Close
Enter your
text here

Electronic Discovery

Court Rules on Status of “Functional Employee, Declines Sanctions as Premature: eDiscovery Case Law

In Digital Mentor, Inc. v. Ovivo USA, LLC, No. 2:17-cv-01935-RAJ (W.D. Wash. Feb. 4, 2020), Washington District Judge Richard A. Jones granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion to compel, ruling that the plaintiff had not shown that a consultant to the plaintiff met the criterion of being considered a “functional employee” for which all communications with the plaintiff could be considered privileged, but denying the defendant’s request for preclusion sanctions, determining those to be “premature”.

Case Background

In this case involving trademark and copyright infringement and breach of contract claims that the defendant created a “pirated” version of the plaintiff’s product, the parties had a discovery dispute stemming from William Chastain’s consulting role with the plaintiff.  The plaintiff claimed that Chastain was its “functional employee” and so his communications with the plaintiff were subject to attorney-client privilege or work product protection.  Chastain was purportedly involved in the negotiation, discussion and execution of the pertinent contracts and agreements at issue with the defendant, was a direct conduit of the plaintiff in the events leading up to this litigation and was never paid for his role and was never employed by the plaintiff.

The defendant disagreed, claiming that Chastain did not qualify as a “functional employee” and moved to compel the plaintiff to produce all documents relating to Chastain, including correspondence between Chastain, the plaintiff and/or its counsel; even documents identified DMI’s privilege log.  The defendant also sought to prohibit the plaintiff from relying upon any documentation including or relating to Chastain and any testimony from, or referring to, Chastain during hearings or trial and also sought reasonable fees and expenses in bringing the motion.

Judge’s Ruling

Noting that “as one district court indicates, ‘the dispositive question is the consultant’s relationship to the company and whether by virtue of that relationship [s]he possesses information about the company that would assist the company’s attorneys in rendering legal advice’”, Judge Jones stated: “When answered in the affirmative, the consultant is ‘in all relevant respects the functional equivalent of an employee’ and communications between corporate counsel and the consultant may be covered under attorney-client privilege.”

But, Judge Jones continued: “On the record presented, DMI has not shown that Chastain’s involvement meets this criterion. There is no documentation of Chastain’s duties vis-à-vis DMI or its corporate counsel, nor does the record demonstrate that Chastain had specialized knowledge such that counsel would rely on him to facilitate legal advice for the company…There is also little to indicate that communications between Chastain and DMI’s counsel were primarily of a legal, as opposed to a business, nature…Having found that DMI has not met its burden, the Court GRANTS Ovivo’s motion to the extent documents are only being withheld on this basis of privilege. Having found the ‘functional employee’ requirements not met, the Court will not analyze Ovivo’s claims of waiver.”

However, considering preclusion sanctions based on the defendant’s claim that Chastain destroyed relevant documents because (as the plaintiff stated) he “does not keep any emails and/or documentation as he has been a victim of corporate theft and hacking incidents in the past”, Judge Jones stated: “The Court cannot impose sanctions based on Ovivo’s allegations under Rule 37. Sanctions under Rule 37 are allowed only against a party that disobeys a court issued discovery order. However, the court’s inherent authority to impose sanctions for the wrongful destruction of evidence includes the power to exclude evidence that, given the spoliation, would ‘unfairly prejudice an opposing party.’…Although Chastain’s purported email practices seem particularly dubious, the Court agrees with DMI that Ovivo’s request for preclusion sanctions is premature. Ovivo has not presented any evidence in support of its spoliation theory other than Chastain’s failure to produce documents in response to its subpoena…Without evidence about what was purportedly destroyed, when it occurred, what extent DMI had any involvement, and any resulting prejudice, preclusion sanctions are inappropriate. The Court also declines to award attorney’s fees related to this motion.”

So, what do you think?  Is it premature to consider sanctions if the party acknowledges destroying relevant documents?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Mobile Collection: It’s Not Just for iPhones Anymore, Part Three

Editor’s Note: Tom O’Connor is a nationally known consultant, speaker, and writer in the field of computerized litigation support systems.  He has also been a great addition to our webinar program, participating with me on several recent webinars.  Tom has also written several terrific informational overview series for CloudNine, including his most recent one, DOS and DON’TS of a 30(b)(6) Witness Deposition.  Now, Tom has written another terrific overview regarding mobile device collection titled Mobile Collection: It’s Not Just for iPhones Anymore that we’re happy to share on the eDiscovery Daily blog.  Enjoy!  And, BTW, Happy Birthday to my beautiful wife Paige! – Doug

Tom’s overview is split into four parts, so we’ll cover each part separately.  The first part was last Thursday and the second part was Monday, here’s the third part.

