Close
Enter your
text here

eDiscoveryDaily

Court Awards Sanctions, But Declines to Order Defendants to Retain an eDiscovery Vendor – Yet – eDiscovery Case Law

In Logtale, Ltd. v. IKOR, Inc., No. C-11-05452 CW (DMR) (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2013), California Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to discovery and awarded partial attorney’s fees as a result of defendants’ conduct.  The judge did not grant the plaintiff’s request to order Defendants to retain an eDiscovery vendor to conduct a thorough and adequate search for responsive electronic documents, but did note that the court would do so “if there are continuing problems with their document productions”.

Case Background

The plaintiff, a shareholder in pharmaceutical company IKOR, Inc. (“IKOR”), a filed suit against the defendant and two of its officers, Dr. James Canton and Dr. Ross W. Tye, accusing the defendant of misrepresentations to induce the plaintiff to invest, breach of fiduciary duties, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The defendant brought counterclaims for breach of a licensing agreement, theft of intellectual property, and interference with prospective economic advantage.

In the motion to compel, the plaintiff sought to compel the defendants’ compliance with a prior court order to compel the production of all responsive documents as well as to compel production from Dr. Canton, who objected to several of Plaintiff’s discovery requests.  The plaintiff contended that Defendants’ document productions were incomplete and that they “failed to adequately search for all responsive electronic documents”, asserting that all three defendants had produced a total of only 121 emails, 109 of which were communications with the plaintiff (including only three pages in response to a request seeking all documents relating to the defendant’s communications with a company run by three of IKOR’s principals. The “dearth of responsive documents, as well as the lack of emails from at least one key individual”, caused the plaintiff to “raise concerns about the quality of Defendants’ document preservation and collection efforts” and express concerns about possible “evidence spoliation through the deletion of emails”. The plaintiff also contended that Dr. Canton waived his objections by failing to serve a timely response.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Nyu agreed with the plaintiff’s, noting that “Given the paucity of documents produced by Defendants to date, as well as counsel’s own acknowledgment that Defendants’ productions have been incomplete, the court shares Plaintiff’s concerns about the inadequacy of Defendants’ search for responsive documents. Defense counsel has not been sufficiently proactive in ensuring that his clients are conducting thorough and appropriate document searches, especially in light of obvious gaps and underproduction. Under such circumstances, it is not enough for counsel to simply give instructions to his clients and count on them to fulfill their discovery obligations. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure place an affirmative obligation on an attorney to ensure that a client’s search for responsive documents and information is complete.”  She also agreed with the plaintiff regarding Dr. Canton’s objections, since he “offered no reason for his late responses”.

Judge Nyu ordered the defendants to “produce all remaining responsive documents by no later than August 26, 2013”, noting that “if there are continuing problems with their document productions, the court will order them to retain the services of an e-discovery vendor”.  Judge Nyu also granted attorney’s fees for the plaintiff’s activities “as a result of Defendants’ conduct”, albeit at a reduced amount of $5,200.

So, what do you think?  Was the sanction warranted?   Should the judge have ordered the defendants to retain an eDiscovery vendor?  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.

Need to Make Key Discovery Decisions? Build a Tree – eDiscovery Best Practices

There are several decisions that the lead attorney has to make when a new case is filed.  Decisions made early in the life cycle of a case can significantly affect how discovery is managed and how costly the discovery process can be for that case.  Decision trees are a mechanism that can help attorneys plan for discovery by enabling them to make decisions up front that can lead to more efficient management of the discovery process.

What is a Decision Tree?

A decision tree is a decision support tool that uses a tree-like graph or model of decisions and their possible consequences.  It is essentially a flowchart in which each internal node represents a test on an attribute, each branch represents outcome of that test and each leaf node represents the decision taken after computing all attributes.

Have you ever prepared an analysis at the outset of a case to estimate the probability of winning the case and determining whether to litigate or attempt to settle?  Then, you’ve probably prepared some sort of decision tree to make those decisions.  You probably looked at the probability of winning, probabilities of different award amounts, extrapolated the costs for litigating against the potential award amounts and used that to decide how to proceed.  Today’s graphic provides an example of what a decision tree, drawn as a flowchart, might look like to represent that process.

