Close
Enter your
text here

Ethics

Judgment of $34 Million against Insurer Dodging Malpractice Claim is a “Dish” Served Cold – eDiscovery Case Law
In my hometown of Houston, attempting to deny coverage to a client successfully sued for discovery-related negligence cost OneBeacon Insurance Company a $34 million judgment by a federal jury.

As reported by Robert Hilson in ACEDS (Insurer dodging malpractice claim must pay $34 million for attorney’s discovery blunder, subscription required), OneBeacon Insurance Company attempted to rescind a policy from T. Wade Welch & Associates (TWW), the Houston-based law firm that was sued by former client Dish Network in 2007 after one of its attorneys provided incomplete discovery responses to Dish’s adversary. That failure resulted in so-called “death penalty” sanctions against Dish in a contractual interference case brought by Russian Media Group (RMG), which accepted a $12 million settlement.

After Dish won an arbitration award against TWW for that amount last year, OneBeacon sued TWW in federal court seeking a declaration the law firm voided coverage on its policy by failing to disclose the Dish sanctions prior to entering into that policy. OneBeacon alleged that TWW should have known that those penalties in the Dish case would give rise to a malpractice claim, which would trigger a so-called “prior knowledge exclusion” in the insurance policy that rescinds coverage, the insurer claimed. It also accused the firm of making misrepresentations on its policy application.

However, a jury in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas begged to differ, finding that:

  • OneBeacon failed to move for a swift settlement with Dish when its liability had become clear; and
  • OneBeacon’s failure to settle the Dish claim amounted to gross negligence.

The jury assessed damages as follows:

  • TWW’s lost profits sustained in the past: $3 million;
  • TWW’s lost profits that, in reasonable probability, it will sustain in the future: $5 million;
  • Sum assessed in exemplary damages for OneBeacon’s gross negligence: $5 million;
  • Sum assessed in exemplary damages because OneBeacon’s conduct was committed knowingly: $7.5 million.

TOTAL: $20.5 million.  Plus, although the OneBeacon policy had a $5 million limit, the “Stowers Doctrine,” which holds that an insurer undertaking the defense of an insured has the obligation to make a good faith attempt to settle the insured’s claim within those policy limits, additionally put the company on the hook for the entire $12.6 million arbitration settlement.  Ouch!

This was after US district Judge Gray Miller, in June, denied summary judgment to OneBeacon, finding that it was not clear from the evidentiary record whether TWW attorneys should have reasonably foreseen the malpractice claim that eventually arose from the Dish sanctions.

For more information on the case, including the jury’s verdict, click here (subscription required).

So, what do you think?  Should OneBeacon have been “on the hook” for the settlement amount or should the “prior knowledge exclusion” have excluded them?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid – eDiscovery Horrors!

Today is Halloween.  Every year at this time, because (after all) we’re an eDiscovery blog, we try to “scare” you with tales of eDiscovery horrors.  This is our fifth year of doing so, let’s see how we do this year.  Be afraid, be very afraid!

Did you know that overlaying Bates numbers on image-only Adobe PDF files causes the text of the image not to be captured by eDiscovery processing applications?

What about this?

Finding that the information was relevant and that the defendants “acted with a culpable state of mind” when they failed to preserve the data in its original form, New York Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis granted the plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions against the defendant, ordering the defendant to bear the cost of obtaining all the relevant data in question from a third party as well as paying for plaintiff attorney fees in filing the motion.

Or this?

It’s Friday at 5:00 and I need 15 gigabytes of data processed to review this weekend.

How about this?

Ultimately, it became clear that the defendant had not exported or preserved the data from salesforce.com and had re-used the plaintiffs’ accounts, spoliating the only information that could have addressed the defendant’s claim that the terminations were performance related (the defendant claimed did not conduct performance reviews of its sales representatives).  As a result, Judge Kemp stated that the “only realistic solution to this problem is to preclude Tellermate from using any evidence which would tend to show that the Browns were terminated for performance-related reasons”…

Or maybe this?