Google Vault and the Emphasis of Android Devices

During the same time period as when Google TakeOut hit the market, Google also created Google Vault in 2012, their web tool for preservation of data in the Google Suite. It’s easy and inexpensive but only covers some email archiving, searching, and exporting capabilities for Gmail. Unlike iOS however it has 3rd party add-ons that can securely archive Gmail messages, Gmail Notes, Appointments and some Calendar Items.

A Gartner review of many of these products notes how they quickly and easily integrate with Google Apps to make up for the deficiencies in Vault and allows archived data to be stored into one unified message archive. Some of them even can search, publish, and perform eDiscovery from the archive, which is in one central location.

So perhaps not the quick and easy solution offered by iTunes or iOS backup and, like O365, based on a web archive. But still a relatively easy and to create archives and now given the arrival of Google One, a variety of methods exist for handling Android smartphone data.

Why is all this emphasis on Android phones important? As I noted in the Introduction, it’s because Android market share is now bigger than Apple everywhere in the world. Again, while Apple iOS holds a large share of the smartphone operating systems’ market within the United States, Google Android remains the market leader with a 51.8% share as of September 2019.  Worldwide, Android has a 76% market share with iOS far behind at 22%. (Source, IDC Nov 2019)  Clearly, you’re not only as likely to need to preserve Android devices as you are iPhones, you’re more likely, possibly much more likely, to need to do so.

Apple, of course, registers strongly in actual smartphone sales because they sell the phone AND the operating system unlike Android systems which are fragmented among multiple phone manufacturers. But even here, Apple is not the market leader. Although their share of smartphone users in the US has risen roughly 20% since early 2012 and stood at 42% in Q3 2019, the combination of all Android phones at that time was 47%, led by Samsung with 25%. And that Apple growth surge in the United States goes against a global trend that has seen their market share of smartphone shipments drop to around 10 percent.

Samsung, known for consumer products worldwide including mobile devices and home entertainment systems, is the global leading smartphone vendor. Since 2012, the South Korean company has held a share of 20 to 30 percent in the smartphone market. In 2018, they shipped more than 292 million smartphones worldwide and by the third quarter of 2019, Samsung’s global market share was 21.8%.

Apple is not one to take these statistics lightly and is responding with a new cheap phone. Channel manufacturers, reported to be Hon Hai Precision Industry, Pegatron Corp. and Wistron Corp, are currently preparing their production lines and planning to start mass production next month with an official release expected in March.

A cheaper offering may help Apple compete better in price-competitive phone markets such as India and China. India, in particular, presents a substantial challenge for Apple which has a high number of Android rivals coming in at prices less than $200.  Still, Apple has set a goal of shipping more than 200 million units in 2020 and recovering some of that lost market share.

We’ll publish Part 4 – Conclusions – on Friday.

So, what do you think?  Are you having to increasingly address issues associated with mobile device discovery?  As always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Special Master Declines to Order Defendant to Use TAR, Rules on Other Search Protocol Disputes: eDiscovery Case Law

In the case In re Mercedes-Benz Emissions Litig., No. 2:16-cv-881 (KM) (ESK) (D.N.J. Jan. 9, 2020), Special Master Dennis Cavanaugh (U.S.D.J., Ret.) issued an order and opinion stating that he would not compel defendants to use technology assisted review (TAR), and instead adopted the search term protocol negotiated by the parties, with three areas of dispute resolved by his ruling.

Case Background

In this emissions test class action involving an automobile manufacturer, the plaintiffs proposed that the defendants use predictive coding/TAR, asserting that TAR yields significantly better results than either traditional human “eyes on” review of the full data set or the use of search terms.  The plaintiffs also argued that if the Court were to decline to compel the defendants to adopt TAR, the Court should enter its proposed Search Term Protocol.

