Close
Enter your
text here

eDiscoveryDaily

Minnesota Implements Changes to eDiscovery Rules – eDiscovery Trends

Last week, we reported on potential amendments to the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that could be adopted within the year.  States are busy with changes too.  One such state is Minnesota, which has amending its rules to emphasize proportionality, collaboration, and informality in the discovery process.

As reported by Brendan Kenny in Law Technology News (Minnesota Amends Civil E-Discovery Rules), on February 4, Minnesota’s Supreme Court adopted amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure, scheduled to take effect on July 1 of this year. Notable were amendments to Rules 1 and 26, as follows:

  • Rule 1: To address proportionality concerns, the following was added to the existing rule: “It is the responsibility of the court and the parties to examine each civil action to assure that the process and the costs are proportionate to the amount in controversy and the complexity and importance of the issues” by considering the “needs of the case, amount in controversy, parties’ resources, and complexity and importance of the issues at stake in the litigation.”
  • Rules 26: Rule 26.02(b) was amended, requiring that the scope of discovery “comport with the factors of proportionality, including without limitation, the burden or expense of the proposed discovery weighed against its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.”  Also, Rule 26.06 was amended to require the parties to “confer [on discovery] as soon as practicable — and in any event within 30 days from the initial due date for an answer”.

As discussed in the article, here are some other notable changes:

Rule 37.03 will authorize courts to sanction any party who does not disclose information or witnesses by

  1. Precluding the party from using that information or witness.
  2. Ordering the party to pay the other party’s “reasonable expenses.”
  3. Informing the jury of the party’s failure, or (4) imposing “other appropriate sanctions.”

Rule 37.06 allows the court to require a “party or attorney to pay to any other party the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure” to “participate in good faith in developing and submitting a proposed discovery plan as required by Rule 26.06”.

Also, Rule 115.04 will allow courts to resolve motions to compel through an informal telephonic conference with the court, an option not previously in either Minnesota or federal court.

A link to the full set of amendments can be found here.

So, what do you think?  Has your state recently adopted any rules changes to address 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.

Court Agrees with Defendant that Preserving 5 Terabytes of Data is Enough – eDiscovery Case Law

In United States ex rel. King v. Solvay, S.A., No. H-06-2662, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30752 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 5, 2013), Texas District Judge Gray Miller granted the defendant’s request for a protective order where the plaintiffs only offered generalized, unsupported claims to support their request to extend and expand discovery.

In this False Claims Act, the plaintiffs, qui tam relators whose claims led to investigation by several state attorneys general, claimed the defendants engaged in off-label promotion of drugs, violated the anti-kickback statute, and retaliated against them.

The defendant, Solvay Pharmaceuticals, now doing business as Abbott Products (after Abbott acquired Solvay in 2010), filed a motion seeking a protective order from having to respond to the relators’ discovery requests about ongoing fraud, which it claimed were irrelevant to the claims in the lawsuit.

During the course of discovery, the company imposed a litigation hold and preserved more than 2,500 eMail backup tapes, more than 56,000 network share backup tapes, and roughly 5 terabytes of data on its network share drives—all dating from the 1990s through 2010 – and covering 89 custodians, both former and current employees. But the relators requested more. If the litigation hold were to expand to accommodate the relators’ requests, it would require the company to dedicate additional server space to store the data. Moreover, the company argued that it would cost at least $480,000 to process the eMails it was already preserving, and the review of those eMails would cost $2.3 million, excluding quality control, privilege review, and production costs. Adding the additional data from after Abbott acquired Solvay would drive these costs substantially higher. The relators objected, suggesting that the company’s “sweeping generalizations” about the potential burden were inaccurate. In the alternative, the relators agreed to an end date of December 31, 2012 or to depose witnesses to determine the appropriate cutoff.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1), courts can limit discovery to protect parties from undue burden or expense. Judge Miller agreed with the defendant that a few references that conduct was continuing “‘to the present’ in a 267-page complaint containing more than 768 paragraphs does not justify the burden and expense associated with unfettered discovery ‘to the present’ in a case in which discovery is already going to be incredibly expensive and time-consuming.” Although Judge Miller was willing to extend the relevant time frame to include some claims outside of the relators’ personal knowledge because the real party in interest was the United States, he was not willing to go so far as to permit the “generalized claims of ongoing conduct to form the basis for a fishing expedition.”  As a result, he granted the motion for a protective order, limiting the time frames for Solvay’s discovery obligations.