Uses of Decision Trees in Discovery

Decision trees identify the available alternatives to tackle a particular business problem and can help identify the conditions conducive to each alternative.  Issues in discovery for which a decision tree might be warranted could include:

  • Decide whether to outsource litigation support and discovery activities or keep them in-house;
  • Select an appropriate discovery solution to meet your organization’s needs within its budget;
  • Decide when to implement a litigation hold and determine how to comply with your organization’s ongoing duty to preserve data;
  • Determine how to manage collection procedures in discovery that identify the appropriate custodians for each type of case;
  • Decide whether to perform responsiveness and privilege review of native files or convert to an image format such as TIFF or PDF to support those review processes,
  • Determine whether to agree to produce native files or converted TIFF or PDF images to opposing counsel.

In addition to promoting efficiency in the discovery process by planning up front, decision trees can also promote consistency in handling cases.  Decision trees are a great tool for walking through the logic of the decision making process, which reduces mistakes in the process by making the process more predictable and repeatable.

So, what do you think?  Does your organization use decision trees in your discovery process?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Graphic source: Wikipedia.

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.

August Pop Quiz Answers! – eDiscovery Trends

Yesterday, we gave you a pop quiz for the topics we’ve covered in the past month.  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 of the following is NOT an eDiscovery Trailblazing Judge?:

 

A. Judy Sheindlin

B. Lee Rosenthal

C. Andrew Peck

D. Paul Grimm

While Shira Scheindlin is the eDiscovery trailblazing judge responsible for the Zubulake and Pension Committee decisions, Judy Sheindlin is the famous judge on the Judge Judy TV program.

 

2.  In which case, was a request to produce social media data denied “based on Plaintiff’s very limited showing as to the relevance of the requested discovery and the broadly drafted discovery requests”?:

 

A. Stooksbury v. Ross

B. Mali v. Federal Insurance Co.

C. Salvato v. Miley

D. Kwasniewski v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC

 

3.  For any malware found in files that you’re processing for eDiscovery, you can agree in the Rule 26(f) conference to:

 

A. Attempt to remove the malware with virus protection software

B. Isolate and log the infected files as exceptions

C. Either A or B

D. Neither A nor B

 

4.  What does a MinHash algorithm count?:

 

A. Shingles

B. Tiles

C. Logs

D. Bricks

 

5.  Which state recently issued a Rule 1 Task Force Update to create newly released guidelines for electronic data discovery?

 

A. Nebraska

B. Missouri

C. Arkansas

D. Kansas

 

6.  In which case was the defendant sanctioned with a default judgment for failing to comply with discovery obligations?

 

A. Stooksbury v. Ross

B. Mali v. Federal Insurance Co.

C. Salvato v. Miley

D. Kwasniewski v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC

 

7.  Where was the ILTA conference held this year?  Hint: it’s not pager friendly.

 

A. Bellagio

B. Aria

C. Caesars Palace

D. Mandalay Bay

If you saw The Hangover, you should know that Caesars Palace is not pager friendly…

 

8.  In which case was the plaintiff given a permissive adverse inference instruction which was upheld on appeal?

 

A. Stooksbury v. Ross

B. Mali v. Federal Insurance Co.

C. Salvato v. Miley

D. Kwasniewski v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC

 

9.  Which of the following is NOT a compressed format that can double in size (and cost) when expanded?

 

A. TXT

B. PST

C. ZIP

D. RAR

 

10. In Kwasniewski v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, the plaintiff’s motion to compel regarding production format was:

 

A. Granted

B. Denied

C. Granted in part, but denied in part

D. None of the above

 

Bonus Question!  You’ll have to dig a bit for this one:

 

Three of the four cases below (like the case that is the answer to question #2 above) had requests for social media or personal data denied, but one had the request granted.  Identify the case where the request was granted.

 

A. Keller v. National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co.

B. Rodriguez v. Nevada

C. Moore v. Miller

D. Mailhoit v. Home Depot

 

How did you do?  Next month, you’ll get another chance with September topics.  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 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.

August Pop Quiz! – eDiscovery Trends

Did you think we forgot to quiz you about last month’s topics?  Perish the thought!  Like we did in July (answers for July here), here is a pop quiz for the topics we covered in August.  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 for those who don’t know and didn’t look them up.

