Close
Enter your
text here

eDiscoveryDaily

Colorado Rolls Out Guidelines and Checklist for Discovery of ESI: eDiscovery Trends

From time to time, we’ve covered not only Federal eDiscovery rules, but also eDiscovery rules within the states as well. One of the states that has been slow to undertake any eDiscovery rulemaking activity is Colorado. However, on June 4, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado did publish new Guidelines Addressing the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information as well as a Checklist for Rule 26(f) Meet-and-Confer Regarding Electronically Stored Information (ESI).

In 2012, the US District Court for the District of Colorado convened an Electronic Discovery Committee and that Committee worked with the Corona Institute to develop, conduct, and analyze a comprehensive survey of practitioners in the District concerning their experiences with ESI. Nearly 2,000 responses were received and over 90% of respondents requested that the court assist practitioners in our District with eDiscovery by adopting some form of procedures or rules for ESI-intensive cases, with the largest group (43.8%) requesting guidelines to assist counsel. So, here they are!

Here is a brief summary of each document:

  • Guidelines Addressing the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information: The guidelines include commentaries that cover obligations of counsel, expectations for cooperation, standards of reasonableness and proportionality, proactivity with regard to ESI and treating the Rule 26(f) meet and confer as a critical step in the eDiscovery process, among other guidelines. The 14 page document also includes a preface and a list of reference materials (with links to several of them) and also references the checklist below as an attachment.
  • Checklist for Rule 26(f) Meet-and-Confer Regarding Electronically Stored Information: This comprehensive four page checklist covers a variety of topics that may need to be covered, depending on the nature and complexity of the matter, in the areas of preservation, identifying an eDiscovery liaison for each party, location and types of data and systems, proportionality and costs, search and filtering of ESI, phasing, production and privilege. These are useful guidelines for matters in any state (not just Colorado) or in Federal court as well.

The court’s guidelines are the result of two years of work and focus on cooperation between parties, clients and their attorneys. They’re guidelines, not rules, so it is still up to the court’s participants to decide to use them. While both the guidelines and checklist are dated September 2014 on the face of the document, they are noted as “appended” on the district court site and both files have the date “4-24-15” in the file name.

In October 2013, we covered Winston & Strawn’s handy interactive map of the US that enables you to click on any state and get a page with links to the actual rules for that state (or documents related to rules being considered). Back then and still today, Colorado is shown (in Orange) as a state that has not undertaken eDiscovery rulemaking activity to date. While these guidelines are not rules, they will hopefully have a positive impact in setting expectations for judges and attorneys in Colorado cases.

So, what do you think? Is this a positive step for Colorado? 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.

New York Supreme Court Sanctions Two Attorney Defendants for “Egregious Misconduct” in Spoliation of Data: eDiscovery Case Law

In HMS Holdings Corp. v. Arendt, et al., 2015 NY Slip Op 50750(U) (Sup. Ct., Albany County, May 19, 2015), the New York Supreme Court in Albany County ordered a mandatory adverse inference instruction so that the trier of fact could “draw the strongest possible adverse inference from defendants’ bad faith and intentional destruction, deletion and failure to produce relevant evidence”. The court also awarded attorney fees, and forwarded a copy of the order regarding Defendant Lange to the New York State Committee on Professional Standards for attorneys.

Case Background

In this business litigation against the defendants who were former employees of the plaintiff, the parties to this case entered into a stipulation in September 2014 providing that defendants would forensically image all personal and work computers, flash or zip drives, and all mobile devices in their possession, custody or control. After the defendants provided the forensic images to the plaintiffs and their forensics expert for review, the plaintiffs’ expert alleged that defendants Curtin and Lange (both licensed attorneys) had intentionally and deliberately destroyed relevant electronically stored information. The instances of spoliation as alleged by the plaintiff’s expert were as follows:

  • Curtin used the Secure Erase wiping software on his laptop six times in September 2014, after the litigation hold had gone into effect – he claimed that he did so to improve the performance of his laptop;
  • Curtin also failed to produce a Toshiba hard drive (to which he was found to have copied a considerable volume of confidential defendant business materials the day before he terminated his employment with the defendant) claiming he could not find the drive;
  • “Shadow Copies” on Lange’s laptop revealed that there were documents in a directory of Lange’s hard drive containing the term “HMS” that no longer were present on September 15, 2014, when the computer was produced for forensic imaging;
  • Lange also failed to produce text messages from her iPhone 4, which she replaced in August 2014. She claimed that the store where she purchased it could not transfer data to her new phone; however, the plaintiff’s expert found data from her personal computer indicating that she had backed up her old iPhone to the computer after she purchased the new phone.