The defendants argued that there is no authority for imposing TAR on an objecting party and that this case presented a number of unique issues that would make developing an appropriate and effective seed set challenging, such as language and translation issues, unique acronyms and identifiers, redacted documents, and technical documents. As a result, they contended that they should be permitted to utilize their preferred custodian-and-search term approach.

Judge’s Ruling

Citing Rio Tinto Plc v. Vale S.A., Special Master Cavanaugh quoted from that case in stating: “While ‘the case law has developed to the point that it is now black letter law that where the producing party wants to utilize TAR for document review, courts will permit it’…, no court has ordered a party to engage in TAR over the objection of that party. The few courts that have considered this issue have all declined to compel predictive coding.”  Citing Hyles v. New York City (another case ruling by now retired New York Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck), Special Master Cavanaugh stated: “Despite the fact that it is widely recognized that ‘TAR is cheaper, more efficient and superior to keyword searching’…, courts also recognize that responding parties are best situated to evaluate the procedures, methodologies, and technologies appropriate for producing their own electronically stored information.”

As a result, Special Master Cavanaugh ruled: “While the Special Master believes TAR would likely be a more cost effective and efficient methodology for identifying responsive documents, Defendants may evaluate and decide for themselves the appropriate technology for producing their ESI. Therefore, the Special Master will not order Defendants to utilize TAR at this time. However, Defendants are cautioned that the Special Master will not look favorably on any future arguments related to burden of discovery requests, specifically cost and proportionality, when Defendants have chosen to utilize the custodian-and-search term approach despite wide acceptance that TAR is cheaper, more efficient and superior to keyword searching. Additionally, the denial of Plaintiffs’ request to compel Defendants to utilize TAR is without prejudice to revisiting this issue if Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ actual production is deficient.”

Special Master Cavanaugh also ruled on areas of dispute regarding the proposed Search Term Protocol, as follows:

  • Validation: Special Master Cavanaugh noted that “the parties have been able to reach agreement on the terms of Defendants’ validation process, [but] the parties are at an impasse regarding the level of validation of Plaintiffs’ search term results”, observing that “Plaintiffs’ proposal does not articulate how it will perform appropriate sampling and quality control measures to achieve the appropriate level of validation.” As a result, Special Master Cavanaugh, while encouraging the parties to work together to develop a reasonable procedure for the validation of Plaintiffs’ search terms, ruled: “As no articulable alternative process has been proposed by Plaintiffs, the Special Master will adopt Defendants’ protocol to the extent that it will require the parties, at Defendants’ request, to meet and confer concerning the application of validation procedures described in paragraph 12(a) to Plaintiffs, if the parties are unable to agree to a procedure.”
  • Known Responsive Documents & Discrete Collections: The defendants objected to the plaintiffs’ protocol to require the production of all documents and ESI “known” to be responsive as “vague, exceedingly burdensome, and provides no clear standard for the court to administer or the parties to apply”. The defendants also objected to the plaintiffs’ request for “folders or collections of information that are known to contain documents likely to be responsive to a discovery request” as “overly broad and flouts the requirement that discovery be proportional to the needs of the case.”  Noting that “Defendants already agreed to produce materials that are known to be responsive at the November status conference”, Special Master Cavanaugh decided to “modify the Search Term Protocol to require production of materials that are ‘reasonably known’ to be responsive.”  He also decided to require the parties to collect folders or collections of information “to the extent it is reasonably known to the producing party”, also requiring “the parties to meet and confer if a party believes a discrete document folder or collection of information that is relevant to a claim or defense is too voluminous to make review of each document proportional to the needs of the case.”

So, what do you think?  Should a decision not to use TAR negatively impact a party’s ability to make burden of discovery arguments?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Related to this topic, Rob Robinson’s Complex Discovery site published its Predictive Coding Technologies and Protocols Spring 2020 Survey results last week, which (as always) provides results on most often used primary predictive coding platforms and technologies, as well as most-often used TAR protocols and areas where TAR is most used (among other results).  You can check it out at the link directly above.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Mobile Collection: It’s Not Just for iPhones Anymore, Part Two

Editor’s Note: Tom O’Connor is a nationally known consultant, speaker, and writer in the field of computerized litigation support systems.  He has also been a great addition to our webinar program, participating with me on several recent webinars.  Tom has also written several terrific informational overview series for CloudNine, including his most recent one, DOS and DON’TS of a 30(b)(6) Witness Deposition.  Now, Tom has written another terrific overview regarding mobile device collection titled Mobile Collection: It’s Not Just for iPhones Anymore that we’re happy to share on the eDiscovery Daily blog.  Enjoy! – Doug

Tom’s overview is split into four parts, so we’ll cover each part separately.  The first part was last Thursday, here’s the second part.

