Close
Enter your
text here

eDiscoveryDaily

eDiscovery at the Movies – eDiscovery Trends
While we don’t have Siskel & Ebert around to review movies anymore, there is a new documentary that will certainly merit review by many eDiscovery professionals out there.

The Decade of Discovery was written and directed by Joe Looby, who, according to his LinkedIn profile, served in the U.S. Navy’s Judge Advocate General Corps, practiced as an environmental enforcement attorney for New York state and was a founder of the forensic technology practices at Deloitte and FTI.  His film production company is called 10th Mountain Films, named in honor of his father, who served in the 10th Mountain Division, a U.S. Army ski patrol that fought in World War II.

As noted in Law Technology News (E-Discovery Hits the Silver Screen, written by Monica Bay), Looby’s 61-minute film has already premiered last Saturday in Middletown, N.Y., at the  Hoboken International Film Festival and is also set to be shown at the Manhattan Film Festival on June 21.

Described as a “documentary about a government attorney on a quest to find a better way to search White House e-mail, and a teacher who takes a stand for civil justice on the electronic frontier”, Looby notes in a radio interview with the Mid Hudson News that the documentary includes comments by “a government attorney, a teacher, seven judges and two professors”, which includes several well-known names in eDiscovery: U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin, of the Southern District of New York, Jason R. Baron, former director of litigation for the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration and now of counsel at Drinker Biddle & Reath, and Richard Braman, founder and executive director emeritus of The Sedona Conference, among others.  Looby refers to those who have advanced tremendous progress made over the past decade in eDiscovery practice as “true American heroes”.

Consider this:

  • When the President of the United States leaves office, White House emails generated during that president’s term cannot be released to the general public (via the US National Archives) until they are reviewed and declassified,
  • When Bill Clinton left office in 2001, there were 32 million emails to be reviewed and declassified,
  • That number rose to over 200 million emails when George W. Bush left office in 2009,
  • And is expected to rise to over 1 billion emails once Barack Obama leaves office at the end of his term.

The movie addresses the considerable advancements to address problems like this in both the government and litigation arenas.

Here is a link to the trailer for the movie – it looks very interesting and informative.  Hopefully, the movie will eventually be shown or available via a nationwide outlet (Netflix, anyone?) for those of us not in the Manhattan area.

So, what do you think? Is this a movie you would like to see? 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.

Here’s a Chance to Help Shape the Future of Information Governance – eDiscovery Trends

Back on Valentine’s Day, we discussed the launching of the Information Governance Initiative (IGI), a cross-disciplinary consortium and think tank focused on advancing information governance.  The IGI has been busy, with two of its co-chairs, Bennett B. Borden & Jason R. Baron, having written a recent report on predictive analytics for information governance.  Now, the IGI is inviting you to help shape the future of information governance by participating in the IGI’s 2014 Annual Survey.

As noted on their blog, one of the IGI’s major projects this year is their 2014 (and first!) IGI Annual Report, “which will strive to provide much-needed clarity on IG concepts, definitions, markets, and practices”. As part of their research for the report, IGI is conducting a survey of information governance professionals.

As they note on their blog, the survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete (it took me about 10-12 minutes).  The survey asks a number of questions related to your role in information governance and how your organization handles IG, as well as questions regarding the future of information governance.  A link to the survey is available here.

According to Barclay Blair, founder & executive director of IGI, the deadline for taking the survey is June 15, with the results expected to be published on August 4.  Barclay also noted that IGI will also be reporting out on a series of benchmarking interviews that they are conducting right now with working IG practitioners.  Sounds like plenty of information to come!

With information governance clearly identified as the most widely discussed topic at this year’s LegalTech New York show (reflected by our recent thought leader interview series), the efforts of IGI will bear watching.  If you’re an information governance professional and want to make your voice heard, this survey is your chance!

So, what do you think? How does your organization handle information governance? 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.