So, what do you think?  Was the judge right to limit the defendant’s discovery obligations?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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.

You Don’t Have to Be Rich to Use Richcopy – eDiscovery Best Practices

A couple of weeks ago, we discussed the pitfalls of using drag and drop for collecting files for eDiscovery and illustrated an example using a blog post that I wrote about a month ago in a Word document for the post Five Common Myths About Predictive Coding.  If you followed the steps along with one of your own files, you noticed that the resulting file appeared to have been modified before it was created, which reflects spoliation of the metadata during the copy process.

Last week, we discussed the benefits of Robocopy, how to access it via the command line prompt (if you have Windows Vista or later) and how to get it (if you don’t).  Then, we performed an example copy (using an Excel script I use to create the copy) and took a look at the results to show how the date metadata was preserved during the copy.  If you’d still like a copy of the Excel Robocopy script, feel free to request it by emailing me at daustin@cloudnincloudnine.comm.

If you want to be able to perform a forensically sound targeted collection, but would prefer a GUI based tool for performing the copy (instead of a command-line tool like Robocopy), then perhaps you should consider Richcopy.  RichCopy is a free computer utility program developed by Ken Tamaru of Microsoft to copy file directories.  It has some advantages, but also some pitfalls, to consider as a targeted copy and collection tool.

One of the benefits of Richcopy (in addition to the GUI interface) is that it copies several files simultaneously (“multi-threaded”), which can drastically reduce the time required for multi-gigabyte file copy operations (earlier versions of Robocopy didn’t support multi-threaded copying, but the current one does, with the /MT[:n] command).

Unfortunately, Richcopy has not been updated in nearly four years by the developer, so you may run into issues (for example, it apparently doesn’t handle file names longer than 255 characters) and, as a free utility, it’s not supported by Microsoft.  Also, Help doesn’t open up throughout much of the application, so getting additional information from the help file is not always easy.  Consider yourself warned.

You can download a copy of Richcopy from the link in this TechNet magazine article.  I did so, and performed the same copy of the Word document for the post Five Common Myths About Predictive Coding that I performed in the other cases.  Let’s see how Richcopy handled that file copy.

You’ll see below that the main form of Richcopy provides the ability to select the source and destination paths, and specify options (as indicated by the red box).  Once you have the parameters set, click the green “Go” button (as indicated by the red circle) to perform the copy.  Progress and logging information will appear in the two status windows below.

The Options button opens a dialog for specifying a variety of options, including copy parameters, thread counts, file attributes and error handling, files to be included and/or excluded (by name, extension or attributes, such as excluding system files) and logging.  As you’ll see below, I set the “files to be included” option to copy the example file I’ve been using in the other tests.

The result?  I did get a copy of the selected file which contained preserved file metadata (i.e., the Created date and the Accessed date reflect the original date and time when the file was created and last accessed).  However, it also copied empty folder for all of the folders underneath the source folder.  I couldn’t figure out how to turn it off and the aforementioned Help file issues didn’t enable me to identify a workaround.

If you absolutely require a GUI interface for free targeted file collection, Richcopy may be a better alternative than Robocopy, but not necessarily the best alternative.  Next week, we’ll begin discussing another free GUI alternative that not only supports targeted collection of files, but also supports bit-by-bit imaging to capture deleted files and slack space data!

So, what do you think?  Have you used Richcopy as a mechanism for eDiscovery collection?  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.

Court Forces Defendant to Come to Terms with Plaintiff Search Request – eDiscovery Case Law

In Robert Bosch LLC v. Snap-On, Inc., No. 12-11503, (D. ED Mich. Mar. 14, 2013), Michigan District Judge Robert H. Cleland granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel with regard to specific search terms requested for the defendant to perform.  The judge denied the plaintiff’s request for sanctions to award attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in bringing its motion to compel.