Mobile Collection and Preservation, Courtesy of Craig Ball

As I mentioned in the Introduction, Craig Ball has provided a lot of terrific information regarding preservation and collection of data from mobile devices.  These are terrific resources that everyone who deals with discovery of mobile devices should be aware of.  His original discussion about preservation of cell phone data was a 2017 article called Custodian-Directed Preservation of iPhone Content: Simple. Scalable. Proportional and, as the title denotes, dealt with iPhones. It proposed a wonderfully simple way to preserve iPhone data using iTunes. Although it did not preserve email, content from iTunes or iBooks, some data stored in iCloud and data from Apple Pay, Activity, Health or Keychain. Additionally, it offered several advantages in Craig’s mind to an iCloud backup, primarily that it took less time and you could choose not to encrypt the backup.

I disagreed with the last point but it’s a minor quibble and not worth discussing here because, well, all good things must come to an end and Apple last year decided to end iTunes. So Craig wrote another article entitled How Will We Back Up iPhones Without iTunes? in which he noted the good thing that ended had morphed into a better thing. As he explained, “In fact, preserving iPhones may be easier for Mac users as Apple is shifting the backup tool into the Finder app.  You’ll do exactly the same thing I wrote about but Mac users with Catalina won’t even need to use iTunes to preserve mobile evidence.  It’ll be built in.”

In between those two articles, Craig also wrote a piece called Mobile to the Mainstream which discussed all the various data types on a smart phone and provided a Mobile Evidence Scorecard, which rated the data types by ease of collection, ease of review, potential relevance and whether they should be part of a routine backup collection process. Everyone should have this card.  Here is a representation of it, split into a front and back section.

And, last but not least, Craig compiled all of his accumulated wisdom about mobile evidence (well, iPhone mobile evidence) into a white paper called Mobile to the Mainstream: Preservation and Extraction of iOS Content for E-Discovery. I should note that the title violated one of Craig’s most often discussed issues with searching ESI.  But search is also a topic for another day.

Craig finally turned to Androids last fall. Although that was actually not his first mention of the “other” OS, that came in a 2015 paper Opportunities and Obstacles: E-Discovery from Mobile Devices.  But a column in this venue pointed out the most recent advances in Android collection.

Called Craig Ball is “That Guy” Who Keeps Us Up to Date on Mobile eDiscovery Trends: eDiscovery Best Practices, Doug Austin noted how Craig discussed Google’s recently expanded offering of “cheap-and-easy” online backup of Android phones, including SMS and MMS messaging, photos, video, contacts, documents, app data and more.  In that discussion, Craig stated: “This is a leap forward for all obliged to place a litigation hold on the contents of Android phones — a process heretofore unreasonably expensive and insufficiently scalable for e-discovery workflows.  There just weren’t good ways to facilitate defensible, custodial-directed preservation of Android phone content.  Instead, you had to take phones away from users and have a technical expert image them one-by-one.”

Now as a character in the movie Independence Day once said …. “that’s not ENTIRELY correct.” Craig was referring to Google One, the recent addition intended to improve archiving capabilities.  But as Google notes on their own website. “We’ve taken the standard Android backup (my emphasis added) that includes texts, contacts, and apps and we’re giving you even more.”

The new automatic phone backup also addresses photos, videos, and multimedia messages (MMS) and it can all be done from a Google One app.

But backups did exist before this. Craig himself mentions Google TakeOut, which has long allowed users of Google products, such as YouTube and Gmail, to export their data to a downloadable archive file. Started with some basic services in 2011, TakeOut expanded to include Gmail and Google Calendar in 2013. By 2016, Google had grown the service to include search history and Wallet details and since then, they have also added Google Hangouts to the Takeout service. In all cases, TakeOut does not delete user data automatically after exporting.

We’ll publish Part 3 – Google Vault and the Emphasis of Android Devices – on Wednesday.