 

1.  Which of the following is NOT an eDiscovery Trailblazing Judge?:

 

A. Judy Sheindlin

B. Lee Rosenthal

C. Andrew Peck

D. Paul Grimm

 

2.  In which case, was a request to produce social media data denied “based on Plaintiff’s very limited showing as to the relevance of the requested discovery and the broadly drafted discovery requests”?:

 

A. Stooksbury v. Ross

B. Mali v. Federal Insurance Co.

C. Salvato v. Miley

D. Kwasniewski v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC

 

3.  For any malware found in files that you’re processing for eDiscovery, you can agree in the Rule 26(f) conference to:

 

A. Attempt to remove the malware with virus protection software

B. Isolate and log the infected files as exceptions

C. Either A or B

D. Neither A nor B

 

4.  What does a MinHash algorithm count?:

 

A. Shingles

B. Tiles

C. Logs

D. Bricks

 

5.  Which state recently issued a Rule 1 Task Force Update to create newly released guidelines for electronic data discovery?

 

A. Nebraska

B. Missouri

C. Arkansas

D. Kansas

 

6.  In which case was the defendant sanctioned with a default judgment for failing to comply with discovery obligations?

 

A. Stooksbury v. Ross

B. Mali v. Federal Insurance Co.

C. Salvato v. Miley

D. Kwasniewski v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC

 

7.  Where was the ILTA conference held this year?  Hint: it’s not pager friendly.

 

A. Bellagio

B. Aria

C. Caesars Palace

D. Mandalay Bay

 

8.  In which case was the plaintiff given a permissive adverse inference instruction which was upheld on appeal?

 

A. Stooksbury v. Ross

B. Mali v. Federal Insurance Co.

C. Salvato v. Miley

D. Kwasniewski v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC

 

9.  Which of the following is NOT a compressed format that can double in size (and cost) when expanded?

 

A. TXT

B. PST

C. ZIP

D. RAR

 

10. In Kwasniewski v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, the plaintiff’s motion to compel regarding production format was:

 

A. Granted

B. Denied

C. Granted in part, but denied in part

D. None of the above

 

Bonus Question!  You’ll have to dig a bit for this one:

 

Three of the four cases below (like the case that is the answer to question #2 above) had requests for social media or personal data denied, but one had the request granted.  Identify the case where the request was granted.

 

A. Keller v. National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co.

B. Rodriguez v. Nevada

C. Moore v. Miller

D. Mailhoit v. Home Depot

 

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 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.

The Sedona Conference Commentary on Ethics & Metadata – eDiscovery Best Practices

One of the most influential organizations in eDiscovery is The Sedona Conference® (TSC), and some of TSC’s most recent contributions have been documented in this blog, including a commentary on proportionality (released in 2010), database principles (2011) and guidance for judges (2012).  Last month, TSC’s Working Group on Electronic Document Retention & Production (WG1) released it’s Second Edition of The Sedona Conference® Commentary on Ethics & Metadata.

As noted in the Preface of the Commentary, it “focuses on the ethical considerations surrounding the inclusion and review of metadata in the non-discovery and discovery contexts.”  It is also “intended to provide practical guidance for lawyers in protecting confidential metadata and to assist the judiciary in fashioning appropriate discovery orders.”

The Commentary was first published for public comment in March 2012. Several recent significant developments in the law – including recommendations adopted by the American Bar Association House of Delegates in August of last year from the ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 to extend a lawyer’s duty of competence beyond simply competence in the law to competence in technology relevant to advising and representing clients, along with several dozen comments from WG1 members and the general public – spearheaded the updates.

In addition to the Preface and Conclusion, the Commentary is organized into the following sections:

  • Ethics and Metadata – Basic Concepts: Defines metadata and describes the different types of metadata (e.g., Application Metadata, File System Metadata, etc.) in detail, as well as describing a lawyer’s primary four ethical duties regarding metadata.
  • A Lawyer’s Ethical Obligations Regarding Metadata in the Non-Discovery Context: Discusses topics such as the ethical duties of a lawyer sending metadata or receiving metadata (generally), discussion of bar associations’ ethics opinions prohibiting data mining by the receiving lawyer and which jurisdictions generally do and don’t prohibit data mining and at least one bar association’s suggestion that a lawyer’s duties of competence and diligence require a search for and review of metadata included in electronically transmitted documents.
  • A Lawyer’s Ethical Obligations Regarding Metadata in the Discovery Context: Discusses how discovery is different (especially for the receiving lawyer, who is not only generally allowed, but also possibly mandated to search for and examine any produced metadata) and describes in detail the ethical duties of a lawyer producing metadata or receiving metadata in discovery.
  • Multijurisdictional Issues: Focuses on multijurisdictional conflicts in which a lawyer receives metadata in the non-discovery context.
  • Mitigation: Methods for mitigating metadata (when appropriate), including scrubbing, effective management of track changes, warning about electronic redactions and agreements and orders for handling metadata.