The plaintiff filed a motion to compel the defendant to perform the following two search terms for discovery purposes (where “!” is a wildcard character):

  • (diagnostic! and test!), and
  • ([ECU or “electronic control unit”] and diagnostic!)

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1)(A), a party must produce relevant documents and electronically stored information. While the defendant did not dispute that the search terms are relevant, they argued that the terms were so broad and commonly used in day-to-day business that searching the terms would be burdensome and result in overproduction by including large portions of their business unrelated to the case.  The defendant’s arguments were twofold:

  1. Overbroad: The defendant claimed that “the word ‘diagnostics’ is included in at least one custodian’s email signature and that ‘the vast majority of documents in Snapon’s Diagnostic Group include the word `Diagnostics,’ thereby effectively reducing the disputed terms to `test!’ and `(ECU or “electronic control unit”).’”
  2. More Appropriate Alternatives: The defendant contended that the term “diagnostic” would be sufficiently searched by already agreed upon searches which pair “diagnostic” with “more narrowly tailored conjunctive terms, such as ‘plug’ and ‘database,’ that are not as common as ‘test’ and ‘ECU.’” The defendant also claimed that the search terms were unnecessary because they agreed to run searches of all of the variations of the names of the accused products.

Judge Cleland stated that he found the defendant’s arguments “unpersuasive”, stating that “[e]ven though Snap-on has agreed to search all variations of the names of the accused products, the disputed search terms may uncover relevant documents that do not contain the accused products’ names. The court is not convinced that the terms “test” and “ECU” are significantly more common than “plug” and “database” such that searching (diagnostic! and plug) is reasonable but searching (diagnostic! and test!) is burdensome.”

Judge Cleland also suggested techniques “to limit any overproduction”, including not producing emails in which the term “diagnostic” was found only in the signature portion and using proximity connectors (agreed-upon with the plaintiff) in the searches.  He also recommended that the defendant “should communicate the proposed techniques to Bosch prior to running the searches” and that the “parties should discuss and agree upon the details of the techniques so that the searches are conducted without generating further motion practice on the matter.”

The judge, however, denied the plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the form of reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and expenses for filing the motion to compel, indicating that the defendant “has provided logical reasons for objecting to the disputed search terms”.

It’s interesting that the defendant didn’t provide document retrieval counts and try to argue on the basis of proportionality.  Perhaps providing the counts would reveal too much strategy?  Regardless, it seems that the wildcard search for “test” could be argued as potentially overbroad – there are 60 words in the English language that begin with “test”.  It looks like somebody is getting “wild” with wildcards!

So, what do you think?  Could the defendant have made a more effective argument, based on proportionality?  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’ Objections to Defendant’s Use of Keyword Search before Predictive Coding Rejected – eDiscovery Case Law

Is it possible to produce documents for discovery too early?  At least one plaintiff’s group says yes.

In the case In Re: Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation (MDL 2391), thhttps://cloudnine.com/ediscoverydaily/ralph-losey-of-jackson-lewis-llp-ediscovery-trends-part-1/e Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in a Multi District Litigation objected to the defendant’s use of keyword searching prior to performing predictive coding and requested that the defendant go back to its original set of 19.5 million documents and repeat the predictive coding without performing keyword searching.  Indiana District Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr. denied the request.

Defendant’s Discovery Efforts to Date

In this dispute over hip implant products, the defendant began producing documents in cases that were eventually centralized, despite (sometimes forceful) requests by plaintiffs’ counsel not to begin document production until the decision whether to centralize was made.  The defendant used keyword culling to reduce the universe of documents and attachments from 19.5 million documents to 3.9 million documents, and removing duplicates left 2.5 million documents and attachments. The defendant performed statistical sampling tests, with a 99 percent confidence rate, to determine that between .55% and 1.33% of the unselected documents would be responsive and (with the same confidence level) that between 1.37% and 2.47% of the original 19.5 million documents were responsive.  The defendant’s approach actually retrieved 16% of the original 19.5 million.  The defendant then performed predictive coding to identify responsive documents to be produced from the set of 2.5 million documents.