Plaintiffs Denied Motion to Depose Defendants Regarding ESI Processes Prior to Discovery Requests – eDiscovery Case Law

In Miller v. York Risk Servs. Grp., No. 2:13-cv-1419 JWS (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2014), Arizona Senior District Judge John W. Sedwick denied the plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, requesting permission to conduct depositions in order to determine the defendant’s manner and methods used for storing and maintaining Electronically Stored Information (ESI) prior to submitting their discovery requests.

This action involves two claims against the defendant revolving around workers’ compensation benefits: (1) that the defendant “fraudulently denied [plaintiffs’] workers’ compensation benefits in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”),” and (2) that the defendant aided and abetted the plaintiffs’ employer or former employer with a “breach of its duty of good faith and fair dealing” by denying the claims. In filing the Motion to Compel, the plaintiffs sought a wide ranging inquiry pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) that would enable them to “tailor their discovery requests to avoid potential disputes over what may be discovered” by deposing the defendant regarding their process of storing and maintaining ESI.

The plaintiffs contended that other courts have “allowed discovery of the very sort they seek” for the purpose of tailoring discovery requests, and cited several appellate decisions to reinforce the contention. While most of the decisions cited by the plaintiffs were from trial courts in other circuits, two of the district court cases cited were within the Ninth Circuit—specifically, Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Vegas Constr. Co., Inc., and Starbucks Corp. v. ADTSec. Services, Inc.

In reviewing these appellate decisions, Judge Sedwick noted that the first cited Ninth Circuit case was inapplicable, as it discussed extensively “a corporation’s duty to identify and prepare a witness for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, but nothing in the opinion suggests that the case involved any request to conduct discovery into the manner and methods used by the defendant to store and maintain electronic data.” Regarding the second case, it was noted that the plaintiffs had in fact submitted a substantive request for discovery prior to the court ordered Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, which only attempted to conclude whether the discovery would actually be “unduly burdensome and difficult to retrieve,” as the defendants alleged.

Therefore, Judge Sedwick stated that the cited decisions were inconclusive in determining “whether starting the discovery process with a wide ranging inquiry into the manner and method by which a party stores and manages ESI is a helpful and appropriate approach to obtaining substantive information,” and therefore starting discovery with an inquiry as requested by the plaintiffs “puts the cart before the horse and likely will increase, rather than decrease, discovery disputes.” Hence, the plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel was denied.

So, what do you think? Are there circumstances under which taking depositions prior to discovery would be helpful and appropriate? Should depositions be reserved for resolving discovery disputes, rather than preventing 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.

Another Case Where Some eDiscovery Costs are Disallowed – eDiscovery Case Law

We haven’t covered a good eDiscovery cost reimbursement case in a while (here is a link to those we covered last year), so here is a case from earlier this month where, once again, the prevailing party had its awarded costs for eDiscovery reduced.

In Kwan Software Engineering v. Foray Technologies, 2014 U.S. Dist. (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2014), the amount of the defendant’s previously awarded costs were significantly reduced following the partial granting of the plaintiff’s Motion for Review of Clerk’s Taxation of Costs, after California District Judge Susan Illston ruled that the majority of the costs requested were not recoverable.

In this copyright infringement and breach of contract case, the motion for review had been filed after a motion for summary judgment was granted and entered in favor of the defendant, who was awarded $88,848.13 in costs. The plaintiff disputed these costs, and filed a motion that requested to specifically disallow “(1) $453.29 in costs for service of summons and subpoena; (2) $6,818.54 in costs for printed or electronically recorded transcripts; and (3) $61,312 in costs for exemplification and the costs of making copies.”

With regard to the larger sum of $61,312, the plaintiff specifically challenged the costs related to eDiscovery, citing the defendant’s submission of a total of eight invoices which the plaintiff contended they should not have been awarded any costs for. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was “seeking a broad range of eDiscovery related costs that go well beyond the costs associated with the actual production of the documents,” and further that the defendant “failed to provide sufficient detail of its eDiscovery costs to allow the Court to determine what are actual copying costs and what are non-taxable intellectual efforts.”

Additionally, the plaintiff noted that there was a discrepancy between the invoices at issue and the actual production submitted by the defendant. During discovery, the defendant produced approximately 229,000 pages of documents, yet the invoices showed charges for producing 344,445 pages of documents, and thus the defendant was seeking to recover costs for documents that were not used in the litigation.

