Your Own Data

Software as a Service (SaaS) applications hosted “in the cloud” are continuing to become more popular.  A new IDC study forecasts the SaaS market to reach $40.5 billion by 2014, an annual growth rate of 25.3%.  Also by 2014, about 34% of all new business software purchases will be via SaaS applications, according to IDC.

If you haven’t used a SaaS application, you haven’t used the Internet.  Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, eBay and YouTube are all examples of SaaS applications.  Ever shared a document via Google Docs with a colleague or business partner?  Use SalesForce.com for Customer Relationship Management (CRM)?  These are SaaS applications too.

Like any software application, SaaS applications are driven by data.  Many enable you to upload your own data to use and share via the Web.  Facebook and YouTube enable you to upload and share pictures and videos, Google Docs is designed for sharing and maintaining business documents, and even SalesForce.com allows you to upload contacts via a comma-separated values (CSV) file.

eDiscovery SaaS Applications

SaaS applications have also become increasingly popular in eDiscovery (especially for review and production of ESI) with several eDiscovery SaaS applications available that provide benefits including: no software to install, intuitive browser-based interfaces and ability to share the collection with your client, experts, and co-counsel without distributing anything more than a login.

However, most eDiscovery SaaS applications do not enable the user to upload their own data.  Or, if they do, it can be costly.

One exception is OnDemand™, which has now rolled out the new SelfLoader™ module in beta to enable clients to load their own data.  With SelfLoader, clients can load their own images, OCR text files, native files and metadata to an existing OnDemand database using an industry-standard load file (IPRO’s .lfp or Concordance’s .opt) format.

The best part?  You can load your data for free.  With SelfLoader, OnDemand provides full control to load your own data, add your own users and control their access rights.

Is this a start of a trend in eDiscovery?  Will more eDiscovery SaaS providers provide self-loading capabilities?  What do you think?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Project Management: Assign the Right People

Last week, on Wednesday and Thursday, we talked about assembling an electronic discovery team.  That’s not the only team you might need.  You may need to assemble a team for a specific task — for example, for a document review.

It’s essential that you assign the right type of people to a task.  For many litigation projects, this means deciding whether attorneys or non-attorneys will do the work.

Pushing the work up to over-qualified people can be just as problematic as using under-qualified people.   I’ve seen first hand how important this is.  I once worked on two large cases simultaneously where millions of documents had to be reviewed in each case.  In one case, I convinced the client that paralegals could handle the bulk of the work.  In the other case, the client insisted that only lawyers could do the work.

I don’t have to tell you how much more the second client paid for the work.  You may be surprised, however, by the quality comparison.  Each project involved multiple law firms, and one firm was involved in both.  That firm did quality control on both projects, and found that there was significantly less re-work required in the project where paralegals did most of the work.

Why?  We gave the paralegals objective criteria that didn’t require a law degree to understand, and they were far more attentive to work that made the lawyer’s eyes glaze over.  The lawyers — who were responsible for making decisions, answering questions, and reviewing work — were able to stay attentive to the more substantive work.

This is where breaking a task into components can help.  Here’s an example.  Everyone knows that determining privilege is an attorney task.  That doesn’t mean, however, that only attorneys can work on the project.  In every collection there are types of documents that will never be privileged unless they bear privileged annotations (published materials, annual reports, case-specific documents like routine manufacturing and quality control reports, etc.).  A trained paralegal using good criteria can do an initial review to identify potentially privileged documents for attorney review.

A project handled like this will certainly cost less, and will probably result in more consistent, higher quality work.

Have you worked on projects where the wrong people did the work?  Please share your comments or let us know if you’d like more information on a topic.

eDiscoveryJournal Webinar: More on Native Format Production and Redaction

As noted yesterday, eDiscoveryJournal conducted a webinar last Friday with some notable eDiscovery industry thought leaders regarding issues associated with native format production and redaction, including George Socha, Craig Ball and Tom O’Connor, and moderated by Greg Buckles, co-founder of eDiscoveryJournal, who has over 20 years experience in discovery and consulting.

What follows is more highlights of the discussion, based on my observations and notes from the webinar.  If anyone who attended the webinar feels that there are any inaccuracies in this account, please feel free to submit a comment to this post and I will be happy to address it.