You can download a copy of the commentary here.  As always, you can visit the TSC website at to offer your comments on the public forum pages or submit feedback by emailing them at info@sedonaconference.org.

For more on metadata mining ethics, here’s a post from 2011 on an American Bar Association regarding the topic.

So, what do you think?  How do you handle metadata in your practice?   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.

SWOT Away Uncertainty in Your Discovery Practice – eDiscovery Best Practices
 

Understanding the relationships of your organization’s internal and external challenges allows your organization to approach ongoing and future discovery in a more strategic process.  A “SWOT” analysis is a tool that can be used to develop that understanding.

A “SWOT” analysis is a structured planning method used to evaluate the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats associated with a specific business objective.  That can be a specific project or all of the activities of a business unit.  It involves specifying the objective of the specific business objective and identifying the internal and external factors that are favorable and unfavorable to achieving that objective.  The SWOT analysis is broken down as follows:

  • Strengths: characteristics of the business or project that give it an advantage over others;
  • Weaknesses: are characteristics that place the team at a disadvantage relative to others;
  • Opportunities: elements that the project could exploit to its advantage;
  • Threats: elements in the environment that could cause trouble for the business or project.

“SWOT”, get it?

From an eDiscovery perspective, a SWOT analysis enables you to take an objective look at how your organization handles discovery issues – what you do well and where you need to improve – and the external factors that can affect how your organization addresses its discovery challenges.  From an eDiscovery perspective, the SWOT analysis enables you to assess how your organization handles each phase of the discovery process – from Information Governance to Presentation – to evaluate where your strengths and weaknesses exist so that you can capitalize on your strengths and implement changes to address your weaknesses.

How solid is your information governance plan?  How well does your legal department communicate with IT?  How well formalized is your coordination with outside counsel and vendors?  Do you have a formalized process for implementing and tracking litigation holds?  These are examples of questions you might ask about your organization and, based on the answers, identify your organization’s strengths and weaknesses in managing the discovery process.

However, if you only look within your organization, that’s only half the battle.  You also need to look at external factors and how they affect your organization in its handling of discovery issues.  Trends such as the growth of social media, and changes to state or federal rules addressing handling of electronically stored information (ESI) need to be considered in your organization’s strategic discovery plan.

Having worked through the strategic analysis process with several organizations, I find that the SWOT analysis is a useful tool for summarizing where the organization currently stands with regard to managing discovery, which naturally leads to recommendations for improvement.

So, what do you think?  Has your organization performed a SWOT analysis of your discovery process?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Graphic source: Wikipedia.

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.

Imagine if the Zubulake Case Turned Out Like This – eDiscovery Case Law

You’ve got an employee suing her ex-employer for discrimination, hostile work environment and being forced to resign.  During discovery, it was determined that a key email was deleted due to the employer’s routine auto-delete policy, so the plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions.  Sound familiar?  Yep. Was her motion granted?  Nope.

In Hixson v. City of Las Vegas, No. 2:12-cv-00871-RCJ-PAL (D. Nev. July 11, 2013), Nevada Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen ruled that the duty to preserve had not yet arisen when the plaintiff sent an internal email complaining she was being subjected to a hostile work environment and discrimination and that the failure to suspend its then-existing practice of automatically purging emails after 45 days did not warrant sanctions.

Here’s the timeline:

  • In March 2010, the plaintiff sent an email to a City of Las Vegas Personnel Analyst in the Employee Relations Division complaining she was being subjected to a hostile work environment and discrimination.
  • A chain of correspondence took place between April 6 and 7 of 2010 between the union representative assisting the plaintiff and a city employee.
  • In July 2010, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant constructively terminated her by forcing her to submit her resignation.
  • In September 2010, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the Nevada Equal Rights Commission.

The plaintiff and the defendant both produced the chain of correspondence from April 6 and 7 of 2010, but the defendant’s production omitted an email from the city employee (Dan Tarwater) to the union representative (Michael Weyland) commenting that “perhaps Weyland will have the good sense to have the Plaintiff retract her hostile work environment claim”.  Thus, the plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions.

The defendant indicated that their email system permanently deleted all messages after 45 days unless a sender or a recipient affirmatively saved the document to a folder, which didn’t happen with this particular email and also argued that “because Plaintiff has a copy of the email, any failure to disclose it is harmless”.