It was noted that with respect to eDiscovery, other courts in the same district have found recoverable copying fees to be defined as “.TIFF and OCR conversion, Bates stamping, load file and other physical media generation.” However, the invoices submitted by the defendant for cost recovery contained, in addition to costs for documents that were not produced to the plaintiff, other charges for “data storage and data management,” as well as “Project Management” fees. The information that the defendant submitted was not sufficient to show that these costs should have been recoverable.

Judge Illston stated that the court declined to award costs to the defendant for data storage, data management, project management, and copying costs for documents that were not actually produced in litigation. Therefore, of the original $61,312 in copying costs, the defendant’s awarded recoverable costs were reduced to $6,870, an amount that represented “a charge of $0.03 per document for Bates stamping and TIFF conversion for 229,000 documents.”  With regard to the lesser divided costs of $24,199.14 and $1,752.32 which the Clerk awarded to the defendant, these costs were challenged by the plaintiff on the assertion that some of the costs were not recoverable.

Broadly summarizing, the plaintiff argued that delivery invoices for subpoena and summons, and costs related to printed or electronically recorded transcripts, specifically “(1) expedited deposition transcripts; (2) multiple copies of deposition transcripts; (3) additional CDs containing deposition transcripts and exhibits; (4) synchronization of video depositions; (5) multiple copies of DVDs; (6) rough transcripts; (7) color exhibits; (8) shipping of transcripts; and (9) transcripts of proceedings” should not be recoverable.

Judge Illston accordingly reduced the amounts to disallow categories 1 and 2 above ($453.29 and $6,818.54) respectively, leaving the defendant with a total of $32,983.59 in awarded costs.

So, what do you think? Should the costs of labor or intellectual effort be considered recoverable with regard to eDiscovery? How detailed should the level of reporting be when requesting recoverable costs following a judgment? 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.

Defendants – and Defendants’ Counsel – Sanctioned for Delays in Producing ESI – eDiscovery Case Law
In Knickerbocker v Corinthian Colleges, Case No. C12-1142JLR, (WDWA, April 7, 2014), Washington District Judge James L. Robart imposed sanctions against the defendants and the defendants’ counsel for their delays in producing Electronically Stored Information (ESI) during discovery, despite the fact that spoliation of evidence was ultimately avoided.

This workplace discrimination, harassment, and retaliation action involved three plaintiffs who were former employees of the defendants, and had been terminated from their positions. The plaintiffs filed first and second motions for sanctions, alleging in the first that the defendants had failed to preserve evidence, and in the second that the defendants had shown bad faith in their subsequent delay in producing evidence.

During discovery, the plaintiffs first expressed concern over the defendants’ “meager document production,” prompting several discovery conferences and correspondences between the counsel for the plaintiffs and the counsel for the defense. Eventually, the defendants’ counsel represented that as per the defendants’ policies, the plaintiffs’ email accounts had been deleted 30 days after their termination. Further, counsel stated regarding backup sources that the relevant ESI “could not be extracted without shutting down the servers; in other words, it was not extractable.”

Owing to the defendants’ apparent failure to preserve evidence, plaintiffs filed a motion to compel responses to particular discovery requests. In response, both parties stipulated to an order requiring that the defendant conduct a “full and complete search” at its own expense for all responsive documents, including “documents on backup servers.” The defendants complied and submitted more documents with a Verification of Compliance with Stipulation and Order Compelling Further Discovery, which stated in part that the defendants had conducted a complete search “on all available electronic sources and/or servers.”

After reviewing the defendants’ production, plaintiffs continued to allege that evidence had not been adequately preserved and collected. Further questioning revealed that although the defendants had issued litigation holds in previous litigation actions against them, they had not issued a litigation hold in this particular case. While the defendants’ previous policy had been to issue a company-wide notice to halt destruction of ESI, with respect to this case, the defendants claimed to have selected certain employees and asked them to retrieve and retain relevant documents. Yet in depositions, the employees at issue stated that they “had not searched, did not recall searching, and had not been asked to search for documents relevant to the litigation.”

