Close
Enter your
text here

eDiscoveryDaily

If Google and Oracle are Going to Mine for Jurors’ Social Media Info, They Have to Inform the Court: eDiscovery Trends

When the big guys sue each other, the cases last forever.  We’ve been covering developments in the Apple v. Samsung case since July 2012, and that case is still going on.  Another case that we’ve covered a long time ago (way back in November 2011) is Oracle Corp. v. Google Inc. and that case is still going on too.  In that case, with a trial approaching, the judge has told lawyers to disclose Internet and social media research about jurors to the court or agree not to conduct it.

According to The Wall Street Journal (Google and Oracle Must Disclose Mining of Jurors’ Social Media, written by Jacob Gershman), U.S. District Judge William Alsup’s order urges both sides to respect the privacy of jurors.  He opened the order in this manner:

“Trial judges have such respect for juries – reverential respect would not be too strong to say – that it must pain them to contemplate that, in addition to the sacrifice jurors make for our country, they must suffer trial lawyers and jury consultants scouring over their Facebook and other profiles to dissect their politics, religion, relationships, preferences, friends, photographs, and other personal information.”

As the order notes, apparently, both sides requested that the Court require the jury pool to complete a two-page jury questionnaire.  Then, one side asked for “a full extra day to digest the answers, and the other side wanted two full extra days, all before beginning voir dire.”  Judge Alsup eventually realized that they wanted that time to “scrub Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and other Internet sites to extract personal data” and when asked about it, “counsel admitted this.”

Using the example of a juror’s favorite book being To Kill a Mockingbird and counsel constructing a copyright jury argument based on an analogy to that work and to play upon the recent death of Harper Lee, Judge Alsup noted that one of the dangers of mining juror social media use is that lawyers will use the information to make “improper personal appeals.”  Opting against a total research ban, he offered this compromise:

“[T]he Court calls upon them to voluntarily consent to a ban against Internet research on the [jury pool] or our jury until the trial is over… In the absence of complete agreement on a ban, the following procedure will be used. At the outset of jury selection, each side shall inform the venire of the specific extent to which it (including jury consultants, clients, and other agents) will use Internet searches to investigate and to monitor jurors, including specifically searches on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and so on, including the extent to which they will log onto their own social media accounts to conduct searches and the extent to which they will perform ongoing searches while the trial is underway. Counsel shall not explain away their searches on the ground that the other side will do it, so they have to do it too.”

Apparently, however, both parties would not agree to ban the research.  As Judge Alsup noted in his order, “Google is willing to accept an outright ban on Internet research about the venire and our jury, provided the ban applies equally to both sides. Oracle, however, will not.”  Judge Alsup also noted that “[o]n numerous occasions, Oracle has supplied confusing answers to the Court’s inquiries about its plan”.

Judge Alsup instructed both parties to “inform the Court By MARCH 31 AT NOON, whether they will consent to a ban against Internet research on the venire or the empaneled jury until the trial is over.”  That’s today, so we’ll see what happens.

So, what do you think?  Should litigants be allowed to mine social media data of prospective jurors?  Please share any comments you might have with us or let us know 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. 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.

Here are Some Questions to Ask When Selecting an eDiscovery Vendor: eDiscovery Best Practices

Let’s face it, there are a lot of eDiscovery vendors out there – like CloudNine (shameless plug warning!).  But, how do you find out which vendor is right for you?  Ask a lot of questions, of course!  Here is an article that provides several good ones to ask.

This article in the Florida Bar Practice Resource Institute (PRI) Blog ( Questions You Should Ask When Selecting An E-Discovery Vendor , written by David R. Hazouri, Esq.) covers questions that 1) are aimed at getting a sense for the vendor’s market position, business philosophy and long term stability, 2) attempt to drill down on the technical components of the vendor’s operations, and 3) seek to probe how the vendor proposes to handle your matter as you have generically described it.  Let’s take a look at each section of questions more closely.

Market Position, Business Philosophy and Long Term Stability

Several good questions here, ranging from some obvious ones (How long has the company been working in e-discovery?) to not-so-obvious (What is the vendor’s philosophy/business practices with respect to technology: have they developed solutions in-house or are they tech-agnostic?).  Here are a couple in particular worth noting:

  • How does the vendor distinguish itself from its competitors and who does the vendor think it compete with? Obvious questions, but I’m amazed how many prospective clients don’t ask us those questions.  If the eDiscovery vendor can’t concisely identify three to five points of differentiation from its competitors, how are you really going to know that they’re the right vendor for you?
  • What is the vendor’s philosophy with respect to management and personnel? The author goes on to ask several questions, such as “are the founders still present” and “are there any experienced attorneys in key positions”.  In addition to his questions, I would want to know average tenure at the company for employees in general and number of years of experience in litigation support and eDiscovery – you want a vendor that isn’t experiencing a lot of turnover with key personnel that have seen a little bit of everything in the industry.