So, what do you think?  Are you having to increasingly address issues associated with mobile device discovery?  As always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Love Our Blog? The Blog Loves You Too!: eDiscovery Love Story

It’s Valentine’s Day, which means it’s a great day to talk about love!  But, this is an eDiscovery blog, so let me take this opportunity to “spread some love” to all of you who read the blog every day (or at least many days) and help spread that love to others!

When we started the blog nearly ten years ago, we were thrilled when we broke 100 views for the first time.  Now, we have thousands of views every day!  We’ve seen quite a few blogs come and go during that time (or at least go dormant).  And, we have more people than ever who share or reference our content – in just the past week, that includes people like Chris Dix, Linda DeVos, Lilith Bat-Leah, Mike Quartararo, Maribel Rivera, Kaylee Walstad (twice!), Sharon Nelson, Kelly Twigger and Suzanne Clark!  And, that doesn’t include all of my CloudNine colleagues who regularly redistribute our content on LinkedIn and other social channels!

Blogs and publications that have regularly covered us include Rob Robinson’s Complex Discovery blog, Craig Ball’s Ball in Your Court blog, the daily PinHawk Law Technology Digest (tirelessly edited by Jeffrey Brandt), Tom O’Connor’s Techno Gumbo blog (not to mention thanks for all Tom’s original direct articles published on this blog!), and Sharon Nelson’s Ride the Lightning blog, and the ACEDS blog, among others.  Not to mention EDRM, which has redistributed our daily posts for years!  Years!  If you don’t already read these publications regularly, you should!

Thanks to everybody for “spreading the love” about our blog!  We love you back!

Of course, because it’s Valentine’s Day, that means it’s time once again to feature my beautiful wife Paige on our blog!  I hope everyone is as blessed as I am to share this day with the love of my life!  I love you honey!

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

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Mobile Collection: It’s Not Just for iPhones Anymore

Editor’s Note: Tom O’Connor is a nationally known consultant, speaker, and writer in the field of computerized litigation support systems.  He has also been a great addition to our webinar program, participating with me on several recent webinars.  Tom has also written several terrific informational overview series for CloudNine, including his most recent one, DOS and DON’TS of a 30(b)(6) Witness Deposition.  Now, Tom has written another terrific overview regarding mobile device collection titled Mobile Collection: It’s Not Just for iPhones Anymore that we’re happy to share on the eDiscovery Daily blog.  Enjoy! – Doug

Tom’s overview is split into four parts, so we’ll cover each part separately.  Here’s the first part.

Introduction

Most of the talk about retrieving data from mobile devices has centered on iPhones and other Apple devices.  And no small reason for that is that most of the discussion on the topic has come from Craig Ball, who is, like many attorneys, an Apple guy.

But, iPhones are not the only mobile devices for which data collection is necessary.  In fact, they’re not even the most popular devices – by far.  Android market share is now bigger than Apple everywhere in the world. Although Apple iOS holds a large share of the smartphone operating systems’ market within the United States, Google Android remains the market leader with a 51.8% share as of September 2019.  Worldwide, Android has a 76% market share with iOS far behind at 22% (Source, IDC Nov 2019)

So, you’re just as likely – even more likely – to need to collect data from Android devices than from Apple devices, especially outside the US.

With that in mind, in this paper, we will take a look at mobile device collection topics, including:

  1. Mobile Collection and Preservation, Courtesy of Craig Ball
  2. Google Vault and the Emphasis of Android Devices
  3. Conclusions

We’ll publish Part 2 – Mobile Collection and Preservation, Courtesy of Craig Ball – next Monday.

So, what do you think?  Are you having to increasingly address issues associated with mobile device discovery?  As always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

How Long Will it Take to Crack Your Password?: Cybersecurity Trends

Have I mentioned lately how much I love an infographic?  Well, I do. And this latest infographic that I have come across – from a Facebook friend who is also a colleague nonetheless – is a great one to note when considering your own passwords.