The plaintiffs requested sanctions against those defendants. In a Decision & Order dated March 2, 2015, the Court held as follows:

“Through the affidavit of its computer forensics expert and the documentary evidence submitted in support of the motion, HMS has made a prima facie showing that Curtin and Lange engaged in the spoliation of potentially relevant ESI with a culpable mental state during the pendency of this action.”

The court called for an evidentiary hearing, which was held on March 24, 2015, to hear the testimony of defendants and the parties’ computer experts.

Court’s Ruling

Noting the options that Curtin had selected with the Secure Erase software (“Erase” instead of “First Aid”, “Most Secure” instead of “Fastest”), the Court stated that it “does not find Curtin’s explanation for his use of Secure Erase to be worthy of belief.” Also, noting that Curtin “failed to disclose the existence of the Toshiba drive in response to HMS’s interrogatories” and “acknowledged the existence of the drive only after being confronted with HMS’s forensic proof of the same”, the Court ruled that it “does not find his explanation for failing to produce the Toshiba external drive to be credible.”

As for files deleted from Lange’s hard drive, the Court found “that Lange was under a duty of preservation at all pertinent times with respect to the alleged spoliation of ESI” from the laptop and found it to be “intentional and willful”. And, with regard to the iPhone, the Court concluded “that Lange knowingly gave false testimony regarding the destruction and disposition of her iPhone 4” when she testified that she disposed of her old iPhone on August 8, 2014, but actually backed it up on August 15, 2014.

As a result, the Court ruled:

“Given the willful and deliberate nature of defendants’ misconduct, imposition of a mandatory presumption is warranted. The trier of fact should be permitted to draw the strongest possible adverse inference from defendants’ bad faith and intentional destruction, deletion and failure to produce relevant evidence Thus, the trier of fact should be instructed as a matter of law that defendants engaged in the intentional and willful destruction of evidence, advised of the extent of each defendant’s proven spoliation, and permitted to presume that the evidence spoliated by each defendant was relevant to this action, would have supported HMS’s claims against the defendant and been unfavorable to the defendant.”

The court also awarded attorney fees, and forwarded a copy of the order regarding Defendant Lange to the New York State Committee on Professional Standards for attorneys.

So, what do you think? Was that the right amount to award? Or should the judge have awarded a lesser amount? 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’s “Jazzy” Decision to Award Costs May “Bug” Plaintiff, But Defendant Doesn’t Mind a “Bit”: eDiscovery Case Law

Hey, I could have said if it doesn’t “fit”, you must acquit…

In Fitbug Ltd. v. Fitbit, Inc., Case No. 13-1418 SC (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2015), California District Judge Samuel Conti, throwing in a jazz reference during his opinion, ruled to tax over $63,000 in costs to be paid to the prevailing defendant in the case.

Case Background

In this trademark infringement case between two companies that manufacture and sell portable electronic fitness tracking devices, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Pursuant to that judgment, the defendant submitted a bill of costs, seeking $88,888.86 in costs (apparently, they like the number “8”). The plaintiff objected, and the Clerk ultimately taxed costs of $54,089.15.

Despite the Clerk of the Court’s substantial reductions to the defendant’s costs, the plaintiff believed that the amount taxed still included non-taxable items. As a result, the plaintiff filed a motion for review of costs allowed by the Clerk to ask the Court to either reject the defendant’s claimed costs entirely or, at a minimum, reduce them by a further $27,468.58. In turn, the defendant opposed any further reductions in its costs.

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to the plaintiff’s argument that because the defendant’s declaration supporting its bill of costs did not specifically state that its claimed costs are “allowable by law” (as required by Civil Local Rule 54-1(a)), Judge Conti began his analysis by getting the semantics out of the way (and providing a handy jazz reference to boot):

“While Fitbug apparently believes ‘[n]o other words can tell it half so clearly,’ the requirement a party say the ‘three little words,’ ‘allowable by law,’ is merely a reminder that the Court expects them to submit costs they believe are taxable, not a set of magic words necessary to receive any costs. Cf. Sarah Vaughan, Three Little Words, on Live at the London House (Mercury Records 1958), available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WSZ6IRC-ys.” (yes, he even provided a YouTube link) “As the language of Fitbit’s declaration makes clear, Fitbit submitted these costs in good faith and understood that doing so was a representation to the Court and the Clerk that the costs were “allowed by law.” Now the Court must decide whether Fitbit was right or not. The Court declines to elevate form over substance to avoid making that decision.”