Technical Components of the Vendor’s Operations

Here are a couple of notable questions in this section:

  • What does the vendor do to maintain the security and integrity of client data? In addition to what the author covers, I would want to know about the vendor’s policies regarding chain of custody and, if they are a hosting provider, more information about where your data is stored, including the list of security mechanisms the vendor provides and whether the data is stored in some sort of protected data center or in the public cloud.  With one, you know where your data is located, in the other, you may not.
  • With respect to review platform technology in particular, are there any compatibility issues between the vendor’s processes and either your firm’s platform or any popular platform that the opposing party may be using? The more software that has to be installed, the more potential issues may occur, so browser and platform independence is a plus when you want a smooth implementation.

Handling of Your Matter

This section gets into the breadth and scalability of services provided by the vendor and has the most questions.  The author covers services ranging from custodian interviews to forensic data collection to Early Case Assessment to logical document determination for scanned files without document breaks, as well as hosting pricing and production capabilities.  Very often, you may have a need for services that you didn’t anticipate up front, so it’s important to get a thorough understanding of how the vendor provides those additional services in case you need them.  And, it’s important that their pricing structure is straightforward so that you can predict your eDiscovery costs with reasonable accuracy up front.

I love question list articles like this because each one usually has a little bit different take and identifies at least a couple of unique questions to help select the right provider.  As I see other articles and blog posts out there with good questions for eDiscovery providers, I’ll try to share them as well.

So, what do you think?  Do you have any other questions that you ask to select an eDiscovery provider?  Please share any comments you might have with us or let us know 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. 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.

Breaking News: The BIG Battle between Apple and the FBI is Over – For Now: eDiscovery Trends

Last week, we reported that the FBI said that it might no longer need Apple’s assistance in opening an iPhone used by a gunman in the San Bernardino, Calif., rampage last year.  Looks like that was the case.

According to CNN Money (FBI says it has cracked terrorist’s iPhone without Apple’s help, written by Jackie Wattles and Laurie Segall), the Department of Justice says the FBI has accessed the iPhone used by one of the gunmen in the San Bernardino terrorist shooting, with the help of an unnamed third party.  Saying that it has successfully retrieved the data from the phone, the Justice Department is asking the court to vacate its order from last month for Apple’s assistance.

“The FBI has now successfully retrieved the data stored on the San Bernardino terrorist’s iPhone and therefore no longer requires the assistance from Apple required by this Court Order,” DOJ spokeswoman Melanie Newman said in a statement.

Government officials did not go into detail about what was found on the phone.

The two sides were due in court last week, but the judge granted a last minute request from the DOJ to postpone the hearing, saying an unidentified “outside party” came to the FBI with an alternative method for hacking into the phone.  On Monday, the DOJ said the method only works on this particular phone, which is an iPhone 5C running a version of iOS 9 software.

A law enforcement official, speaking to reporters on condition of anonymity, would not reveal how it pulled off this hack. He would not name the “third party” that helped the FBI. And he refused to say whether the FBI will disclose this hacking method to Apple so the company can protect future phones from being hacked this way.  “We can’t comment on the possibility of future disclosures at this point,” the law enforcement official said.

Last month, a federal judge ordered Apple to give investigators access to encrypted data on the iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters, a court order that Apple has fought, accusing the federal government of an “overreach” that could potentially breach the privacy of millions of customers.  That same day, Apple CEO Tim Cook published an open letter, pledging to fight the judge’s ruling that it should give FBI investigators access to encrypted data on the device.  And, the two sides have battled over the issue in court over the past month.

So, who is this “outside party”?  Was Steve Jobs resurrected over the weekend?  It was Easter, after all.  :o)  Regardless, it appears that the dispute is over – at least until the next time that the DOJ and the FBI need to hack into an Apple device.

So, what do you think?  Do you think we will see more disputes like this in the future?  Please share any comments you might have with us or let us know 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. 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.

The Judge in the Most Famous eDiscovery Case is Retiring: eDiscovery Trends

If you follow eDiscovery, you probably have heard of the Zubulake case, which is probably the most famous case in eDiscovery.  The judge from that case — Shira A. Scheindlin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York – is retiring effective April 29.