Could an “unconscionable” eDiscovery vendor actually charge nearly $190,000 to process 505 GB and host it for three months?  Could another vendor charge over $800,000 to re-process and host data (that it had previously hosted) for approximately two months?  Yes, in both cases (though, at least in the second case, the court disallowed over $700,000 of the billed costs).

Scary, huh?  If the possibility of additional processing charges for your PDF files, sanctions because you didn’t preserve data in its original format or preserve it in your cloud-based system or inflated eDiscovery vendor charges scares you, 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!

Then again, if it really is Friday at 5:00 and you need 15 gigabytes of data processed to review this weekend (inexpensively, no less), maybe you should check this out.

Of course, if you seriously want to get into the spirit of Halloween, click here.  This will really terrify you!  (Rest in Peace, Robin)

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!

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.

Battle Continues between Attorneys and Client over Attorneys’ Failure to Review Documents – eDiscovery Case Law

In Price Waicukauski & Riley v. Murray, 1:10-cv-1065-WTL-TAB (S.D. Ind. Sept. 18, 2014), Indiana District Judge William T. Lawrence granted the plaintiff’s request for summary judgment for failure to pay attorney’s fees of over $125,000, and refused to issue summary judgment for either party related to a legal malpractice claim for the plaintiff’s admitted failure to review documents produced in the defendants’ case against another party because of a factual dispute regarding the plaintiff’s knowledge of the documents produced.

Case Background

This case was filed in August 2010 by the Plaintiff, Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC, (“PWR”) against the Defendants, Dennis and Margaret Murray and DPM, Ltd. (“Murrays”), to recover $127,592.91 in attorneys’ fees owed to the plaintiff. The attorneys’ fees stem from the plaintiff’s representation of the defendants in a rather contentious lawsuit against Conseco that spanned more than six years, ultimately settling.  In November 2010, unhappy with the plaintiff’s representation, the defendants filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff alleging legal malpractice.

Legal Malpractice Claim of Breach of Duty of Loyalty

The defendants alleged several allegations of legal malpractice against the plaintiff, including conflict of interest, failure to properly plead federal subject matter jurisdiction and failure to take depositions and conduct discovery as they requested, among other allegations.  One allegation related to the defendants’ claim that the plaintiff breached the duty of loyalty to the defendants by failing (despite the defendant’s request to do so) to review documents before production in the case that revealed a Trust set up on behalf of the plaintiffs that wasn’t disclosed in interrogatory responses.  The plaintiff informed Mr. Murray that it reviewed the documents; however, it ultimately admitted that it did not.  As a result of the misleading interrogatory responses, Conseco filed a motion for sanctions which was granted, resulting in the defendants being ordered to pay over $85,000 in attorneys’ fees to their opponent’s lawyers.

The defendants claimed that the plaintiff knew about the Trust from the outset of its representation; however, the plaintiff (“falsely and underhandedly”, according to the defendants) represented to the magistrate judge assigned to the Underlying Litigation that it had no knowledge of the Trust until the defendants’ accountant produced the Murrays’ tax returns.

Judge’s Analysis and Ruling

The plaintiffs referenced Niswander v. Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC, where the court held that “[w]hether . . . the Plaintiffs’ attorneys had a duty to review the documents personally before producing them in discovery . . . is simply not something within the knowledge of a layperson.”  However, Judge Lawrence noted, “[t]he Murrays have no expert testimony on either of these two related claims; however, they claim they fall into the above-mentioned exception for when no expert testimony is needed: ‘when the question is within the common knowledge of the community as a whole or when an attorney’s negligence is so grossly apparent that a layperson would have no difficulty in appraising it.’”  Judge Lawrence also agreed with the defendants differentiation of Niswander to this case in that they specifically directed the plaintiff to review the documents while the plaintiffs in Niswander did not.