As for the specifics of the eDiscovery costs, Judge Conti acknowledged that “Section 1920 was enacted in 1853 and as a result does not speak directly on the taxability of electronic discovery costs”, but noted that in this “vacuum”, “courts have analogized the language of Section 1920(4), which authorizes the taxation of ‘[f]ees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case . . .,’ to a variety of electronic discovery expenses.” As a result, Judge Conti denied the plaintiff’s motion for review on these costs, deciding to tax $32,282.05 in data extraction and processing costs and another $4,466.91 in costs for production deliveries. Taken together with costs for deposition and video transcripts, photocopying and scanning and preparation of demonstrative exhibits, Judge Conti determined the total costs to be taxed to be $63,660.94.

So, what do you think? Was that the right amount to award? Or should the judge have awarded a lesser amount? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

BTW, a link to the terrific Sarah Vaughan song referenced in the judge’s opinion can be found here.

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.

“Stealing Signs” in Baseball Takes on New Meaning in the Information Age: eDiscovery Trends

According to an article in the New York Times, one Major League Baseball team has defined a new way of playing “hardball” with the competition – hacking into the network of another team to capture closely guarded information about players.

Front-office personnel for the St. Louis Cardinals, one of the most successful teams in baseball over the past two decades, are under investigation by the F.B.I. and Justice Department prosecutors, accused of hacking into an internal network of my hometown team, the Houston Astros, to steal internal discussions about trades, proprietary statistics and scouting reports, among other competitive information.

According to law enforcement officials, investigators have uncovered evidence that Cardinals employees broke into a network of the Astros that housed special databases the team had built. The investigation is being led by the F.B.I.’s Houston field office and has progressed to the point that subpoenas have been served on the Cardinals and Major League Baseball for electronic correspondence.

In June 2014, the Astros claimed to have been victims of hackers who accessed their servers and published months of internal trade talks on the Internet. It was then that the team began working with the FBI and Major League Baseball security in an effort to identify who was responsible for the breach.

Law enforcement officials believe the hacking was executed by vengeful front-office employees for the Cardinals hoping to wreak havoc on the work of Jeff Luhnow, the Astros’ general manager, who had been a successful and polarizing executive with the Cardinals until 2011, credited with building baseball’s best minor league system, and with drafting several players who would become linchpins of the 2011 world champion Cardinals team.

Investigators believe that Cardinals personnel, concerned that Luhnow had taken their idea and proprietary baseball information to the Astros, examined a master list of passwords used by Luhnow and the other officials when they worked for the Cardinals. The Cardinals employees are believed to have used those passwords to gain access to the Astros’ network, law enforcement officials said.

Doesn’t Luhnow know that an insufficient password will leave you exposed? Or that almost thirty percent of data security incidents are due to human error?

That tactic is often used by cybercriminals, who sell passwords from one breach on the underground market, where others buy them and test them on other websites, including banking and brokerage services. The breach on the Astros would be one of the first known instances of a corporate competitor using the tactic against a rival. It is also, security experts say, just one more reason people are advised not to use the same passwords across different sites and services. It would not be a stretch (7th inning or otherwise) to see attacks like this happen among competitors in other industries. Or even between adverse parties in litigation.

Ironically, the Cardinals are accused of stealing the data last year, when the (dis)Astros were coming off three of the worst seasons in major league history. This year, they’re one of the best teams in baseball, at least for now. Hopefully (at least for Astros fans like me), they’ve improved their off-the-field cybersecurity protocols as well as they have improved on the field.

So, what do you think? Do you expect to see more breaches like this between competitors in various industries? 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.

You Almost Can’t Have a Divorce without Smartphone Evidence These Days: eDiscovery Trends

If you think the NSA is tough, hell hath no fury like a suspicious spouse scorned.

According to the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) – not to be confused with the National Organization of Matrimonial Attorneys Nationwide (or N.O.M.A.N.) from the Coen Brothers movie Intolerable Cruelty (whose motto was “let N.O.M.A.N. put asunder”, get it?) – almost every divorce attorney works with smartphone evidence these days.