In a letter announcing her retirement last Wednesday, Scheindlin, 69, said she will join a “large” New York City law firm, but plans to spend most of her time working on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) matters. In the letter Judge Scheindlin stated the following:

“After 21.5 years of service on the district court, I have decided to leave the bench as of April 29, 2016. These have been the best years of my life in which I have had the pleasure of working with wonderful colleagues and the opportunity to work on many important and interesting cases. While I will no doubt miss both the work and my colleagues, I am looking forward to taking on new challenges in the private sector. I plan to spend the bulk of my time on ADR matters including work as an arbitrator and mediator and in other neutral capacities – with the hope of doing a fair amount of public interest work as well as working on commercial matters.  I will also become of counsel to a large New York City law firm where I anticipate assisting in client and pro bono matters, teaching and mentoring associates, and engaging in public speaking and writing.  I thank you all for your friendship and support over the past years and hope to work together again in other capacities.”

In the Zubulake v. UBS Warburg case, Scheindlin issued key rulings that included classification of accessible vs. inacessible data and a new seven factor balance test for cost-shifting of discovery costs, among other precedents.  Another groundbreaking case from an eDiscovery standpoint was Pension Committee of the Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities, LLC, where, in her ruling where she issued sanctions against the plaintiffs, Scheindlin defined negligence, gross negligence, and willfulness from an eDiscovery standpoint.

Along with Daniel Capra, Scheindlin also published a book in 2009, The Sedona Conference’s Electronic Discovery and Digital Evidence in a Nutshell, which addresses several issues related to the use of electronic information in litigation.

In addition to her noteworthy eDiscovery rulings and teachings, Scheindlin also made impact in other areas, including ordering the NYPD to reform its stop-and-frisk policing policy in 2013 and, earlier this year, ordering the SEC to return $21.5 million from an insider trading settlement paid by Level Global Investors Ltd. and another $9 million to a hedge fund in the same case.  She also approved a class-action antitrust settlement between sports fans and Major League Baseball over pay-TV game broadcasts.

As noted above, Scheindlin told colleagues in her letter that she will join the firm to assist in client and pro bono matters, and to mentor and teach associates.  Lucky associates!

So, what do you think?  Will her legacy influence the decisions of other judges going forward?  Please share any comments you might have with us or let us know 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. 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.

Plaintiff Granted Documents Withheld Due to Privilege, But Denied Expanded Search of Emails: eDiscovery Case Law

In Moore v. Lowe’s Home Ctrs., LLC, No. 14-1459 RJB (W.D.Wash. Feb. 19, 2016), Washington District Judge Robert J. Bryan ruled in favor of the plaintiff that documents and communications dated before the defendant anticipated litigation were not privileged work product and should be produced, but he ruled against the plaintiff in her request have the defendant perform additional searches on email to identify additional relevant documents.

Case Background

In this discrimination case, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Production of Improperly Withheld Documents and Responses to Discovery Regarding Destruction of Plaintiff’s and Other Witnesses’ Email.  In her Motion to Compel, the plaintiff requested (among other things) for the Court to order the production of documents withheld on the basis of privilege and work product and compel additional searches for, and production of, emails responsive to the plaintiff’s discovery requests.

With regard to the documents withheld on the basis of privilege and work product, the defendant claimed that it properly withheld communications between non-attorneys because privilege extends to corporate employees for confidential communications with corporate attorneys and for confidential communications relating to legal advice from those attorneys.

As for the additional searches requested by the plaintiff (due in part to the emails in the plaintiff’s possession that were not uncovered in the defendant’s search), the plaintiff asserted that the defendant should demonstrate that it performed a diligent search, that the defendant should conduct additional searches using terms requested by the plaintiff and that these new searches be conducted without including Plaintiff’s first or last name, on the email accounts of each witness.

In response, the defendant argued they had reviewed 21,000 emails from 17 custodians at a cost of $48,074, that the relevant emails from 2012 were likely deleted and that a search using the 88 newly requested search terms (including annoy*, bull, click*, dad, date*, hand, rack, rod, box) in conjunction with removing Plaintiff’s name from the search would result in hundreds of thousands of irrelevant emails.