Judge Leen ruled that the “record in this case is insufficient to support a finding that the City was on notice Ms. Hixson contemplated litigation sufficient to trigger a duty to preserve electronically stored information by suspending its then-existing practice of automatically purging emails after 45 days.”  She also stated that “Plaintiff resigned July 15, 2010, and asserts she was constructively discharged. Nothing in the record suggests that on or before the date of her resignation, the Plaintiff threatened litigation, or informed the City that she had retained counsel about her employment disputes…By July 15, 2010, when Plaintiff resigned, the email system the City used as the time would have already purged Mr. Tarwater’s April 7, 2010, email unless it was saved to a folder.”

As a result, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions.

So, what do you think?  Did the defendant have a duty to preserve the email and, if so, should the motion for sanctions have been granted?   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.

Judge Says “Dude, Where’s Your CAR?” – eDiscovery Case Law

Ralph Losey describes a unique case this week in his e-Discovery Team ® blog (Poor Plaintiff’s Counsel, Can’t Even Find a CAR, Much Less Drive One).  In Northstar Marine, Inc. v. Huffman, Case 1:13-cv-00037-WS-C (Ala. S.D., 08/27/13), the defendant’s motion to enforce the parties’ document production agreement was granted after Alabama Magistrate Judge William E. Cassady rejected the plaintiff’s excuse that “it is having difficulty locating an inexpensive provider of electronic search technology to assist with discovery”.

On June 10 of this year, the parties entered into an agreement for handling electronically stored information (“ESI”) that noted:

“Both parties have or will immediately arrange to use computer-assisted search technology that permits efficient gathering of documents, de-duplication, maintaining the relationship between emails and attachments, full text Boolean searches of all documents in one pass, segregation or tagging of the search results, and export of all responsive files without cost to the other party. Both parties shall share with the other party the specific capabilities of their proposed computer-assisted search technology, and will endeavor to agree on the technology to be deployed by the other party.”

Sounds like a forward thinking plan, right?

As the order also noted, “In addition, the parties agreed to use certain search terms and agreed that ‘[a]ll documents in the search result sets shall be produced immediately to the other side in native format including all metadata.’”  On June 11, the court entered a Supplemental Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order adopting the parties’ plan with regard to ESI.

The defendants were ready quickly, informing the plaintiff on July 3 that they had “collected their ESI and were ready to produce the collected documents” and “inquired as to the method that plaintiff was using to collect its documents for production”.  The defendants sent subsequent inquiries on July 8 and July 24.  On August 6, plaintiff’s counsel notified defendants’ counsel that the plaintiff’s IT provider could not perform the tasks necessary to collect the ESI and that the plaintiff was “trying to locate outside providers of electronic search technology to assist with plaintiff’s ESI production”.  The next day, the defendants filed their motion to compel.

On August 21, the plaintiff filed a response to the defendants’ motion, not objecting to the defendants’ discovery requests, but rather stating that it was “having difficulty locating an inexpensive provider of electronic search technology to assist with discovery” and did not provide a date to complete its production obligation.

Noting that a Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order “is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril”, Judge Cassady called the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s scheduling order and supplemental orders “unacceptable”.  He also stated that “Plaintiff’s attempts to find an inexpensive provider certainly do not constitute due diligence” and granted the defendants’ motion to compel.

Ralph notes in his observations the perils of agreeing to search terms that have not been tested in advance.  I experienced that very issue with a client that had already agreed to search terms before I was brought in to assist – as a result, one term alone retrieved over 300,000 files with hits because they got “wild” with wildcards.  Always test your search terms before agreeing to them!

So, what do you think?  Do you test your search terms before agreement with opposing counsel?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Photo by Tracy Bennett– ©2000 – 20th Century Fox – All Rights Reserved

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.

Data Needs to Be Converted More Often than You Think – eDiscovery Best Practices

We’ve discussed previously that electronic files aren’t necessarily ready to review just because they’re electronic.  They often need processing and good processing requires a sound process.  Sometimes that process includes data conversion if the data isn’t in the most useful format.

Case in point: I recently worked with a client that received a multi-part production from the other side (via a another party involved in the litigation, per agreement between the parties) that included image files, OCR text files and metadata.  The files that my client received were produced over several months to several other parties in the litigation.  The production contained numerous emails, each of which (of course) included an email sent date.  Can you guess which format the email sent date was provided in?  Here are some choices (using today’s date and 1:00 PM as an example):

  • 09/03/2013 13:00:00
  • 9/03/2013 1:00 PM
  • September 3, 2013 1:00 PM
  • Sep-03-2013 1:00 PM
  • 2013/09/03 13:00:00

The answer: all of them.