More highlights of the discussion:

  • Redaction – Is it Possible, Practical, Acceptable?: George said it’s certainly possible and practical, but the biggest problem he sees is that redaction is often done without agreement between parties as to how it will be done.  Tom noted that the knee jerk reaction for most of his clients is “no” – to do it effectively, you need to know your capabilities and what information you’re trying to change.  Craig indicated that it’s not only possible and practical, but often desirable; however, when removing information such as columns from databases or spreadsheets, you need to know data dependencies and the possibility of “breaking” the file by removing that data.  Craig also remarked that certain file types (such as Microsoft Office files) are now stored in XML format, making it easier to redact them natively without breaking functionality.
  • How to Authenticate Redacted Files based on HASH Value?:  Craig said you don’t – it’s a changing of the file.  Although Craig indicated that some research has been done on “near-HASH” values, George noted that there is currently no such thing and that the HASH value changes completely with a change as small as one character.  Tom noted that it’s “tall weeds” when discussing HASH values with clients to authenticate files as many don’t fully understand the issues – it’s a “where angels fear to tread” concern.
  • Biggest Piece of Advice Regarding Redaction?: Craig said that redaction of native files is hard – So what?  Is the percentage of files requiring redaction so great that it needs to drive the process?  If it’s a small percentage, you can always simply TIFF the files requiring redaction and redact the TIFFs.  George indicated that one of the first things he advises clients to do is to work with the other side on how to handle redactions and if they won’t work with you, go to the judge to address it.  Tom indicated that he asks the client questions to find out what issues are associated with the redaction, such as what the client wants to accomplish, percentage of redaction expected, etc. and then provides advice based on those answers.
  • Redaction for Confidentiality (e.g., personal information, trade secrets, etc.): George noted that, while in many cases, it’s not a big issue; in some cases, it’s a huge issue.  There are currently 48 states that have at least some laws regarding safeguarding personal information and also efforts underway to do so at a national level.  We’re a long way from coming up with an effective way to address this issue.  Craig said that sometimes there are ways to address programmatically – in one case where he served as special master, his client had a number of spreadsheets with columns of confidential data and they were able to identify a way to handle those programmatically.  Tom has worked on cases where redaction of social security numbers through search and replace was necessary, but that there was a discussion and agreement with opposing counsel before proceeding.
  • How to Guarantee that Redaction Actually Deletes the Data and Doesn’t Just Obscure it?: Tom said he had a situation on a criminal case where they received police reports from the Federal government with information on protected witnesses, which they gave back.  There is not a “cookie-cutter” approach, but you have to understand the data, what’s possible and provide diligent QC.  Craig indicated that he conducts searches for the redacted data to confirm it has been deleted.  Greg noted that you have to make sure that the search tool will reach all of the redacted areas of the file.  George said too often people simply fail to check the results – providers often say that they can’t afford to perform the QC, but law firms often don’t do it either, so it falls through the cracks.  Tom recommends to his law firm clients that they take responsibility to perform that check as they are responsible for the production.  As part of QC, it’s important to have a different set of eyes and even different QC/search tools to confirm successful redaction.

Thanks to eDiscoveryJournal for a very informative webinar!

So, what do you think?  Do you have any other questions about native format production and redaction?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscoveryJournal Webinar: Debate on Native Format Production and Redaction
 

eDiscoveryJournal conducted a webinar last Friday with some notable eDiscovery industry thought leaders regarding issues associated with native format production and redaction.  The panel included George Socha of Socha Consulting, LLC and co-founder of EDRM, Craig Ball of Craig D. Ball, P.C. and author of numerous articles on eDiscovery and computer forensics, and Tom O’Connor, who is a nationally known consultant, speaker and writer in the area of computerized litigation support systems.  All three panelists are nationally recognized speakers and experts on eDiscovery topics.  The panel discussion was moderated by Greg Buckles, co-founder of eDiscoveryJournal, who is also a recognized expert with over 20 years experience in discovery and consulting.

I wrote an article a few years ago on review and production of native files, so this is a subject of particular interest to me.  What follows is highlights of the discussion, based on my observations and notes from the webinar.  If anyone who attended the webinar feels that there are any inaccuracies in this account, please feel free to submit a comment to this post and I will be happy to address it.

Having said that, here are the highlights:

  • Definition of Native Files: George noted that the technical definition of native files is “in the format as used during the normal course of business”, but in the application of that concept, there is no real consensus.  Tom, who has worked on a number of multi-party cases has found consensus difficult as parties have different interpretations as to what defines native files.  Craig noted that it’s less about format than it is ensuring a “level of information parity” so that both sides have the opportunity to access the same information for those files.
  • “Near-Native” Files: George noted that there is a “quasi-native” or “near-native” format, which is still a native format, even if it isn’t in the original form.  If you have a huge SQL database, but only produce a relevant subset out of it in a smaller SQL database, that would be an example of a “near-native” format.  Individual Outlook MSG files are another example that, as Craig noted, are smaller components of the original Outlook mailbox container for which individual message metadata is preserved.
  • Position of Producing Native Files: Craig noted that the position is often to provide in a less usable format (such as TIFF images) because of attorneys’ fear that the opposition will be able to get more information out of the native files than they did.  George noted that you can expect expert fees to double or even quadruple when expecting them to work with image files as opposed to native files.
  • Negotiation and Production of Metadata: Tom noted that there is a lack of understanding by attorneys as to how metadata differs for each file format.  Craig noted that there is certain “dog tag” metadata such as file name, path, last modified date and time, custodian name and hash value, that serve as a “driver’s license” for files whereas the rest of the more esoteric metadata complete the “DNA” for each file.  George noted that the EDRM XML project is working towards facilitating standard transfer of file metadata between parties.
  • Advice on Meet and Confer Preparation: When asked by Greg what factor is most important when preparing for meet and confer, Craig said it depends partly on whether you’re the primary producing or requesting party in the case.  Some people prefer “dumbed down” images, so it’s important to know what format you can handle, the issues in the case and cost considerations, of course.  George noted that there is little or no attention on how the files are going to be used later in the case at depositions and trial and that it’s important to think about how you plan to use the files in presentation and work backward.  Tom noted it’s really important to understand your collection as completely as possible and ask questions such as: What do you have?  How much?  What formats?  Where does it reside?  Tom indicated that he’s astonished how difficult it is for many of his clients to answer these questions.

Want to know more?  Tune in tomorrow for the second half of the webinar!  And, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

State eDiscovery Rules: Oklahoma Adopts Amendments to Rules for eDiscovery
 

Though the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in December of 2006 have affected how discovery of ESI is handled in Federal courts, lawyers who practice exclusively in state court cases may not have had to consider rules for handling of ESI in their cases.  Some states have adopted civil procedure rules for eDiscovery; others have not.

Effective today, one state that has adopted new amendments to their Rules of Civil Procedure is Oklahoma.  Reagan DeWitt-Henderson of Litgistix Business Solutions, based in Tulsa, has written a terrific article that will be published in this month’s Tulsa Lawyer that addresses the Oklahoma rules changes in detail.  To access the article online, click here.

Highlights of the changes (as discussed in the article):

  • ESI is Added to the List of Obtainable Discovery (12 O.S. § 3226).
  • Only Reasonably Accessible Data to be Produced (12 O.S. § 3226): ESI must be “reasonably accessible” or else good cause must be shown for a court order to require its production.  Parties will be required to produce ESI, assuming the ESI sought is not unreasonably cumulative or overly difficult to obtain.
  • ESI Category Added as Form of Production that Can be Specified (12 O.S. § 3234): This rule is amended specifically to list ESI as data that can be requested.  Also, the producing party must generally state the form(s) of production it intends to use, which is significant as form of production (e.g., native files or scanned images, with or without metadata) determines the extent to which the collection is searchable and whether expensive conversion is required to make it searchable.
  • Option to Produce Business Records in Lieu of Answering Interrogatories Now Includes ESI (12 O.S. § 3233): However, a producing party may have to provide proprietary software or technical support to make the ESI useable to the other side or provide the ESI in a format that does not require proprietary software, or uses a free reader like Adobe Acrobat.
  • Must Address ESI in Mandatory Meet & Confer (12 O.S. § 3226): Lawyers must confer to address discovery issues, including issues related to ESI, but reporting to the judge is optional, unless so ordered.
  • “Clawback” of Confidential & Privilege Information After Unintentional Production (12 O.S. § 3226): "Clawback" of potentially privileged/confidential information is now supported, assuming the reasonable steps must have been taken to prevent the production of this material.
  • Third Party Subpoenas (12 O.S. § 2004.1): Many of the same provisions added also apply to third party subpoenas, including production of ESI, form of production and “clawback” of inadvertent productions.
  • Protection from Sanctions for Document Destruction from Good Faith Procedures (12 O.S. § 3237): Addresses the “safe harbor” provision for not providing ESI lost as a result of the routine, good-faith operation of systems but requires implementation of a “litigation hold” when the duty to preserve arises which may include suspending such operations.

Thanks to Reagan and our friends at Litgistix for such a comprehensive article about the Oklahoma rules changes!  Over the next several weeks, we will look at other states that have adopted similar rules and status of states that have not yet done so.

So, what do you think?  Wondering where your state stands?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sanctions and Other Things that Go Bump in the Night

Sunday is Halloween, so it seems appropriate to try to “scare” you before the big day.  Does this scare you?