According to the AAML survey (press release here), a whopping 97% of members have seen an increase in divorce evidence being taken from smartphones and other wireless devices during the past three years. In addition, an almost universal number of 99% of respondents have cited a rising number of text messages being used in cases, while 67% have noted more evidence being gathered from apps. Not surprisingly, the top three apps for divorce evidence are also the most popular social media sites, with 41% citing Facebook, 17% choosing Twitter, and 16% identifying Instagram as sites where evidence was obtained.

“In the past, a suspicious spouse might have turned to a private investigator for this kind of detailed information, but nowadays most people willingly carry around some kind of wireless tracking device everywhere they go,” said James McLaren, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. “As with almost every aspect of our lives, smart phones and other wireless devices are having a big impact on the ways in which couples divorce.”

Overall, 97% of the attorneys cited an increase in the number of cases using evidence taken from smartphones and other wireless devices during the past three years, while 2% said no change and only 1% noted a decrease. The most common types of evidence gathered were cited by 46% as “texts,” while 30% said “emails,” 12% “phone numbers/call history,” 7% “Internet browsing/searches,” and “GPS” was noted by 4% of the respondents. In total, 99% cited an increase of cases using text messages during the past three years, while 1% noticed no change.

An increase in the number of cases using evidence taken from apps during the past three years was cited by 67% while 28% chose no change, and 5% noted a decrease. In addition to the top three apps listed for divorce evidence, the next selections included Find My iPhone and Snapchat at 6% each, 4% choosing Google Maps, Google+ at 3% and WhatsApp and Tinder each picked by 1% of the respondents.

So, if your divorce attorney is going to nail your spouse’s ass(ets), it will probably be with help from the ESI on his or her smartphone and social media accounts.

Once again, thanks for the tip from Sharon Nelson and her excellent Ride the Lightning blog!

So, what do you think? Do your cases include more ESI from smartphones? 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.

DESI Got Your Input, and Here It Is: eDiscovery Trends

Back in January, we discussed the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (DESI, not to be confused with Desi Arnaz, pictured above) workshop and its call for papers describing research or practice for the DESI VI workshop that was held last week at the University of San Diego as part of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence & Law (ICAIL 2015). Now, links to those papers are available on their web site.

The DESI VI workshop aims to bring together researchers and practitioners to explore innovation and the development of best practices for application of search, classification, language processing, data management, visualization, and related techniques to institutional and organizational records in eDiscovery, information governance, public records access, and other legal settings. Ideally, the aim of the DESI workshop series has been to foster a continuing dialogue leading to the adoption of further best practice guidelines or standards in using machine learning, most notably in the eDiscovery space. Organizing committee members include Jason R. Baron of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP and Douglas W. Oard of the University of Maryland.

The workshop included keynote addresses by Bennett Borden and Jeremy Pickens, a session regarding Topics in Information Governance moderated by Jason R. Baron, presentations of some of the “refereed” papers and other moderated discussions. Sounds like a very informative day!

As for the papers themselves, here is a list from the site with links to each paper:

Refereed Papers

Position Papers

If you’re interested in discovery of ESI, Information Governance and artificial intelligence, these papers are for you! Kudos to all of the authors who submitted them. Over the next few weeks, we plan to dive deeper into at least a few of them.

So, what do you think? Did you attend DESI VI? 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 Resolves Dispute Over Scope of Databases and Searches to be Performed: eDiscovery Case Law

After a week of reviewing previous cases we’ve covered this year with a couple of pop quizzes, we’re back in the saddle covering new cases…

In Willett, et al. v. Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-1241-JCH/LAM (D.N.M. May 8, 2015), New Mexico District Judge Lourdes A. Martinez ordered the defendants to produce a spreadsheet referred of file folders, with information for the files on their virtual server(s), the plaintiffs to provide the defendant with a reasonable list of search terms, limited to the relevant time frame, parties, and issues of this case and for the defendants to perform the searches specified by the plaintiffs within ten days of receiving the searches.

Case Background

In this class action case, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants engaged in nonconsensual automated calls to the plaintiffs on their cellular telephones in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in order to collect fines imposed by the City of Albuquerque for traffic violations and submitted requests for admission (RFAs) to the defendants to ask them to admit that they obtained the telephone numbers for specific plaintiffs from a skip tracing service. As for the plaintiffs’ document requests, the defendants produced an initial set of 19,000 Bates-labeled pages of documents in response to those requests, but the plaintiffs argued that the production was inadequate and moved to compel a larger production. In turn, the defendants filed their own motion, opposing the plaintiffs’ motion, arguing that the plaintiffs had refused to engage in a search term discussion regarding its database, which contained 1.6 terabytes of data.