Judge Lawrence also stated that “[t]he same rings true with the Murrays’ allegation that PWR falsely denied knowledge of the Trust… Again, the Court believes that it is well within the knowledge of a layperson that attorneys should not lie and falsely implicate their own clients in order to shield themselves from liability. Thus, the Court agrees that no expert testimony is needed on this claim regarding the standard of care.”

However, Judge Lawrence decided that “neither party is entitled to summary judgment on this issue” because “there is a factual dispute that precludes granting summary judgment on this claim. PWR maintains that it did not lie; it steadfastly maintains that it had no knowledge of the Trust at the outset of the litigation. Thus, when asked by the magistrate judge when it found out about the Trust, it informed her truthfully. Therefore, whether or not PWR breached a duty that caused injury to the Murrays depends on whom the jury believes: Mr. Murray or PWR.”

Ultimately, Judge Lawrence granted the summary judgment on behalf of the plaintiffs for the attorney’s fees of $127,592.91 (which the defendant did not dispute, but argued that “[t]he successful pursuit of [their] claims would effectively eliminate PWR’s claim”) and denied the defendant’s summary judgment request, but refused a final judgment as outstanding claims remained against the plaintiff.  Judge Lawrence concluded his ruling by noting that “The only claims that remain to be tried are the proximate cause issue with regard to the federal subject matter jurisdiction claim and the allegation of malpractice committed by PWR as a result of its alleged failure to review certain documents that led to sanctions being imposed on Mr. Murray.”

So, what do you think?  Does the failure by the plaintiff to review the defendant’s production constitute legal malpractice?  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.

Privilege Not Waived on Defendant’s Seized Computer that was Purchased by Plaintiff at Auction – eDiscovery Case Law

In Kyko Global Inc. v. Prithvi Info. Solutions Ltd., No. C13-1034 MJP (W.D. Wash. June 13, 2014), Washington Chief District Judge Marsha J. Pechman ruled that the defendants’ did not waive their attorney-client privilege on the computer of one of the defendants purchased by plaintiffs at public auction, denied the defendants’ motion to disqualify the plaintiff’s counsel for purchasing the computer and ordered the plaintiffs to provide defendants with a copy of the hard drive within three days for the defendants to review it for privilege and provide defendants with a privilege log within seven days of the transfer.

In this fraud case, after several of the named defendants settled and confessed to judgment, the plaintiffs obtained a Writ of Execution in which the King County (Washington) Sheriff seized various items of personal property, including a computer owned by one of the defendants.  The computer was sold at a public auction, and an attorney for the plaintiffs outbid a representative sent by the defendants and purchased the computer.  The plaintiffs sent the computer to a third party for analysis and requested a ruling as to the admissibility of potentially attorney-client privileged documents contained on it, while the defendants contended the actions of the plaintiffs violated ethical rules, and requested that the plaintiffs return the computer to defendants, and also requested that the plaintiff’s attorneys should be disqualified from the case.

With regard to the plaintiff’s actions, Judge Pechman ruled that plaintiffs’ acquisition of the computer was not “inherently wrongful”, noting the plaintiffs’ claim that they had not reviewed the materials on the computer at the time of the motion.  She also determined that plaintiff’s “use of a third party vendor to make a copy of the hard drive is not equivalent to metadata mining of documents produced through the normal discovery process, because whereas the hard drive might plausibly contain many documents unprotected by any privilege, metadata mining is expressly aimed at the kind of information one would expect to be protected by attorney-client privilege and/or work-product protections”.  As a result, she denied the defendants’ motion to disqualify the plaintiff’s counsel.

As for the waiver of privilege, Judge Pechman used a balancing test to determine waiver “that is similar to Rule 502(b)”, which included these factors:

  1. the reasonableness of precautions taken to prevent disclosure,
  2. the amount of time taken to remedy the error,
  3. the scope of discovery,
  4. the extent of the disclosure, and
  5. the overriding issue of fairness.