As you can see from the infographic above, the size and composition of your password could dramatically affect how long it takes to crack the password.  For example:

  • If you have a password that is numbers only, a password that is as much as eight numbers (that’s nearly 100 million number combinations) can still be cracked instantly;
  • Even if that number only password is 14 numbers (that’s nearly 100 trillion number combinations), it only takes four days to crack a password even that size;
  • Want to use all upper and lower case letters instead? That will help somewhat, but a five-letter password can still be cracked instantly;
  • And a nine-letter password will still only take 4 days to crack;
  • Want to mix numbers and upper and lower case letters? You’d better use more than seven characters or it will take no more than 3 hours to crack your password;
  • Even with eight characters, it could still take as few as ten days;
  • If you add in symbols, then a seven character password could still take less than a day;
  • But, if you add an eighth character, that pushes the time up to 57 days. Add a ninth character? That pushes the time up to 12 years;
  • But, notably, size does matter – when it comes to passwords and other things. ;o)  An 18 number password still takes 126 years to crack, an 18 letter password takes a trillion years, an 18 number and letter password takes 374 trillion years and an 18 number, letter and symbol password takes 1 quintillion years!

Ain’t nobody got time for that!

Interesting!  Of course, that’s one school of thought – here’s another, straight from the man who originally wrote password advice for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and ultimately decided that advice was wrong.  And, here’s a case from last year involving a criminal defendant who used a 64-character password to protect his device!

As I mentioned, I got this infographic from a Facebook friend – Michael Potters, who is also the CEO and Managing Partner of the Glenmont Group.  It may be available in other places (not sure where it started), but I got it from Michael, so hat tip to him for the info!

So, what do you think?  Does this change your thinking about password creation?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Observations about Legaltech 2020 from Attendees, Part Two: eDiscovery Trends

As I’ve done the past four years, I reached out to several Legaltech attendees (some of whom I met with during the show) to get their thoughts and impressions of this year’s show.  We had so many people respond that I decided to split their feedback into two posts.  Yesterday was the first half, here are the remaining observations.  And, no, I didn’t split this into two posts just so I could save myself another day of writing, my observations are at the bottom of this post.  ;o)

As always, these should be taken as their personal opinions and observations regarding the show, not those of their employer or clients.  Here are additional observations from attendees of the show:

“This year ALM re-did the layout of exhibit halls and the exhibitors stepped up their game with bigger booths that also had more open space to engage with attendees. Though much smaller than in previous years, the new flow encouraged traffic to booths and seemed to ignite much needed energy in the conference that had been lacking the past few years. Ted-style talks seemed to be a big theme allowing for quick presentations mixed in with the usual panel style presentations not just in meeting rooms but throughout the venue. And lastly, diversity and data privacy were the two topics that continuously came up in conversations. My last takeaway–provide honest feedback about your experience. The more we do that either through articles such as this or the post-conference survey, the more it will help to improve Legalweek and what happens there (or any conference for that matter).”

— Maribel Rivera, Marketing and Events Specialist

I was actually prepared to be disappointed after last years rather dreary show but instead found myself pleasantly reinvigorated seeing old friends and colleagues such as Monica Bay, Neil Aresty, Patrick Oot, George Socha and Robert Singleton.  It reminded me that my pre show attitude was more jaded than I had realized and that the real strength of the conference is the people it draws together.  If you don’t go you won’t know.

— Tom O’Connor, Director, Gulf Coast Legal Tech Center

“I heard the phrase, ‘Change Management,’ more during the three days of Legaltech at Legalweek than the entire rest of my life combined. Is it an exciting and growing concept or merely window dressing on the tired, overhyped concept of ‘Innovation’? Only time will tell.”

— David Horrigan, Discovery Counsel and Legal Education Director

“‘Management’ was the constant refrain emanating from Legalweek 2020 in New York this week.  Apparently, you can learn to manage just about anything in legal these days with the aid of technology, process design and qualified human resources.  From change management to contract management, case management to eDiscovery project management, and the all-important management of client expectations who look to technology and consultants to solve their most complex problems…the ubiquity of management is here to stay in legal tech.”

— Christy Burke, President, Burke & Company LLC

“This was a very exciting LegalWeek to catch up with friends and colleagues. The conference was buzzing with many industry professionals and I overheard one main theme: short message analysis. Like the early days of email management for eDiscovery, text messages, #Slack, chat etc. are the new wild west for investigators and litigants.”

— Rick Clark, Chief Strategy Officer, ESI Analyst

“Legaltech has gone mainstream. In addition to speaking with their clients and prospects, a number of my contacts mentioned meeting with investors and other professionals interested in learning more about how to incorporate legal technology into their portfolios. The conference itself also seems to have increased global appeal. I was lucky to speak with attendees from Australia, Canada, Finland, Germany, India, Israel, the U.K., and Russia.”