The defendants also noted that the cost of processing their entire virtual server to enable more targeted searches would cost between $100,000 and $160,000, but if the parties were to agree to limit the data to be processed, such as by file type, keywords, and creation dates, the defendants might be able to perform those searches at a reasonable cost; otherwise, the cost could be shifted to the plaintiffs or split between the parties.

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to the defendants’ objections to the plaintiffs’ requests for admission, Judge Martinez found that “Defendants’ objections are without merit and should be overruled” and stated that “Defendants’ use of boilerplate, blanket objections are improper” and that the defendants’ “objections that these RFAs do not relate to the parties in this case are especially baffling since the requests specifically name the three Plaintiffs”.

As for the document requests, Judge Martinez ruled that she would “not order CWGP and Credit Control to conduct a search of the entire virtual server because it does not appear that that conducting a search of the entire 1.6 terabytes of data in the virtual server at a cost of $100,000 to $160,000 would be proportional to the likely benefit of such a search”. She also found that “limiting the search of the virtual server by file type, keywords, and creation dates, is a reasonable solution”. As a result, Judge Martinez ordered the defendants to produce a spreadsheet referred of file folders, with information for the files on their virtual server(s), the plaintiffs to provide the defendant with a reasonable list of search terms, limited to the relevant time frame, parties, and issues of this case and for the defendants to perform the searches specified by the plaintiffs within ten days of receiving the searches.

So, what do you think? Was the judge’s decision a reasonable compromise regarding the parties’ search disputes? 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.

Vacation Case Law Pop Quiz #2 Answers!: eDiscovery Case Law

I’m out of the office this week, taking the kiddos on a family vacation (can you guess where?). Instead of going dark for the week (which we almost never do), I decided to use the opportunity to give you a chance to catch up on cases we’ve covered so far this year with a couple of case law pop quizzes, sandwiched around a popular post from the past that you may have missed.

Yesterday, we gave you a pop quiz for the second set of cases. If you’re reading the blog each day, these questions should be easy! Let’s see how you did. Here are the answers.

1. Which case did the judge refer to as “Da Silva Moore Revisited”?

A. Rio Tinto Plc v. Vale S.A.

B. Comprehensive Addiction Treatment Center, Inc. v. Leslea

C. Burdette v. Panola County

D. In Re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation

2. In which case did the court grant the plaintiff’s Motion to Quash the defendant’s subpoena of text messages?

A. Rio Tinto Plc v. Vale S.A.

B. Comprehensive Addiction Treatment Center, Inc. v. Leslea

C. Burdette v. Panola County

D. In Re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation

3. In which case did the court uphold the award by the Clerk of the Court of over $57,000 in taxable costs?

A. Rio Tinto Plc v. Vale S.A.

B. Comprehensive Addiction Treatment Center, Inc. v. Leslea

C. Burdette v. Panola County

D. In Re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation

4. Which case(s) cited the Da Silva Moore case?

A. Rio Tinto Plc v. Vale S.A.

B. In Re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation

C. Both cited Da Silva Moore

D. Neither cited Da Silva Moore

5. In which case was the request for spoliation sanctions against the defendant for failure to preserve video footage not only denied, but the defendant was granted summary judgment in the case?

A. Lunkenheimer Co. v. Tyco Flow Control Pacific Party Ltd.

B. Colosi v. Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc.

C. Harrell v. Pathmark et al.

D. Engineered Abrasives, Inc. v. American Machine Products & Service, Inc.

6. In which case did the appeals court affirm the District Court’s approval of a $6,300+ bill of costs which included synchronization of deposition videos and imaging of hard drives?

A. Lunkenheimer Co. v. Tyco Flow Control Pacific Party Ltd.

B. Colosi v. Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc.

C. Harrell v. Pathmark et al.

D. Engineered Abrasives, Inc. v. American Machine Products & Service, Inc.

7. In which case did the court rule that the duty to preserve for the Australian defendant did not begin until the complaint was filed in US courts?