Using the analogy of where “an opposing party discovers a privileged document in the other party’s trash”, Judge Pechman considered the potential waiver of privilege.  However, because the defendant stated in a declaration that she had “someone at her office” reformat the hard drive on the computer and install a new operating system and believed her documents had been erased and were not readily accessible, she related it “to the memo torn into 16 pieces than a document simply placed in a trash can without alteration”.

As a result, Judge Pechman determined that given “Defendants’ prompt efforts to remedy the error by filing a motion with the Court and the general sense that parties should not be able to force waiver of attorneyclient privilege through investigative activities outside the discovery process and a superior understanding of the relevant technology, the Washington balancing test weighs against waiver.”  She also and ordered the plaintiffs to provide defendants with a copy of the hard drive within three days for the defendants to review it for privilege and provide defendants with a privilege log within seven days of the transfer.

So, what do you think?  Were the plaintiff’s counsel actions ethical?  Should privilege have been waived?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what do you think? Have you dealt with forms of production disputes with opposing counsel?  If so, how did you resolve them?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Surprisingly Few States Have an Ethics Opinion Regarding Lawyer Cloud Usage – eDiscovery Best Practices
The Legal Technology Resource Center (LTRC) of the American Bar Association’s (ABA) web site has a great resource for those who want more information regarding the ethics for lawyers in using and storing client data in the cloud.  Though, surprisingly few states have published ethics opinions on the topic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Want to Immerse Yourself in eDiscovery Knowledge? There’s Still Time – eDiscovery Best Practices
One of our favorite blogs is the Ball in Your Court blog, by Craig Ball, a perennial thought leader interviewee on this blog.  While catching up on his latest couple of posts, I realized that it’s almost time for the Georgetown E-Discovery Training Academy.  If you’re looking for an in-depth program that not only gives you a “total immersion in the subject of eDiscovery”, but also satisfies much of your CLE requirements for the year, this program may be for you!

Georgetown Law’s eDiscovery Training Academy will be held on June 1 thru June 6 this year and has been designed by experts to be a challenging experience leading to a comprehensive understanding of the discipline.  In addition to Craig, the faculty includes such noted experts as Maura Grossman, Tom O’Connor, and Mark Sidoti. Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola will also be there to provide additional judicial and pragmatic guidance.  The program provides up to 32.4 CLE credit hours (including up to 1.2 hours of ethics hours).  Topics and workshops include:

  • Meet and Confer Demonstrations, Team Meeting, Coaching Sessions and a Mock 26(f) Conference
  • Introduction to Electronically Stored Information (ESI)
  • Forms of Production
  • Mail Systems, Backup Systems, and Databases
  • Technology-Assisted Review and Enhanced Search
  • The Courts and Predictive Coding: Where Are They and Where They Are Going
  • Preservation
  • The Collections Process
  • Sanctions
  • Ethics
  • Evidence: Authentication and Admissibility
  • eDiscovery: Small Cases and Small Budgets
  • Judicial Perspectives from Judge Facciola throughout the week

With regard to how this year’s Georgetown Academy differs from past years, Craig noted to me that “The level of daily interaction with Judge Facciola will be unprecedented.  We are also calling more on other esteemed faculty in 2014, especially Maura Grossman and Mark Sidotti.  We have more judges involved than ever before and our team coaching staff is top notch and playing a larger role through the week.  The upshot is that attendees will be getting much more daily interaction with thought leaders and each other, with less burdens placed upon them in terms of reading.”

The full prospectus PDF is available here.  It includes a registration form, or you can also register online here.  Registration is $3,500 for the week long program ($3,000 if you’re a Georgetown Law alumnus and $2,500 for government employees).  Per Craig’s blog, you can use the code EDTAREFERRAL when registering and take $300.00 off the price.  Even better for a week that should be highly educational and also highly entertaining and cover a large portion of your CLE requirements for the year.

So, what do you think? Are you looking for a chance to quickly develop your knowledge of technology and electronic discovery? 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.