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to the documents withheld on the basis of privilege and work product, Judge Bryan ruled that “Defendant states that it anticipated litigation as of April 25, 2013…Therefore, documents created prior to that date are not work product. Similarly, investigative communications made before April 25, 2013, in relation to Plaintiff’s complaints and termination fall outside the realm of legal advice and are thus not privileged. Investigation into employee complaints or misconduct serves a predominantly HR function, especially if the investigation takes place before litigation is anticipated. Defendant has not provided sufficient information to distinguish its activities as legal in nature.”  As a result, the defendant was ordered to “produce documents and communications dated before April 25, 2013, relating to investigations into Plaintiff’s complaints and termination.”

With regard to the additional searches requested by the plaintiff, Judge Bryan stated:

“Plaintiff’s request for email searches is overly broad and not proportional to the case…While the additional search terms could possibly yield some relevant results, Plaintiff has not provided specifics about what Plaintiff reasonably expects such a search to show, and Plaintiff has not shown that this information could not be found through other means. For example, Plaintiff has not shown that she would be unable to uncover the same information by asking additional questions of witnesses already scheduled to be deposed. As to this discovery issue, Plaintiff’s motion should be denied.”

So, what do you think?  Should the parties have been ordered to meet and confer regarding the search terms?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Daily will be off tomorrow for Good Friday and will resume with a new post on Monday.

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.

FBI May Be Able to Unlock Terrorist’s iPhone without Apple’s Help: eDiscovery Trends

In court on Monday, the FBI said that it might no longer need Apple’s assistance in opening an iPhone used by a gunman in the San Bernardino, Calif., rampage last year.

According to The New York Times (U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone, written by Katie Benner and Matt Apuzzo), in its court filing, the government said an outside party had demonstrated a way for the FBI to possibly unlock the phone used by the gunman, Syed Rizwan Farook. The hearing in the contentious case — Apple has loudly opposed opening the iPhone, citing privacy concerns and igniting a heated debate — was originally set for Tuesday.

In its filing, the Justice Department, while noting that the method must be tested, stated that if it works “it should eliminate the need for the assistance from Apple”. The Justice Department added that it would file a status report by April 5 on its progress.  Judge Sheri N. Pym, the federal magistrate judge in the United States District Court for the Central District of California who was set to hold the hearing, agreed to grant the Justice Department’s motion to postpone the hearing.

As the article notes, “The emergence of a potential third-party method to open the iPhone was a surprise, as the government said more than a dozen times in court filings that it could open the phone only with Apple’s help. The FBI director, James B. Comey Jr., also reiterated that point several times during a hearing before Congress on March 1.”

Last month, a federal judge ordered Apple to give investigators access to encrypted data on the iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters, a court order that Apple has fought, accusing the federal government of an “overreach” that could potentially breach the privacy of millions of customers.  That same day, Apple CEO Tim Cook published an open letter, pledging to fight the judge’s ruling that it should give FBI investigators access to encrypted data on the device.  And, the two sides have battled over the issue in court over the past month.

In the meantime, everyone from Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai to Donald Trump has weighed in on whether Apple should help unlock the iPhone for the investigation.  In addition, Apple claimed that had the passcode to Syed Farook’s iPhone not been reset hours after the shooting (at the consent of the FBI), the company would have been able to initiate a backup of the phone’s data to its associated iCloud account in order to retrieve its contents.  And, PCWorld reported that if San Bernardino County had been using a Mobile Device Management (MDM) service on its employees’ devices, they “would have been able to clear the device’s passcode in a matter of seconds” and the whole issue would have been moot (at least this time).

So, what do you think?  Who is this outside party and will they be able to eliminate the dispute between Apple and the FBI or only delay it?  Please share any comments you might have with us or let us know 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. 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.

Defendants Claim of Lightning Strike and Power Surge Doesn’t Save Them from Sanctions: eDiscovery Case Law

In a recent post in Craig Ball’s excellent blog, Ball in your Court, Craig stated that “you are more likely to be hit by lightning than to be sanctioned for non-preservation of ESI”.  So, if you claim that your devices are hit by lightning, causing your relevant ESI to be lost, does that make it more or less likely that you will be sanctioned?  :o)

In InternMatch, Inc. v. Nxtbigthing, LLC, et. al., No. 14-05438 (N.D. Cali., Feb. 8, 2016), California District Judge Jon S. Tigar, finding that the defendants “consciously disregarded their obligations to preserve relevant evidence” when they discarded various electronic devices after experiencing an alleged power surge without checking to see if they could recover any files from them, granting an adverse inference instruction sanction and plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees.