According to the order, the defendant’s eDiscovery costs “are about $1.07 million and will total between $2 million and $3.25 million.” {emphasis added}  The defendant “invited the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee to suggest additional search terms and offered to produce the rest of the non-privileged documents from the post-keyword 2.5 million”, but they declined, “believing they are too little to assure proper document production”.

Plaintiffs’ Objections

The plaintiffs’ Steering Committee objected, claiming that the defendant’s use of keyword searching “has tainted the process”, pointing to an article which “mentioned unidentified ‘literature stating that linear review would generate a responsive rate of 60 percent and key word searches only 20 percent, and [the defendants in the case being discussed] proposed that predictive coding at a 75 percent responsive rate would be sufficient.’” {emphasis added}  They requested that the defendant “go back to its 19.5 million documents and employ predictive coding, with plaintiffs and defendants jointly entering the ‘find more like this’ commands.”  In response to the defendant’s objections that virtually starting over would cost additional millions, the Steering Committee blamed the defendant for spending millions on document production despite being warned not to begin until the cases had been centralized.

Judge’s Ruling

Noting that “[w]hat Biomet has done complies fully with the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b) and 34(b)(2)”, Judge Miller noted that “the Steering Committee’s request that Biomet go back to Square One…and institute predictive coding at that earlier stage sits uneasily with the proportionality standard in Rule 26(b)(2)(C).”  Continuing, Judge Miller stated:

“Even in light of the needs of the hundreds of plaintiffs in this case, the very large amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake, and the importance of this discovery in resolving the issues, I can’t find that the likely benefits of the discovery proposed by the Steering Committee equals or outweighs its additional burden on, and additional expense to, Biomet.”

Judge Miller also rejected the Steering Committee’s position that the defendant can’t rely on proportionality arguments because they proceeded with document production while the centralization decision was pending: “The Steering Committee hasn’t argued (and I assume it can’t argue) that Biomet had no disclosure or document identification obligation in any of the cases that were awaiting a ruling on (or even the filing of) the centralization petition.”  As a result, he ruled that the Steering Committee would have to bear the expense for “production of documents that can be identified only through re-commenced processing, predictive coding, review, and production”.

So, what do you think?  Was the judge correct to accept the defendant’s multimodal approach to 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.

Changes to Federal eDiscovery Rules Could Be Coming Within a Year – eDiscovery Trends

As reported by Henry Kelston in Law Technology News (Are We on the Cusp of Major Changes to E-Discovery Rules?), another major set of amendments to the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is getting closer and could be adopted within the year.  The United States Courts’ Advisory Committee on Civil Rules voted last week to send a slate of proposed amendments up the rulemaking chain, to its Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, with a recommendation that the proposals be approved for publication and public comment later this year.

Potential Revisions that Have Impact to Discovery Include:

  • Rule 26: Changes incorporate a limitation to the general scope of discovery allowed by Rule 26(b)(1) as to what is proportional to the needs of the case, measured by the cost-benefit calculus now required by Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) that is currently used most often when a party moves to limit discovery.
  • Rules 30 and 31: Changes reduce the number of depositions (oral and written) allowed per side, from 10 to 5, and reduce the time limit for each deposition, from 7 hours to 6 hours.
  • Rule 33: Changes reduce the number of interrogatories permitted, from 25 to 15.
  • Rule 34: Amendment requires that objections to document requests be stated with specificity and include a statement as to whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of the objection.
  • Rule 36: Implements a new limit of 25 requests for admission for each party, with requests to admit the genuineness of documents expressly exempted from the limit of 25.
  • Rule 37: The proposed amendment in Rule 37(e) is intended to create a uniform national standard regarding the level of culpability required to justify severe sanctions for spoliation, establishing a non-sanction category of measures a court may impose when it finds that a party failed to meet its preservation obligation, such as allowing additional discovery, requiring a party to recreate or obtain the information it lost, or ordering a party to pay reasonable expenses resulting from the loss of information.  Rule 37(b)(2)(A) includes a “hotly debated” amendment that the court may impose sanctions or order an adverse jury instruction only if it finds that the failure to preserve caused “substantial prejudice” in the litigation and was “willful or in bad faith,” or that the failure to preserve “irreparably deprived a party of any meaningful opportunity” to litigate the claims in the action.