At this point, the defendants’ total document production had consisted of only 1,272 pages. Defendants claimed that the document search was sufficient, alleging that the plaintiffs’ email accounts had been deleted prior to notification of pending litigation, thus before the duty to preserve had been triggered. However, the defendants admitted that the emails at issue existed on its backup tapes, but argued that they were not required to produce them because “the Stipulated Order only referred to backup ‘servers’, not backup ‘tapes’, and retrieval of information on the backup tapes would require ‘unreasonable’ cost and effort.”

Facing sanctions for spoliation, the defendants counsel changed their tune and represented that they were not only able to access the backup tapes and solve the spoliation issue, but that the total expense of producing the relevant ESI would be “a thousand dollars per day of recovery time,” and that the expenses would not be as great as previously warranted. Citing the counsel for the defendants’ representation that expenses would not be burdensome, Judge Robart deferred ruling on the plaintiffs’ most recent motion in favor of issuing an order to compel production specifically from the backup tapes.

Briefly summarized, the defendants far exceeded the time limit set for discovery production over a series of delays, difficulties, and missed deadlines, as the backup tapes were alternately reviewed and documents extracted by a third party vendor and the defendants themselves. Ultimately, an additional 3,000 emails were produced from the backup tapes, with the bulk of the production delivered 7 weeks after the final deadline.

Judge Robart found that the defendants had acted in bad faith, specifically stating that “there is clear and convincing evidence showing that [defendants] and [defendants’ counsel] have refused to participate forthrightly in the discovery process and that this refusal constitutes or is tantamount to bad faith…[t]herefore, sanctions are warranted.” The defendants were sanctioned in the amount of $25,000, and the defense counsel was sanctioned another $10,000.

So, what do you think? Does this case demonstrate clear bad faith, or simply incompetence on behalf of counsel? Should sanctions be ordered in cases where spoliation of evidence has ultimately not occurred? 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.

Perhaps the Most Recognized Standard in eDiscovery Just Got a Facelift – eDiscovery Trends
Probably the most recognized standard in a very unstandardized industry is the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) diagram.  For only the second time since it was originally published in 2006, the diagram has been updated.

As announced on Monday, the new Version 3 of the EDRM diagram (see the new diagram above) offers significant updates, primarily to express the importance of information governance (IG) as a key piece of the electronic discovery process.

The leftmost item in the model has been renamed “Information Governance” and its shape has been changed from a rectangle to a circle. These edits better align this diagram with EDRM’s Information Governance Reference Model (IGRM). The adoption of a circle also is meant to show that every well-managed eDiscovery process should start and end with sound information governance, as is reflected by the IGRM diagram here:

In addition, the line from Presentation to Information Governance has been widened. This emphasizes that no eDiscovery process is fully completed – no matter at what stage it stops – until it has been looped back to IG.

The final update to the diagram is the increased size of the words “VOLUME” and “RELEVANCE” in the bottom corners of the diagram. This change draws greater attention to the two core objectives driving most eDiscovery projects.

For comparison purposes, here is what the previous version of the diagram looked like, in use for five years (eons in the eDiscovery world!):

As the announcement notes, the process of updating the diagram began during a group session at the EDRM Mid-Year Meeting in fall 2013. Members agreed that with the increased attention on IG, an update to the popular model was necessary. Much time and effort were invested in creating a new diagram that accurately reflects the current environment. EDRM would like to acknowledge and thank member Wade Peterson of the firm Bowman and Brooke, LLP, who facilitated the model’s graphic design changes. The new diagram was shared at last month’s EDRM Annual Kick-Off Meeting where members approved the updated model.

The new (Version 3) EDRM diagram is available free of charge and can be downloaded in JPG, EPS and/or PDF formats from the EDRM website here. Use of the diagram is subject to a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License, which means it may be shared, remixed, or used commercially as long as attribution is provided by citing “EDRM (edrm.net).”