A. Lunkenheimer Co. v. Tyco Flow Control Pacific Party Ltd.

B. Colosi v. Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc.

C. Harrell v. Pathmark et al.

D. Engineered Abrasives, Inc. v. American Machine Products & Service, Inc.

8. In which case was the defendant sanctioned for discarding a relevant computer?

A. Harrell v. Pathmark et al.

B. Engineered Abrasives, Inc. v. American Machine Products & Service, Inc.

C. Fox v. Leland Volunteer Fire/Rescue Dep’t Inc.

D. Grady v. Brodersen

9. In which case did the court rule that a Read Receipt automatically sent from the defendant’s email address to the plaintiff (when the defendant opened an email sent by the plaintiff) was not hearsay?

A. Harrell v. Pathmark et al.

B. Engineered Abrasives, Inc. v. American Machine Products & Service, Inc.

C. Fox v. Leland Volunteer Fire/Rescue Dep’t Inc.

D. Grady v. Brodersen

10. In which case was the defendant sanctioned and ordered to reimburse the plaintiff $12,800 for the cost of conducting a forensic computer examination?

A. Harrell v. Pathmark et al.

B. Engineered Abrasives, Inc. v. American Machine Products & Service, Inc.

C. Fox v. Leland Volunteer Fire/Rescue Dep’t Inc.

D. Grady v. Brodersen

As always, please let us know if you have questions or comments, or if there are specific topics you’d like to see covered.

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.

Vacation Case Law Pop Quiz #2!: eDiscovery Case Law

I’m out of the office this week, taking the kiddos on a family vacation (can you guess where?). Instead of going dark for the week (which we almost never do), I decided to use the opportunity to give you a chance to catch up on cases we’ve covered so far this year with a couple of case law pop quizzes, sandwiched around a popular post from the past that you may have missed.

If you’re reading the blog each day, these questions should be easy! If not, we’ve provided a link to the post with the answer. We’re that nice. Test your knowledge! Tomorrow, we’ll post the answers to this second vacation case law pop quiz for those who don’t know and didn’t look them up.

1. Which case did the judge refer to as “Da Silva Moore Revisited”?

A. Rio Tinto Plc v. Vale S.A.

B. Comprehensive Addiction Treatment Center, Inc. v. Leslea

C. Burdette v. Panola County

D. In Re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation

2. In which case did the court grant the plaintiff’s Motion to Quash the defendant’s subpoena of text messages?

A. Rio Tinto Plc v. Vale S.A.

B. Comprehensive Addiction Treatment Center, Inc. v. Leslea

C. Burdette v. Panola County

D. In Re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation

3. In which case did the court uphold the award by the Clerk of the Court of over $57,000 in taxable costs?

A. Rio Tinto Plc v. Vale S.A.

B. Comprehensive Addiction Treatment Center, Inc. v. Leslea

C. Burdette v. Panola County

D. In Re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation

4. Which case(s) cited the Da Silva Moore case?

A. Rio Tinto Plc v. Vale S.A.

B. In Re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation

C. Both cited Da Silva Moore

D. Neither cited Da Silva Moore

5. In which case was the request for spoliation sanctions against the defendant for failure to preserve video footage not only denied, but the defendant was granted summary judgment in the case?

A. Lunkenheimer Co. v. Tyco Flow Control Pacific Party Ltd.

B. Colosi v. Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc.

C. Harrell v. Pathmark et al.

D. Engineered Abrasives, Inc. v. American Machine Products & Service, Inc.

6. In which case did the appeals court affirm the District Court’s approval of a $6,300+ bill of costs which included synchronization of deposition videos and imaging of hard drives?

A. Lunkenheimer Co. v. Tyco Flow Control Pacific Party Ltd.

B. Colosi v. Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc.

C. Harrell v. Pathmark et al.

D. Engineered Abrasives, Inc. v. American Machine Products & Service, Inc.

7. In which case did the court rule that the duty to preserve for the Australian defendant did not begin until the complaint was filed in US courts?

A. Lunkenheimer Co. v. Tyco Flow Control Pacific Party Ltd.

B. Colosi v. Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc.

C. Harrell v. Pathmark et al.

D. Engineered Abrasives, Inc. v. American Machine Products & Service, Inc.

8. In which case was the defendant sanctioned for discarding a relevant computer?

A. Harrell v. Pathmark et al.

B. Engineered Abrasives, Inc. v. American Machine Products & Service, Inc.

C. Fox v. Leland Volunteer Fire/Rescue Dep’t Inc.

D. Grady v. Brodersen

9. In which case did the court rule that a Read Receipt automatically sent from the defendant’s email address to the plaintiff (when the defendant opened an email sent by the plaintiff) was not hearsay?