“pervasive and willful violation of serial Court orders to preserve and produce ESI evidence be treated as contempt of court, and that he be imprisoned for a period not to exceed two years, unless and until he pays to Plaintiff the attorney’s fees and costs that will be awarded to Plaintiff as the prevailing party”

What about this?

“From this Court’s perspective, a monetary sanction of $150,000 should be sufficient to compensate Plaintiffs for their added expense and deter SanDisk from taking shortcuts.”

Or this?

“For his misconduct, Peal has already received a severe sanction in having his complaint dismissed with prejudice.”

How about this?

“A party does not need formal notice to know that spoliation of evidence and misrepresentations may lead to dismissal.”

Scary, huh?  If the possibility of sanctions keep you awake at night, then the folks at eDiscovery Daily will do our best to provide useful information and best practices to enable you to relax and sleep soundly, even on Halloween!

Of course, if you really want to get into the spirit of Halloween, click here.

What do you think?  Is there a particular eDiscovery issue that scares you?  Please share your comments and let us know if you’d like more information on a particular topic.

Happy Halloween!

eDiscovery Project Management: Finding the Right People for Your Team

Yesterday, we talked about the skill sets and areas of expertise that are required to effectively handle an electronic discovery project.  Those skills and expertise are diverse and you won’t find everything you need in a single person.  You need to put together a team.  So, where do you find the right people for your team?    Most likely your team can be made up of individuals from these sources:

Law Firm Personnel

  • Partners, associates and paralegals working on the case will have knowledge of the facts at issue and the strategy for using documents.  They will know what documents are responsive, privileged, significant, helpful and harmful.  They will also have knowledge of the litigation process and the rules of civil procedure.  Paralegals are also likely to have a very good handle on the document collection as the case moves forward.
  • Law firm litigation/practice support and technical staff will have knowledge of the electronic discovery process, electronic discovery tools and electronic discovery service providers.  They also may have skills in collecting forensically sound data.  And, litigation support professionals will have project management skills.

Client Personnel

  • Members of the corporate legal department will have knowledge of the issues in the case, the case strategy and goals, the documents, and the business operations and key characters at issue.
  • Corporate IT and records management personnel will have knowledge of the computer systems in use at the client’s offices, knowledge of document retention, computer use, backup and disaster recovery policies and practices, and how and where documents are stored and accessed.
  • Client personnel who are familiar with the business units, facts and events that are at issue in the case, and the relevant documents that are likely to exist.

External Resources

Depending on what tasks need to be done and on what computing resources /expertise you require, you may need to add electronic discovery consultants, service providers, and forensics experts to your team.  You may not need to involve them right away.  You might get the rest of the team in place and have the team determine what external resources are needed.  If, however, you are inexperienced with electronic discovery, involving a consultant early can be invaluable.

What do you think?  Who do you include on your electronic discovery teams?  Please share your comments and let us know if you’d like more information on a particular topic.

eDiscovery Project Management: Assemble the Right Team
 

There are lots of tasks associated with a large electronic discovery project.  A number of skill sets and areas of expertise are required to do them all well.  It’s not likely that all of those skills and knowledge will reside in a single person.  You need to create the right electronic discovery team to ensure that there are no glitches.

Under a common case scenario that involves collecting electronic discovery, processing, analyzing/culling, review, and production, you should have all of these areas covered:

  • Knowledge of electronic discovery:  Knowledge of the process, technology tools, and service providers.
  • Technical knowledge and skills:  Skills in collecting forensically sound and defensible data and knowledge of your client’s technology systems and practices.
  • Knowledge of your client’s document policies and practices:  Knowledge of document retention policies and practices and knowledge of what types of files exist and how and where they are stored and accessed.
  • Knowledge of the facts at issue in the case, and the strategy for using documents in the case:  You need someone who can make decisions on what document content is responsive, privileged, significant, helpful, and harmful.
  • Familiarity with the cast of characters and knowledge of who is likely to have documents and knowledge about what.
  • Knowledge of the litigation process and the rules of civil procedure that apply to electronic discovery.
  • Expertise in search technology, techniques and strategies.
  • Project management skills and experience.

It is critical that a project manager is identified early on.  There are lots of steps in the process that will require continuous oversight and monitoring.  The project manager will be responsible for creating project plans, creating budgets and schedules, identifying required resources, ensuring that decisions are made by the right people, ensuring that deadlines are met, and so on.  On a case with a large electronic discovery collection and a short schedule, this is a full-time job.

Tomorrow, we’ll talk about what types of people are likely to have the right skill sets, and then we’ll move on to assembling the right team for a specific task that requires significant numbers of people.

What do you think?  Who do you include on your electronic discovery teams?  Please share your comments and let us know if you’d like more information on a particular topic.