Because there were several productions to different parties with (apparently) different format agreements, my client didn’t have the option to request the data to be reproduced in a standard format.  Not only that, the name of the produced metadata field wasn’t consistent between productions – in about 15 percent of the documents the producing party named the field email_date_sent, in the rest it was named date_sent.

Ever try to sort emails chronologically when they’re not only in different formats, but also in two different fields?  It’s impossible.  Fortunately, at CloudNine Discovery, there is no shortage of computer “geeks” to address problems like this (I’m admittedly one of them).

As a result, we had to standardize the format of the dates into one standard format in one field.  We used a combination of SQL queries to get the data into one field and string commands and regular expressions to manipulate dates that didn’t fit a standard SQL date format by re-parsing them into a correct date format.  For example, the date 2013/09/03 was reparsed into 09/03/2013.

Getting the dates into a standard format in a single field not only enabled us to sort the emails chronologically by date sent, it also enabled us to identify (in combination with other standard email metadata fields) duplicates in the collection based on metadata fields (since the data was in image and OCR formats, HASH algorithms weren’t a viable option for de-duplication).

Over the years, I’ve seen many examples where data (either from our side or the other side) needs to be converted.  It happens more than you think.  When that happens, it’s good to have a computer “geek” on your side to address the problem.

So, what do you think?  Have you encountered data conversion issues in your cases?   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.

Judge Sides with Both Parties in Form of Production Dispute – eDiscovery Case Law
 

The opinion in Kwasniewski v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, No. 2:12-cv-00515-GMN-NJK (D. Nev. June 28, 2013) suggests that producing parties can satisfy their obligation to produce documents in an organized manner by offering a table of contents, rendering text searchable, indicating which data responds to which request, and including certain metadata, such as Bates numbers.

During discovery, defendant Sanofi-Aventis responded to the plaintiffs’ discovery requests by producing a large number of documents. The plaintiffs objected, arguing that the response was improper because Sanofi-Aventis failed to provide an index, to indicate which documents corresponded to which request, and to Bates stamp the documents. Sanofi-Aventis argued that it complied with the discovery rules and produced documents as they were “kept in the usual course of business.” Moreover, it had produced the documents in a text-searchable format and included an index. The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion and ordered the parties “to meet and confer in good faith by discussing the merits of each argument in an effort to resolve the dispute without further Court involvement.”

The parties could not resolve the dispute on their own. Subsequently, the plaintiffs re-filed their motion to compel, asking Sanofi-Aventis to organize and Bates number its production by request. Sanofi-Aventis again asserted that it had produced the information properly.

The court began its analysis by quoting the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. To prevent parties from “‘obscuring the significance of documents by giving some structure to the production,’” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i)requires parties to choose either to “produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business” or to “organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request . . .” The court noted that “[p]roducing parties should not raise ‘unnecessary obstacles for the requesting party’ in the production of ESI.” As a result, “the production of ESI must be rationally organized to enable the parties to determine if responsive documents have been produced.”

Sanofi-Aventis responded that its production was organized and searchable; instead, the problem is that the plaintiffs had “not made a reasonable effort to determine which documents are responsive to their requests.”

The court found that Sanofi-Aventis had complied with Rule 34 by providing a table of contents that described “the types of documents and the volume and page number where those documents are located” and noted that “each volume number is readily identifiable via cover sheet.” Furthermore, Sanofi-Aventis “provided metadata for all the documents, which allows the Plaintiffs to identify the documents by bates range, file path, and document title.” Finally, all but 33 of the produced documents were text-searchable. Accordingly, the court concluded, “if the Plaintiffs make a reasonable effort, they should be able to obtain the documents responsive to their requests.”

Even so, the court found that Sanofi-Aventis’s responses were “deficient in that they create unnecessary obstacles for the plaintiffs”: they “should not have to guess which requests were responded to and which were not.” Therefore, the court granted the motion to the extent the plaintiffs sought “to determine whether the documents produced by Sanofi-Aventis were actually responsive to the Plaintiffs’ discovery requests.”

So, what do you think?  Was that a proper form of production?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Daily will be celebrating Labor Day by…not laboring, so we’ll be back with a new post on Tuesday, September 3.

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).  For eDiscovery news and best practices, check out the Applied Discovery Blog here.

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.