The proposed changes to Rule 37, in particular, appear to give producing parties more latitude when failing to meet their preservation obligation was not willful or in bad faith.  As the article notes, “if the standing committee approves the proposed amendments for publication at its meeting in early June, the amendments would be published for public comment soon thereafter. The public comment period for proposed rules normally lasts six months. The advisory committee, anticipating a high level of public interest in the proposals, plans to hold several days of public hearings in different cities around the U.S., with dates and locations yet to be announced.”

So, what do you think?  Are you pleased or concerned with the proposed amendments?  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.

Performing an Example Copy with Robocopy – eDiscovery Best Practices

Yesterday, we discussed the benefits of Robocopy, how to access it via the command line prompt (if you have Windows Vista or later) and how to get it (if you don’t).  Today, we’re going to perform an example copy and take a look at the results.

As you’ll recall, we discussed the pitfalls last week of using drag and drop for collecting files for eDiscovery and illustrated an example using a blog post that I wrote about a month ago in a Word document for the post Five Common Myths About Predictive Coding.  If you followed the steps along with one of your own files, you noticed that the resulting file appeared to have been modified before it was created, which reflects spoliation of the metadata during the copy process.  Let’s see how Robocopy handles that file copy.

I mentioned yesterday that Robocopy is a command line tool.  If you’re really good at typing long commands at the command prompt without making a mistake, you can enter cmd in the ‘Search programs and files’ box from the Windows Start menu (‘Start’, then ‘Run’, for older versions on Windows) and that will open up a window with the command prompt.  Feel free to “have at it”.

I actually use Excel as a Robocopy script builder – courtesy of CloudNine Discovery’s Vice President of Computer Forensics, Michael Heslop (thanks, Mikey!).  The Excel workbook that I’m using takes user entered information regarding the custodian’s files to be copied and uses that to build a Robocopy statement that can then be executed at the command prompt.  I have three script examples in the Excel file: 1) Script to copy all files/folders in a folder path, 2) Script to copy specific file extensions in a folder path, and 3) Script to copy one file in a folder path.  It’s the third script example I’ll use here.

You’ll see below that I’ve highlighted the changes I’ve made to the single file copy script in the Excel spreadsheet, specifying the file name that I want to copy, the name of the custodian, the destination drive (in this case, the “E:” drive which references a connected external drive) and the path to be copied.

The resulting Robocopy statement created is as follows:

robocopy “C:Usersdaustin” “E:Austin, DougCUsersdaustin” “Common Myths About Predictive Coding–eDiscovery Best Practices.docx” /S /ZB /XJ /V /TEE /W:0 /R:0 /LOG+:”E:RobcopyLog-Austin,Doug.log”

This statement (that Michael created) takes the prompt information I’ve provided and uses it to build the Robocopy statement with desired copy and logging options.  To see a list of available options for Robocopy, type robocopy /? at the command prompt.

I take the Robocopy statement and copy it, pasting it into an empty file in Notepad or Wordpad, then save it with a file name that contains a “.bat” extension (e.g., robocop1.bat, saved to my desktop).  Then, simply double-click the file and it will open up a command window on the desktop and execute the statement.

Doing so put a copy of the file in the E:Austin, DougCUsersdaustinDocuments folder.  It also created a log file at the root which documents every folder it checked and the one folder in which it found the file.  Look at the properties of the copied file and you’ll see:

The Created date and the Accessed date reflect the original date and time when the file was created and last accessed.  That’s what we want!

You can request a copy of my Excel Robocopy script builder by sending an email to me at daustin@cloudnincloudnine.comm and I’ll be happy to send it to you.   It’s rudimentary, but it works!