Case Background

In this trademark infringement case, the plaintiff requested copies of any documents, including electronic documents, relating to the defendants’ defense that it had continually and extensively used the disputed trademark. The defendants responded (and the owner of the defendant company (Chad Batterman) stated in his deposition) that a lightning strike in 2011 and a power surge in April 2015 had destroyed responsive documents, including corporate records central to the parties’ dispute and marketing materials that allegedly established prior use of the trademark.

in November 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion for terminating sanctions, accusing Defendants of intentionally destroying the electronic versions of the documents.

Judge’s Ruling

Using the newly amended FRCP Rule 37(e) as a guideline, Judge Tigar also considered the five factors identified by the Ninth Circuit in determining whether the terminating sanction is justified:

(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its dockets; (3) the risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.

With regard to the defendant’s duty to preserve and whether that duty was upheld, Judge Tigar found “that at least by January 2015, Defendants knew about the present action and were under a duty to preserve relevant evidence.  The evidence shows that Defendants violated this duty…Prior to discarding the desktop, Batterman did not make any effort to determine whether the hard drive on the desktop was salvageable or any data could be recovered from it…As a result, the parties can only access the few existing paper copies of the relevant documents, rather than the electronic files, which would include valuable information such as the creation and modification history of the files.”

Continuing, Judge Tigar stated: “The Court finds that at the very least, Defendants consciously disregarded their obligations to preserve relevant evidence. There is no evidence that Defendants took any steps to preserve relevant information after the litigation began…After the alleged power surge, Defendants failed to identify whether data from the electronic devices might be recoverable, and instead simply discarded the devices.

The Court also finds Defendants’ evidence that the surge occurred in the first place to be unbelievable. Not only is the alleged chronology of events highly improbable, but Defendants’ story is filled with inconsistencies. The Court does not know what actually happened to the missing evidence, if it ever existed, but concludes that Defendants have failed to show that it was lost in a power surge.”

While finding that sanctions were warranted, Judge Tigar concluded “that sanctions short of entry of default are appropriate” and granted the plaintiff’s request for an adverse inference instruction sanction, as well as attorneys’ fees associated with bringing the Motion for Terminating Sanctions.

So, what do you think?  Should the termination sanction have been awarded?  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. 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.

eDiscovery Daily Is Sixty Six! (Months Old, That Is)

Let’s get our kicks on Route 66!  Sixty six months ago yesterday, eDiscovery Daily was launched.  It’s hard to believe that it has been 5 1/2 years since our first three posts debuted on our first day, September 20, 2010.  Now, we’re up to 1,375 lifetime posts, and so much has happened in the industry that we’ve covered.  And, yes, we’re still crazy after all these years for committing to a daily post each business day, but maybe we’re crazy like a fox!

Twice a year, we like to take a look back at some of the important stories and topics during that time.  So, here are just a few of the posts over the last six months you may have missed.  Enjoy!

Thanks for your support!  Our subscriber base and daily views are bigger than ever!  And, we owe it all to you!  Thanks for the interest you’ve shown in the topics!  We will do our best to continue to provide interesting and useful eDiscovery news and analysis.  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. 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.

Craig Ball’s “Alexa-lent” Example of How the Internet of Things is Affecting Our Lives: eDiscovery Trends

I probably shouldn’t be writing about this as it will give my wife Paige another reason to say that we should get one of these.  Nonetheless, Craig Ball’s latest blog post illustrates how much data can be, and is being, captured these days in our everyday life.  Now, if we could just get to that data when we need it for legal purposes.

In Craig’s blog, Ball in your Court, his latest post (“Alexa. Preserve ESI.”) discusses how many cool things the Amazon Echo (with its “Alexa” voice command service) can do.  Sounding like he has gotten a little too up close and personal with the device, Craig notes that:

“Alexa streams music, and news updates.  Checks the weather and traffic.  Orders pizzas and Ubers.  Keeps up with the grocery and to do lists.  Tells jokes.  Turns on the lights.  Adjusts the temperature.  Answers questions.  Does math. Wakes me up.  Reminds me of appointments.  She also orders stuff from Amazon (big surprise there).”

Sounds pretty good.  Hopefully, my wife has stopped reading by this point.

Have you ever seen the movie Minority Report where Tom Cruise walks into his apartment and issues voice commands to turn on the lights and music?  Those days are here.

Anyway, Craig notes that, using the Alexa app on his phone or computer, he can view a list of every interaction since Alexa first came into his life, and listen to each recording of the instruction, including background sounds (even when his friends add heroin and bunny slippers to his shopping list).  Craig notes that “Never in the course of human history have we had so much precise, probative and objective evidence about human thinking and behavior.”