So, what do you think? Do you use the EDRM diagram?  If so, do you like the updates?  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.

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.

Plaintiff’s Failure to Communicate with Defendants Causes Complications in Discovery – eDiscovery Case Law
In Procaps S.A. v. Patheon Inc., 12-24356-CIV-GOODMAN, 2014 U.S. Dist. (S.D. Fla. Mar. 18, 2014), the defendants filed a Motion to Compel over search terms for Electronically Stored Information (ESI), after the lead counsel for the plaintiffs repeatedly demonstrated uncooperative behavior by not responding to emails sent by defendants’ counsel, or responding with brief and unclear messages.

This discovery dispute arose after Florida District Judge Jonathan Goodman granted the defendants’ motion for a forensic analysis of the plaintiffs’ electronic media. Several reasons were given for granting the motion, among them the fact that the plaintiffs’ personnel had been permitted to self-search for ESI without context – the employees had neither seen the defendants’ discovery requests, nor been given a list of search terms. Judge Goodman ordered that both parties agree to a preliminary list of search terms.

Following this order, counsel for the plaintiffs produced a list of eight search terms, in English, along with an advisory that the plaintiffs could “confer with our clients as to appropriate Spanish translation.” This was problematic because the plaintiffs’ business is headquartered in Columbia, and while some of its employees speak both English and Spanish, others speak only Spanish.

The defendants responded that the counsel’s proposal with the absence of Spanish search terms and a suggestion to translate the terms post-agreement was “patently unreasonable,” and further stressed that “perhaps most troubling is that it doesn’t appear these terms were discussed with [plaintiffs’] employees in order to determine what words and phrases they use.”

Counsel for the defendants attempted to reach the plaintiffs’ lead counsel with regards to this matter, first through a phone call, and then through an email follow-up that summarized the call, stating in part: “this confirms…[plaintiff] does not agree that it has an obligation to come up with search terms with input from [plaintiffs’] custodians about the words and abbreviations they use, and that [plaintiff] will not suggest any search terms other than the eight search terms it proposed.” The counsel for the plaintiff replied with a single-line email: “I do not believe your characterization of our position is accurate.” A response from the defendants’ counsel asking for clarification on which of the two points in the original email counsel believed to be inaccurate went unanswered.

Several further emails were sent, to which the plaintiffs’ counsel either did not respond, or responded with brief messages that did not address all the points questioned by defendants’ counsel. Due to the lack of communication regarding whether the plaintiffs’ counsel would confer with their clients regarding search terms, the defendants filed a Motion to Compel.

Judge Goodman held a multi-hour hearing with the parties, during which the plaintiffs’ counsel alleged that the defendants’ counsel had a history of “incorrectly summarize(ing) telephone conversations,” and further that the defendants were “seeking to engage in an ‘e-mail war,’ that email is being used ‘as a tool to gain an advantage’ and that [defendants’ emails] were an ‘ambush attempt’ and that he was not going to ‘get trapped into this kind of tactic’.” Additionally, counsel asserted that they had already been in communication with the plaintiffs’ ESI custodians, detailing in an affidavit that attorneys for the plaintiffs had spoken to a total of 24 custodians currently employed by the plaintiffs, as well as two former custodians, regarding search terms and ESI that was reasonably likely to contain relevant information.

Upon review of the affidavit and testimony, it was found that the plaintiffs’ counsel had first communicated with ESI custodians regarding search terms only on the day after the defendants had filed the Motion to Compel, and that the discussion outlined in the affidavit had taken place during the week after the motion had been filed. Therefore, the search terms had not in fact been discussed with the plaintiffs’ ESI custodians at the time of the email exchanges, contrary to what counsel had indicated.

Despite having ultimately arranged for the appropriate persons to provide search term input, Judge Goodman awarded attorney’s fees to the defendants in the amount of $3,750, with $1,000 of the fees to be paid personally by the lead counsel for the plaintiff due to his non-communication. It was stressed that this award was for fee-shifting purposes, and not intended as a sanction.

So, what do you think? Should apparent refusal to communicate provide grounds for sanctioning during the discovery process? 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.