So, what do you think?  Have you used Robocopy as a mechanism for eDiscovery collection?  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 Save Your Metadata in Collection? Robocop(y) to the Rescue! – eDiscovery Best Practices

I may be showing my age, but I love the original movie RoboCop (1987).  Good movie for its time (the original, not the sequels).  But, I digress…

Last week, we discussed the pitfalls of using drag and drop for collecting files for eDiscovery and illustrated an example using a blog post that I wrote about a month ago in a Word document for the post Five Common Myths About Predictive Coding.  If you followed the steps along with one of your own files, you noticed that the resulting file appeared to have been modified before it was created, which reflects spoliation of the metadata during the copy process.

I mentioned that there are better, more forensically sound, free methods for collecting data.  One such method is Robocopy.  Robocopy is short for “Robust File Copy”.  So, technically, it has nothing to do with RoboCop, unless you consider that it protects your file metadata during the copy and saves you from spoliation of data.  Here are some key benefits:

  • Saves Metadata: Preserves file system date/time stamps which, as we illustrated last week, drag and drop does not preserve;
  • Targeted Collections: Suitable for targeted active file collections, primarily based on copying folders and their contents (files and sub-folders), not for deleted files or data from unallocated space;
  • Reliable: Enables the user to resume copying where it left off in the event of network/system interruptions;
  • Complete: Supports mirroring of the source folder so that the entire contents can be copied, including empty folders;
  • Self-Documenting: Provides an option to log the copy process for self-documentation, useful for chain of custody tracking.

If you have Windows Vista (or a later version of Windows, such as Windows 7 or Windows 8), you already have the command line version of Robocopy.  Robocopy provides numerous options for copying, including how files are copied, which files are selected, options for retrying files that fail to copy and options to log the copy process.  To see all syntax options for Robocopy (and there are many), type robocopy /? at the command prompt.

If you have an earlier version of Windows (like XP), Robocopy is not automatically included with your version of Windows.  To install it you have two options: 1. Download the robocopy.exe from the Windows 2003 resource kit, or 2. Install a GUI version which includes the exe.

If you prefer a GUI interface for later versions of Windows, you can try Richcopy (which we will discuss next week).

Not excited about using a command line tool?  Tomorrow, we will walk through a Robocopy exercise with the same file I copied last week and I will discuss how you can build a Robocopy “script” in Excel (or use one that I already have) to make the copying and collection process easier.

So, what do you think?  Have you used Robocopy as a mechanism for eDiscovery collection?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Image Copyright ©Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc.

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 Receives Adverse Inference Sanction for Deleting Facebook Profile – eDiscovery Case Law

Unlike last week’s case law summary about a case where a request for social media data was denied, this week’s case law summary relates to sanctions for deleting a social media data profile.

In Gatto v. United Air Lines, Inc., No. 10-cv-1090-ES-SCM, (D.N.J. Mar. 25, 2013), New Jersey Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion issued an adverse inference sanction against the plaintiff for failing to preserve data due to the fact that he either, deactivated his Facebook account and allowed the account to be automatically deleted after fourteen days, or that he deleted the account outright.  Judge Mannion denied the defendant’s request for attorney’s fees and costs for “the time and effort it was forced to expend in an effort to obtain discovery”.

Case Background

In this personal injury action, a ground operations supervisor alleged injuries after vehicles operated by the defendants did “crash into him”.  The defendants served a production request to the plaintiff in July 2011 which included a request for documents and information related to social media accounts maintained by the plaintiff.  In November 2011, the plaintiff provided the defendants with signed authorizations for the release of information from sites such as eBay and PayPal, but did not include an authorization for the release of records from Facebook.  In a settlement conference in December 2011, the judge ordered the plaintiff to execute an authorization for the release of documents and information from Facebook and the plaintiff agreed to change his password and provide it to the defendants.

However, the parties disputed whether it was agreed that defense counsel would directly access the plaintiff’s Facebook account.  The defendants subsequently accessed the account and the plaintiff received an alert from Facebook that his account was logged onto from an unfamiliar IP address.  After, in January 2012, the plaintiff’s counsel agreed to download the Facebook account information and provide a copy to the parties, it was determined that the plaintiff’s Facebook account had been deactivated back on December 16, 2011 (after he received the alert from Facebook), and that all of the plaintiff’s account data was lost.  As a result, the defendants requested the adverse inference instruction and monetary sanctions.