A. Harrell v. Pathmark et al.

B. Engineered Abrasives, Inc. v. American Machine Products & Service, Inc.

C. Fox v. Leland Volunteer Fire/Rescue Dep’t Inc.

D. Grady v. Brodersen

10. In which case was the defendant sanctioned and ordered to reimburse the plaintiff $12,800 for the cost of conducting a forensic computer examination?

A. Harrell v. Pathmark et al.

B. Engineered Abrasives, Inc. v. American Machine Products & Service, Inc.

C. Fox v. Leland Volunteer Fire/Rescue Dep’t Inc.

D. Grady v. Brodersen

As always, please let us know if you have questions or comments, or if there are specific topics you’d like to see covered.

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.

When Collecting Emails, Make Sure You Have a Complete Outlook: eDiscovery Best Practices

I’m out of the office this week, taking the kiddos on a family vacation (can you guess where?). Instead of going dark for the week (which we almost never do), I decided to use the opportunity to give you a chance to catch up on cases we’ve covered so far this year with a couple of case law pop quizzes, sandwiched around a popular post from the past that you may have missed. Today’s post takes a look back at Outlook files and the different forms they take. How many do you know?

Most discovery requests include a request for emails of parties involved in the case. Email data is often the best resource for establishing a timeline of communications in the case and Microsoft® Outlook is the most common email program used in business today. Outlook emails can be stored in several different forms, so it’s important to be able to account for each file format when collecting emails that may be responsive to the discovery request.

There are several different file types that contain Outlook emails, including:

EDB (Exchange Database): The server files for Microsoft Exchange, which is the server environment which manages Outlook emails in an organization. In the EDB file, a user account is created for each person authorized at the company to use email (usually, but not always, employees). The EDB file stores all of the information related to email messages, calendar appointments, tasks, and contacts for all authorized email users at the company. EDB files are the server-side collection of Outlook emails for an organization that uses Exchange, so they are a primary source of responsive emails for those organizations. Not all organizations that use Outlook use Exchange, but larger organizations almost always do.

OST (Outlook Offline Storage Table): Outlook can be configured to keep a local copy of a user’s items on their computer in an Outlook data file that is named an offline Outlook Data File (OST). This allows the user to work offline when a connection to the Exchange computer may not be possible or wanted. The OST file is synchronized with the Exchange computer when a connection is available. If the synchronization is not current for a particular user, their OST file could contain emails that are not on the EDB server file, so OST files may also need to be searched for responsive emails.

PST (Outlook Personal Storage Table): A PST file is another Outlook data file that stores a user’s messages and other items on their computer. It’s the most common file format for home users or small organizations that don’t use Exchange, but instead use an ISP to connect to the Internet (typically through POP3 and IMAP). In addition, Exchange users may move or archive messages to a PST file (either manually or via auto-archiving) to move them out of the primary mailbox, typically to keep their mailbox size manageable. PST files often contain emails not found in either the EDB or OST files (especially when Exchange is not used), so it’s important to search them for responsive emails as well.

MSG (Outlook MSG File): MSG is a file extension for a mail message file format used by Microsoft Outlook and Exchange. Each MSG file is a self-contained unit for the message “family” (email and its attachments) and individual MSG files can be saved simply by dragging messages out of Outlook to a folder on the computer (which could then be stored on portable media, such as CDs or flash drives). As these individual emails may no longer be contained in the other Outlook file types, it’s important to determine where they are located and search them for responsiveness. MSG is also a common format for native production of individual responsive Outlook emails, though HTML is also used (as Outlook emails, by default, are already HTML formatted files).

Other Outlook file types that might contain responsive information are EML (Electronic Mail), which is the Outlook Express e-mail format and PAB (Personal Address Book), which, as the name implies, stores the user’s contact information.

Of course, Outlook emails are not just stored within EDB files on the server or these other file types on the local workstation or portable media; they can also be stored within an email archiving system or synchronized to phones and other portable devices. Regardless, it’s important to account for the different file types when collecting potentially responsive Outlook emails for discovery.

So, what do you think? Are you searching all of these file types for responsive Outlook emails? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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