Close
Enter your
text here

eDiscoveryDaily

eDiscovery Trends: Is Email Still the Most Common Form of Requested ESI?
 

Email has historically been the most common form of requested electronically stored information (ESI), but that has changed, according to a survey performed by Symantec and reported in Law Technology News.

According to the article, Symantec’s survey, conducted this past June and July, included lawyers and technologists at 2,000 enterprises worldwide.  However, the article doesn’t indicate the total number of respondents or whether that’s the number of organizations receiving the survey or the number actually responding.

Regarding how frequently (percentage of situations requested) various types of ESI are requested during legal and regulatory processes, the survey yielded some surprising answers:

  • Files and Documents: 67 percent
  • Application and Database Records: 61 percent
  • Email: 58 percent
  • Microsoft SharePoint records: 51 percent
  • Messaging Formats (e.g., instant messaging, texts, and BlackBerry PIN messages): 44 percent
  • Social Media Data: 41 percent

Email requested in legal and regulatory processes just over half the time?  That’s more than surprising, that’s shocking!

Symantec’s survey also asked about implementation of a formal data retention policy, with 30 percent of responding companies indicating that they have discussed but have not implemented a policy and 14 percent indicating that they have no plans to implement a policy (44 percent total that have not implemented a policy).  Reasons for not doing so were as follows (respondents were allowed to pick multiple reasons):

  • No Need Identified: 41 percent
  • Cost: 38 percent
  • No Designated Employee (to implement the policy): 27 percent
  • Too Time Consuming: 26 percent
  • Lack of Expertise: 21 percent

Many of these companies may not feel compelled to implement a policy because they are not frequently in litigation nor are they in regulated industries.

So, what do you think?  Do the percentages above reflect your experience as to how frequently the different types of ESI are requested?  Does the email percentage seem significantly low?  In my experience, it does.  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Our First Birthday! eDiscovery Daily is One Year Old Today!
 

Break out the birthday cake and the noisemakers!  eDiscovery Daily is now a year old!  One year ago today, we launched this blog with the ambitious goal of providing eDiscovery news and analysis every business day.  And, we haven’t missed a day yet!  Knock on wood!

Since we last reported, during our “sixmonthiversary”, we’ve almost doubled viewership (again!) since those first six months, and have increased our subscriber base over 2 1/2 times over that span!  Clearly, there is no shortage of topics to write about regarding eDiscovery and we appreciate your continued interest and support!

We also want to thank the blogs and publications that have linked to our posts and raised our public awareness, including Pinhawk, Litigation Support Blog.com, The Electronic Discovery Reading Room, Litigation Support Technology & News, eDiscovery News, InfoGovernance Engagement Area, Ride the Lightning, ABA Journal, ABC's of E-Discovery, Above the Law, EDD: Issues, Law, and Solutions, Law.com and any other publication that has picked up at least one of our posts for reference (sorry if I missed any!).

Finally, a quick “thanks” to all who contributed to the blog in the past year, including Jane Gennarelli, Jason Krause and Brad Jenkins (my boss, got to thank him, right?), as well as Melissa Rudy for assisting with several of the posts.

For those of you who have not been following eDiscovery Daily all year (which is most of you), here are some topics and posts you may have missed.  Feel free to check them out!

Case Law:

eDiscovery Daily has published 50 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year!  Victor Stanley v. Creative Pipe, commonly referred to as the “Victor Stanley” case was followed throughout the year, including our very first post, as well as here, here and here.  More recently, the eDiscovery malpractice case involving McDermott, Will & Emery has captured considerable interest, with recent posts here, here and yesterday’s post here.

Also among the case law posts is Crispin v. Christian Audigier Inc., which seems to reflect growing interest in discoverability of social media data, as this post was the most viewed post of the year on our blog!

Project Management:

Project management in eDiscovery is a popular topic and Jane Gennarelli provided a couple of series of posts to address best practices in this very important area.  The eDiscovery Project Management series was published over the October, November and December months of 2010, while the Managing an eDiscovery Contract Review Team series ran over January, February and into March.

Thought Leaders:

eDiscovery Daily was able to sit down with numerous industry thought leaders, including George Socha, Craig Ball, Tom O’Connor, Tom Gelbmann, Jack Halprin, Deidre Paknad, Jeffrey Brandt, Alon Israely, Jim McGann and Christine Musil to get their “takes” on the state of the industry and where it’s headed.  Thanks to all of those individuals who agreed to speak with us this past year!  We will continue to bring you more perspectives throughout the industry in the coming year.

Search Best Practices:

There were several posts on search best practices, including don’t get “wild” with wildcards, these posts on how to look for misspellings, a case study for using term lists, these posts on handling exception files and this post on the benefits of proximity searching.  We also talked about the “STARR” approach for defensible searching and published this three part series on best practices for sampling and revising searches.