However, as he also notes, “what they don’t do is make it easy to preserve and collect their digital archives when a legal duty arises.  Too many apps and social networking sites fail to offer a reasonable means by which to lock down or retrieve the extensive, detailed records they hold.”  Most of them only provide an item-by-item (or screenshot by screenshot) mechanism for sifting through the data.

To paraphrase a Seinfeld analogy, they know how to take the reservation, they just don’t know how to hold the reservation (OK, it’s not completely relevant, but it’s funny).

In a call to action, Craig says that both “the user communities and the legal community need to speak out on this.  Users need an effective, self-directed means to preserve and collect their own data when legal and regulatory duties require it.”  I agree.  Some, like Google and Twitter, provide excellent mechanisms for getting to the data, but most don’t.

As Wooderson says in the movie Dazed and Confused, “it’d be a lot cooler if you did”.

So, what do you think?  Will the “Internet of Things” age eventually include a self-export feature?  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. 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.

Court Rules Plaintiff’s Duty to Preserve Did Not Extend to Employee’s Internet History: eDiscovery Case Law

In Marten Transport, Ltd. V. Plattform Advertising, Inc., No. 14-02464 (D. Kansas, Feb. 8, 2016), Kansas Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James denied the defendant’s Motion for Spoliation Sanctions, ruling that, although the plaintiff had a duty to preserve relevant ESI as of Fall 2013, that duty to preserve did not extend to the internet history of one of its employees until June 2015, and by then the internet history was lost.

Case Background

In this action under the Lanham Act for trademark infringement and unfair competition, the plaintiff accused the defendant of making unauthorized job postings to the defendant’s sites using the plaintiff’s trademarks and information after the plaintiff terminated its agreement with the defendant.  Plaintiff’s counsel sent a cease and desist letter in September 2013 and ultimately filed suit in September 2014.

In January 2015, the plaintiff served its Rule 26 disclosures identifying one of its employees (Jolene Vinck), as an individual “believed to have discoverable information relating to the matter.”  In June 2015, Defendant’s counsel sent a letter to the plaintiff alleging that after the defendant removed all of the plaintiff’s job postings from its website on September 17, 2013, the plaintiff logged back in and created six job postings on five separate dates.

In September 2015, as part of its first supplemental production, the plaintiff produced a December 2013 email to Vinck from a third party informing her that the relationship with the defendant had been terminated, which included Vinck’s response that she didn’t know and “had been posting on there all along”.  After the defendant requested Vinck’s internet history in its second request for production, the plaintiff advised the defendant that Vinck’s internet history was no longer available as she received a new work station in February 2015 in the ordinary course of business, and the plaintiff did not have access to any web browsing history relating to any computer assigned to her prior to February 2015.  After attempting to confer, the defendant filed a motion seeking spoliation sanctions due to the plaintiff’s failure to preserve Vinck’s internet history on the previous computer.

Judge’s Ruling

As directed by the Court during the hearing on the subject motion, the plaintiff subsequently filed Declarations regarding its unsuccessful efforts to search for and locate the previous computer and regarding whether it otherwise had the capability to retrieve Vinck’s internet history.  As a result of those efforts, Judge James indicated that “the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has made thorough and reasonable good faith efforts to locate Computer 1, but it cannot be located”, concluding that “the internet history on Computer 1 is lost and cannot be restored or retrieved by other means”.

While finding that “Plaintiff had a duty to preserve relevant information, and that duty commenced in Fall 2013”, Judge James assessed the scope of that duty and determined that there was “nothing in this record to support a conclusion that Plaintiff knew or should have known that Vinck’s Fall 2013 internet history would be relevant in this case until Plaintiff received the June 16, 2015 letter from Defendant’s counsel.”  In denying the defendant’s motion for spoliation sanctions, Judge James stated:

“The stated reasons behind the 2015 amendments to Rule 37(e) further support the Court’s conclusions in this case. The general intent of amended Rule 37(e) was to address the excessive effort and money being spent on ESI preservation as a result of the continued exponential growth in the volume of ESI, along with the uncertainty caused by significantly differing standards among the federal circuits for imposing sanctions or curative measures on parties who failed to preserve ESI.  In revising Rule 37(e), the Advisory Committee expressly instructed that ‘reasonable steps’ to preserve ESI suffice; the Rule ‘does not call for perfection.’”

So, what do you think?  Should the plaintiff’s duty to preserve have extended to employees’ internet histories?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Happy St. Patrick’s Day!!

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.