— Ari Kaplan, Legal Industry Analyst & Principal, Ari Kaplan Advisors

And, here are my observations from the show:

From a CloudNine perspective, Legaltech was once again a great conference – from our NineForum sessions at the booth once again to our terrific #DrinkswithDougandMary happy hour with EDRM and Compliance Discovery to a number of great meetings with clients and prospects discussing all of the exciting new capabilities and products at CloudNine!  It was a great show for us!

As for the show in general, it seems that the trend for the “show outside the show” has continued.  There are a lot of attendees at the event that never seem to attend the conference officially but are still there because it’s a terrific opportunity to connect (or reconnect) with clients and prospects or to catch up with old friends.  It seems more and more, when I ask folks how the show is going for them, they talk about how their meetings are going, not about the sessions or the interesting new developments they’ve seen at the exhibit hall.  Legaltech seems as busy as always, but actual participation in Legaltech seems to be down once again.  Of course, I’m one of those who was mostly busy out of the show (other than some time at the booth, especially for our NineForum sessions), so I could be wrong.  ;o)

So, what do you think?  Did you attend Legaltech last week?  What did you think of this year’s show?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Observations about Legaltech 2020 from Attendees: eDiscovery Trends

Once again, we’ve completed another Legaltech New York (LTNY).  So, what did attendees at the conference think about this year’s show?  Let’s take a look.

As I’ve done the past four years, I reached out to several attendees (some of whom I met with during the show) to get their thoughts and impressions of this year’s show.  As always, these should be taken as their personal opinions and observations regarding the show, not those of their employer or clients.  As always, we had several who responded with their thoughts, so thanks to all who did!  So many that, once again, we’re going to spread these observations over two days.  Here we go!

“LegalTech panel’s this year seemed to emphasize privacy and especially the CCPA (and less on the GDPR than in the past).  Also less emphasis on ‘pure’ ediscovery panels, except at the ‘boot camp’ on Wednesday.   And Drinks with Doug and Mary was as crowded as ever. Global warming is a serious problem, but nice to offer our out of town visitors a LTNY week without bitter cold or snow and slush as in past years.”

—  Judge Andrew Peck (ret.), Senior Counsel, DLA Piper

“This was my ninth Legaltech and the more things change, the more they stay the same.  The look and feel for the entire event was different—new exhibit hall layouts, new branding, new sessions—but it was still the tried-and-true legal technology community we see each year.  Between the happy hours, dinners, and run-ins at the Hilton, the best time was spent catching up with friends and colleagues.  Without a ton of huge announcements during the show, the same went for attendees talking to us vendors in the exhibit hall, beginning each interaction with a simple, ‘What’s new?’”

— Shawn Gaines, VP of Marketing for Relativity

“The two things I find most valuable about LegalWeek each year are connecting with colleagues and seeing the available technology tools that I can utilize in my practice. Because eDiscovery is such a global community of professionals, it’s a treat to get to see colleagues who I’d typically only have calls or exchange emails with, in person. There were many hosted events where colleagues could gather and socialize from the EDRM’s Legal Tech Jumpstart on Monday and Drinks with Doug and Mary on Wednesday to the ACEDS Happy Hour on Wednesday. All of these events were wonderful networking opportunities for renewing relationships and forming new ones. Also, I normally go with goals of finding “gap fillers” – that is, some sort of technology solution to resolve a pain point in my practice. This year, those were foreign language translation and time line builders, and I was able to walk away with new tools to try in both of those areas. Each year I feel LegalWeek gives me a boost that adds momentum to my career, and this year was no different.”

— Suzanne H. Clark, Esq., CEDS, Discovery Counsel, eDiscovery CoCounsel, pllc

“Despite everything I had heard about the annual conference, I wasn’t sure what to expect from my first Legaltech NY. My obsession with learning all I could about a field most of us fall into rather than pursue and the event’s reputation as a party scene had encouraged me to prioritize other conferences with education sessions hyper-focused on eDiscovery throughout my first decade in the industry. Now that I experienced the conference first-hand, I understand and appreciate that the educational value of meeting and connecting with the polymaths who shape the field is commensurate with the value of the panels and sessions they deliver on topics that highlight the broader context of my specializations. I was inspired by the many brilliant minds I met and very much look forward to building on each other’s contributions, innovating together, and solving new challenges both with and around artificial intelligence, the advancement in technology that was appropriately featured as both a problem and solution in sessions this year.”