Cloud Computing:

As cloud computing has become a major organizational driving force (overall and as part of eDiscovery), we have addressed several topics related to it, including the importance to be able to load your own data, benefits of software-as-a-service (SaaS) solutions for eDiscovery, the truth about security of SaaS and cloud-based systems, the Forrester and Gartner forecasts for tremendous growth in cloud computing, and even Craig Ball’s thoughts on the benefits of cloud computing for eDiscovery.

And many more posts over the past year on various other topics that are too numerous to mention…

Finally, it’s important to mention that we have yet to archive any old posts, so every post we have ever published is still currently available on this site! (I can see the Information Governance buffs cringing at that statement!)  I believe that we are in the process of building an impressive knowledge base of information spanning all sorts of eDiscovery topics as well as the entire EDRM life cycle.  If there’s an eDiscovery topic you wish to research, chances are that it’s been discussed here at some point.  So, feel free to make eDiscovery Daily one of your first stops for your eDiscovery information needs!

So, what do you think? Do you have any topics that you would like to see covered in more depth? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Update: J-M Manufacturing Tries to Clawback Privileged Documents at Issue in McDermott Malpractice Case
 

One of the most talked about cases from an eDiscovery perspective this year is the case against McDermott Will & Emery for alleged malpractice in the disclosure of privileged documents.  McDermott’s former client, J-M Manufacturing, has contended that 3,900 privileged documents were erroneously produced as part of 250,000 J-M electronic records that were reviewed under McDermott’s supervision.  In late July, J-M filed an amended complaint to its case, naming Navigant Consulting, Stratify and Hudson Legal as third party vendors hired by McDermott to run documents through a filter to identify potential attorney-client privilege documents and perform review of those documents.

Now, J-M has filed a motion seeking clawback of 3,400 privileged documents it contends that McDermott wrongfully produced, claiming the US government and, then, their opponents in the case, received the documents erroneously from McDermott.

The malpractice case was filed in California Superior Court, but was successfully moved to federal court by McDermott.  Recently, Hobson Dungog Bernardino + Davis, representing J-M in this case, filed a motion to remand the case to state court.

J-M says the first production of privileged documents in the case, in response to federal subpoenas, occurred in 2007 and 2008.  Stratify was hired by McDermott to search 1.3 million electronic files to identify potentially responsive and privileged files.  J-M claims it took “various precautions to identify and segregate documents that were subject to attorney-client privilege.", but that McDermott turned over files to the government that were not properly screened for privilege. J-M retrieved those documents through an informal July 2007 “clawback” agreement with the government. Both parties agreed to “return, sequester or destroy any inadvertently produced privileged materials.”

According to the filing, J-M then turned over a second production to the government assuming that its McDermott and its vendor, Stratify, had properly conducted the privilege review as previously instructed.  However, on May 20, 2010 (two months after McDermott had been dismissed), attorneys for one of the relators (John Hendrix at Day Pitney), notified J-M that they held potentially privileged documents, J-M requested the return or destruction of the 3,400 privileged documents in June 2010, but was rebuffed by Day Pitney attorneys, who rejected the request saying J-M had waived privilege by not taking “reasonable steps to prevent disclosure” as specified in Federal Rule of Evidence 502 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.  J-M has contended that the production of privileged documents was inadvertent and not a waiver.

On February 18, 2011, almost a year after McDermott had been dismissed, J-M entered into a joint clawback agreement with all relators.  Ironically, in a June 3, 2011 email to Day Pitney attorneys, Sheppard Mullin noted an additional production in 2011 by them of 500 allegedly privileged documents as Stratify (still being used as the vendor in this case) “mistakenly released approximately 9,650 ESI files without first presenting them for attorney review”.  As these documents may fall under the February 2011 clawback agreement, the plaintiffs have expressed willingness to destroy these documents.

As Sheppard Mullin has been disqualified in federal court due to conflict of interest, J-M has hired yet a third mega-firm in the False Claims case, Paul Hastings.  The False Claims Act case is still awaiting trial, so it may be difficult for J-M at this point to show how the disclosure of privileged documents has caused it damages.

So, what do you think? Should J-M Manufacturing be able to clawback its privileged documents?  Is it too early to assess malpractice against McDermott? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Law: Texas Rule 196.4 Protects Parties from "Undue Burden or Cost"
 

A recent article published in Texas Lawyer and reprinted on Law.com raises the question of extensive and costly eDiscovery requests and how to handle them. The authors of Keep E-Discovery Costs from Torpedoing Litigation Budgets present a hypothetical scenario where the opposing counsel has requested production of 10 years of legacy electronic data – a prospect that could cost more in recovery expenses than the value of the entire lawsuit. What is the best approach for counsel to take under the circumstances and what kind of legal recourse is there if producing extensive amounts of electronic information doesn't make sense?