Apple Wins Another $119.6 Million from Samsung, But It’s Only 6% of What They Requested – eDiscovery Case Law

Those of you who have been waiting for significant news to report from the Apple v. Samsung litigation, your wait is over!

As reported last week in The Recorder (Jury Awards Apple $119.6 Million in Mixed Verdict), a California Federal jury ordered Samsung on Friday to pay Apple $119.6 million for infringing three of Apple’s iPhone patents.  However, the award was a fraction of the nearly $2.2 billion Apple was requesting.

According to the federal jury of four women and four men, nine Samsung mobile devices infringed on Apple’s “quick links” patent and three devices were found to have infringed on Apple’s “slide-to-unlock” patent.  The jury also calculated Samsung’s damages on Apple’s autocorrect patent, but ruled that Samsung products did not infringe on two other Apple patents.

The jury also awarded $158,400 to Samsung for its counterclaims of patent infringement against Apple.

In August of 2012, Apple was awarded over a billion dollar verdict, but U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh later reduced those damages to a measly $599 million and ordered a retrial on 13 of Samsung’s products, saying the earlier jury’s math on those gadgets didn’t add up.  Then, last November, a jury ruled that Samsung owed Apple another $290.5 million for selling mobile devices that infringed five iPhone and iPad patents, bringing the total awarded for infringing on Apple products back up to almost $930 million.  Now, the total awarded is back over a billion.

From the never ending case that brought us an adverse inference sanction and “patentgate”, resulting in another sanction for Samsung’s outside counsel (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) for their inadvertent disclosure of Apple license information, what can happen next?  Stay tuned.

So, what do you think? Will this case ever end? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

300,000 Visits on eDiscovery Daily! – eDiscovery Milestones

While we haven’t served over 300 billion burgers like McDonald’s, we have provided something to digest each business day for over 43 months.  We’re proud to announce that on Friday, eDiscovery Daily reached the 300,000 visit milestone!  It took us a little over 21 months to reach 100,000 visits and just over 22 months to triple that to 300,000!  On to 500,000!

When we reach key milestones, we like to take a look back at some of the recent stories we’ve covered, so, in case you missed them, here are some recent eDiscovery items of interest from the past six weeks.

After 2,354 Public Comments, One Major Change to the Proposed Federal Rules: By the February 15 deadline for the comment period, no less than 2,354 public comments had been filed regarding the proposed Federal Rules amendments.  Much of the controversy related to Rule 37(e)(1)(B), which included a hotly debated amendment that the court may impose sanctions or order an adverse jury instruction, but only if it finds that the failure to preserve caused “substantial prejudice” in the litigation and was “willful or in bad faith,” or that the failure to preserve “irreparably deprived a party of any meaningful opportunity” to litigate the claims in the action.  Since then, Rule 37(e) has been modified, not just once, but twice.

Government Attorneys Have eDiscovery Issues Too: From a confidence standpoint, 73% of respondents feel as confident or more confident in their ability to manage eDiscovery in their cases.  But, 84% of respondents feel somewhat or not at all effective in their agency’s ability to deal with the challenges of eDiscovery and 80% of respondents feel somewhat or not at all confident that if challenged their agency could demonstrate that their ESI was “accurate, accessible, complete and trustworthy.  These and other survey findings are available here.

Cloud Security Fears Diminish With Experience: According to a recent survey of 1,068 companies conducted by RightScale, Inc., concern about cloud security diminish as users gain more experience using cloud-based services.  Learn more about organizations’ cloud habits here.

Daughter’s Facebook Post Voids $80,000 Settlement: As reported a few weeks ago on CNN, the former head of a private preparatory school in Miami lost out an $80,000 discrimination settlement after his daughter boasted about it on Facebook.  That’s why it’s important to think before you hit send.  Even if you’re still in grade school.

New California Proposed Opinion Requires eDiscovery Competence: If a new proposed opinion in California is adopted, attorneys in that state had better be sufficiently skilled in eDiscovery, hire technical consultants or competent counsel that is sufficiently skilled, or decline representation in cases where eDiscovery is required.