Judge’s Evaluation and Ruling

Judge Mannion noted four factors in considering an adverse inference instruction sanction:

  1. the evidence was within the party’s control;
  2. there was an actual suppression or withholding of evidence;
  3. the evidence was destroyed or withheld was relevant to the claims or defenses; and
  4. it was reasonably foreseeable that the evidence would be discoverable.

Judge Mannion stated, “Here, the deletion of Plaintiff’s Facebook account clearly satisfies the first, third, and fourth of the aforementioned factors.  Plaintiff’s Facebook account was clearly within his control, as Plaintiff had authority to add, delete, or modify his account’s content…It is also clear that Plaintiff’s Facebook account was relevant to the litigation.”  With regard to the second factor and the plaintiff’s claim that the deletion was unintentional, Judge Mannion ruled that “Even if Plaintiff did not intend to permanently deprive the defendants of the information associated with his Facebook account, there is no dispute that Plaintiff intentionally deactivated the account. In doing so, and then failing to reactivate the account within the necessary time period, Plaintiff effectively caused the account to be permanently deleted.”  Finding all four factors satisfied, Judge Mannion granted the adverse inference instruction sanction.  With regard to the request for fees and costs, Judge Mannion ruled that “such a decision is left to the discretion of the court” and denied the request.

So, what do you think?  Was the sanction appropriate?  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.

Appeals Court Upholds Decision Not to Recuse Judge Peck in Da Silva Moore – eDiscovery Case Law

As reported by IT-Lex, the Second Circuit of the US Court of Appeals rejected the Plaintiff’s request for a writ of mandamus recusing Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck from Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe SA.

The entire opinion is stated as follows:

“Petitioners, through counsel, petition this Court for a writ of mandamus compelling the recusal of Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the mandamus petition is DENIED because Petitioners have not ‘clearly and indisputably demonstrate[d] that [Magistrate Judge Peck] abused [his] discretion’ in denying their district court recusal motion, In re Basciano, 542 F. 3d 950, 956 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc., 861 F.2d 1307, 1312-13 (2d Cir. 1988)), or that the district court erred in overruling their objection to that decision.”

Now, the plaintiffs have been denied in their recusal efforts in three courts.

Since it has been a while, let’s recap the case for those who may have not been following it and may be new to the blog.

Last year, back in February, Judge Peck issued an opinion making this case likely the first case to accept the use of computer-assisted review of electronically stored information (“ESI”) for this case.  However, on March 13, District Court Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted the plaintiffs’ request to submit additional briefing on their February 22 objections to the ruling.  In that briefing (filed on March 26), the plaintiffs claimed that the protocol approved for predictive coding “risks failing to capture a staggering 65% of the relevant documents in this case” and questioned Judge Peck’s relationship with defense counsel and with the selected vendor for the case, Recommind.

Then, on April 5, Judge Peck issued an order in response to Plaintiffs’ letter requesting his recusal, directing plaintiffs to indicate whether they would file a formal motion for recusal or ask the Court to consider the letter as the motion.  On April 13, (Friday the 13th, that is), the plaintiffs did just that, by formally requesting the recusal of Judge Peck (the defendants issued a response in opposition on April 30).  But, on April 25, Judge Carter issued an opinion and order in the case, upholding Judge Peck’s opinion approving computer-assisted review.

Not done, the plaintiffs filed an objection on May 9 to Judge Peck’s rejection of their request to stay discovery pending the resolution of outstanding motions and objections (including the recusal motion, which has yet to be ruled on.  Then, on May 14, Judge Peck issued a stay, stopping defendant MSLGroup’s production of electronically stored information.  On June 15, in a 56 page opinion and order, Judge Peck denied the plaintiffs’ motion for recusal.  Judge Carter ruled on the plaintiff’s recusal request on November 7, denying the request and stating that “Judge Peck’s decision accepting computer-assisted review … was not influenced by bias, nor did it create any appearance of bias”.

So, what do you think?  Will this finally end the recusal question in this case?  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.