— Lilith Bat-Leah, CEDS, Director, Data Science, Fronteo

“The highlights for me this Legalweek involved the project management workshop I had the pleasure of conducting on Monday and then talking further with you during the NineForum about the growth and possibilities that lie ahead in project management, not just in legal, but in the new projectized economy that I predict will continue to emerge in 2020.”

— Mike Quartararo, President, Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists

“The conference looked much more attended this year.  #Drinks with Doug and Mary is always a stellar celebration with my cohost, your fabulous self and my partner, Kaylee Walstad.  Thank you CloudNine and ComplianceDS!  Bloggers luncheon was a highlight, thank you, Relativity!  The global nature of Legalweek was notable—we had folks from South Africa, from Ireland, and from UK coming to support EDRM. The outpouring of support from long timers to newcomers for EDRM just warmed my heart.”

— Mary Mack, CEO & Chief Legal Technologist, EDRM

We’ll publish the rest of the observations tomorrow (including mine)!

So, what do you think?  Did you attend Legaltech last week?  What did you think of this year’s show?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Citing Protective Order, Court Grants Motion to Quash the Subpoena of Third Party Expert: eDiscovery Case Law

As we all wind our way back home after another Legaltech, here is a new case law post for you.  Next week, we’ll have some observations from attendees at the show (including me).

In Rhino Metals, Inc. v. Sturdy Gun Safe, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00474-DCN (D. Idaho Jan, 22, 2020), Idaho David C. Nye granted the motion of the Defendant/Counterclaimant to Enforce the Protective Order that was related to a report prepared by defendant’s expert that was produced to the plaintiff in this case and quashed the subpoena that was issued to the Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant from a party in another case.

Case Background

In this case, the defendant produced the report of one of its experts to the plaintiff.  Pursuant to the parties’ agreed upon protective order in this case, the defendant designated the expert’s report as “Confidential”, which limited the receiving party’s ability to use and disclose the report.  Unrelatedly, that same expert produced a report on behalf of a plaintiff in a legal matter titled GDM Enterprises, LLC v. Astral Health & Beauty, Inc., a case in the Western District of Missouri.  On December 20, 2019, the plaintiff issued a subpoena to the defendant in the Missouri action requesting the expert’s report in that case. Ten days later, the defendant in the Missouri case issued a reciprocal subpoena to the plaintiff requesting the expert’s report in this case.

The defendant raised the issue to the Court informally and the plaintiff represented that it would not respond to the subpoena until the Court had an opportunity to review and rule on any motions filed in the instant case.  Concerned that this information would leak into the public sphere if turned over, the defendant moved the Court for an order enforcing the protective order in this case and prohibiting the plaintiff from responding to the subpoena and turning over the requested information.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Nye began his analysis by stating: “As a threshold matter, the Court notes that this Court—the District of Idaho—is the correct forum to take up this matter”, noting that “Sturdy is the party ‘affected by a subpoena’ and that “the subpoena requires compliance in this District”.  Noting that “under Rule 45, the party to whom a subpoena is directed must ‘produce [the designated items] in that person’s possession, custody, or control’”, Judge Nye stated:

“Here, the items at issue are only in the temporary possession, custody, or control of Rhino pursuant to a Protective Order of this Court and thus not subject Astral’s subpoena… Sturdy is the true, rightful owner of this material. Sturdy is the correct party to whom the subpoena should have been directed. The mere fact that Rhino has the information at this time does not mean that the information is within its possession, custody, or control and subject to disclosure… Thus, the report Astral seeks via its subpoena is not within Rhino’s possession, custody, or control for purposes of discovery. Further, were Rhino to turn it over, it would be violating the terms of the protective order in this case and subject to sanctions.”

Addressing the plaintiff’s concerns that it might be required to respond to the subpoena, Judge Nye also noted that “the bottom line is that Rhino is not ‘disobeying a lawful subpoena’ by not turning over the information Astral seeks because it isn’t Rhino’s information to turn over in the first place.”  As a result, he granted the defendant’s motion and quashed the subpoena issued to the plaintiff.

So, what do you think?  Do you agree that the report wasn’t in the possession, custody and control of the plaintiff?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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