Predictive Analytics: It’s Not Just for Review Anymore: One of the most frequently discussed trends in this year’s annual thought leader interviews that we conducted was the application of analytics (including predictive analytics) to Information Governance.  A recent report published in the Richmond Journal of Law & Technology (and discussed here) addresses how analytics can be used to optimize Information Governance.

How Do You Dispose of “Digital Debris”? EDRM Has Answers:  Those answers can be found in a new white paper discussed here.

Also, hackers took Typepad, our platform for hosting the blog, down for a bit.  But, we’re back and better than ever!

Want to get to know some of your litigation support colleagues better?  Leave it to Jane Gennarelli, who has provided profiles here, here, here, here, here and here.

We’ve also had 11 posts about case law, just in the last six weeks (and 296 overall!).  Here is a link to our case law posts.

Every post we have ever published is still available, so the blog has become quite a knowledge base over the last 43+ months.  Sometime this summer, we will publish our 1,000th post!

On behalf of everyone at CloudNine Discovery who has worked on the blog and other publications that have picked up and either linked to or republished our posts, thanks to all of you!  We really appreciate the support!  Now, on to the next topic.  🙂

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.

Peruse, But Don’t Friend Potential Jurors on Social Media – eDiscovery Trends
Unless limited by law or court order, a lawyer may review a juror’s or potential juror’s Internet presence, which may include postings by the juror or potential juror in advance of and during a trial, but a lawyer may not communicate directly or through another with a juror or potential juror.  So says a new formal opinion from the American Bar Association (ABA) Standing Committee on Ethics and Professionalism.

Formal Opinion 466 is a nine page PDF document which is designed to cover the responsibilities for lawyers who are reviewing jurors’ Internet presence.  For the purposes of this opinion, Internet-based social media sites that readily allow account-owner restrictions on access are referred to as “electronic social media” or “ESM” sites – of which the opinion gives current examples like Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, and Twitter.

Under Model Rule 3.5(b) of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer may not communicate with a potential juror leading up to trial or any juror during trial unless authorized by law or court order.  With that in mind, the opinion addresses three levels of lawyer review of juror Internet presence:

1. passive lawyer review of a juror’s website or ESM that is available without making an access request where the juror is unaware that a website or ESM has been reviewed;

2. active lawyer review where the lawyer requests access to the juror’s ESM; and

3. passive lawyer review where the juror becomes aware through a website or ESM feature of the identity of the viewer.

To illustrate whether each activity violates Rule 3.5 (b), the opinion analogizes each of the activities to real world contact, as follows:

1. In the world outside of the Internet, a lawyer or another, acting on the lawyer’s behalf, would not be engaging in an improper ex parte contact with a prospective juror by driving down the street where the prospective juror lives to observe the environs in order to glean publicly available information that could inform the lawyer’s jury-selection decisions.  So, passive review of a juror’s website or ESM, that is available without making an access request, and of which the juror is unaware, does not violate Rule 3.5(b).

2. This would be akin to driving down the juror’s street, stopping the car, getting out, and asking the juror for permission to look inside the juror’s house because the lawyer cannot see enough when just driving past and it would be the type of ex parte communication prohibited by Model Rule 3.5(b).

3. This is akin to a neighbor’s recognizing a lawyer’s car driving down the juror’s street and telling the juror that the lawyer had been seen driving down the street.  A lawyer who uses a shared ESM platform to passively view juror ESM under these circumstances does not communicate with the juror. The lawyer is not communicating with the juror; the ESM service is communicating with the juror based on a technical feature of the ESM.

Also, under Model Rule 3.3(b), if a lawyer discovers criminal or fraudulent conduct by a juror related to the proceeding, the lawyer must take reasonable remedial measures including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.  However, the opinion hedged on a lawyer’s duty to notify the court when the conduct is merely “improper”, but stops short of being criminal or fraudulent.

So, what do you think? Do any of the parameters of this opinion 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.