Meet Texas Rule 196.4

The answer – in the state of Texas, at least – is found in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196.4. Like Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2), Rule 196.4 states that parties must comply with "reasonable" production requests, but are not forced to produce electronic information for discovery if it cannot be retrieved "through reasonable efforts."  So, when it comes to unduly burdensome discovery requests, don’t mess with Texas!

Rule 196.4 also includes a provision that makes it possible to shift the cost of extensive discovery production to the requesting party. However, an attorney's ability to make a case for challenging a production request or shifting the cost of such production depends on thorough knowledge of the client's information systems. It's paramount to know the details of the client's data storage, backup systems, old and new equipment in order to make an objection on grounds of either Texas or Federal law.

Rule 196.4 Still Being Clarified

Courts are still ruling on how and when this rule applies, so it remains a useful recourse but not a foolproof procedure for issues surrounding extensive (and expensive) production. Therefore, courts have used Federal Rule 26(b)(2) and federal case law to help apply an understanding of what’s reasonably accessible.  In In Re Weekley Homes, LP (2009), the Texas Supreme Court addressed when a trial court may order production of information that is not reasonably available, but instructed trial courts to consider "the reasonable availability of information on a case-by-case basis" which leaves the implementation of these rules open-ended for the moment.

The Texas Lawyer article references other important cases, including the landmark Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC (2003) opinion (Zubulake I) which famously adopted a classification system of five categories of media on which electronic data is commonly stored, from most accessible to least, as follows:

  1. Active, online data, such as hard drives;
  2. Near-line data, such as an older robotic storage devices like optical disks;
  3. Offline storage/archives, such as removable media that can be labeled and stored on a shelf like CDs and floppy disks;
  4. Backup tapes, which are sequential access devices not intended for recovery of individual files; and
  5. Erased, fragmented or damaged data.

Understanding these five categories of media and their accessibility is a must for anyone to be prepared to respond to discovery requests, especially like the one posed hypothetically at the beginning of the article.

So, what do you think? Have you ever been hit with a production request with a scope that would have raised eDiscovery costs beyond the value of the suit itself? If so, what did you do? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Changes in Store for The Sedona Conference
 

One of the most influential organizations in eDiscovery is The Sedona Conference® (TSC), a Arizona-based non-profit, non-partisan law and policy think tank that has made numerous contributions to the industry since it was founded in 1997.  Some of the most recent contributions have been documented in this blog, including a commentary on proportionality released last year and database principles released earlier this year.

A couple of weeks ago, TSC announced that its Board of Directors “has adopted a new collaborative management structure designed to align the organization’s administration with its historical mission of dialogue and consensus building” and said that founder and former executive director Richard Braman is now its full-time chairman.  There will now be four Director-level positions, as follows:

  • Business Operations: Dustin McKissen is the new director of business operations, and previously was deputy CEO of the National Association for Information Destruction,
  • Conferences and Content: Howard Bergman joins as director of conferences and content, but will continue serving as counsel in residence at the University of Minnesota Law School,
  • Judicial Outreach: John Rabieg, previously appointed as executive director on Jan. 31, will move to become director of judicial outreach,
  • Judicial Education: Kenneth Withers, a member of Sedona since 2006 as director of judicial education and content, will narrow his focus to just the education component.

These four Director-level positions will now manage the affairs of TSC in a collaborative manner, reporting to an Executive Committee of the Board of Directors.  They will be formally announced at a Sept. 24 dinner in Washington, D.C.

As noted on their press release of August 29: “’The Sedona Conference’s success, right from the very start, has been based on creating intellectually stimulating and thought-provoking dialogue and content through collaboration by judges, lawyers, experts and academics,’ said Craig Weinlein, a member of The Sedona Conference® Board of Directors and a partner at Carrington Coleman Sloman & Blumenthal in Dallas. ‘Because of our growth in staff, activities, and influence, now are the right time to bring that dialogue-based, consensus building process to our business operations, in order to best maintain the quality of The Sedona Conference’s unique and highly successful efforts.’”

TSC now has nine Working Groups and presents ten to twelve conferences each year, focusing on “tipping point” issues in the areas of complex litigation, antitrust and intellectual property rights.  It will be interesting to see what impact the new management structure will have on the activities of the group.

So, what do you think?  Do you think this is a good move for TSC?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: To Get the Latest Trends, Go Virtual
 

Many of you have likely attended at least one LegalTech trade show at some point.  LegalTech New York (LTNY) happens every year in the late January/early February time frame and there is also a LegalTech West Coast (LTWC) show later in the year (this year it was in mid-May).  LTNY and LTWC usually have several good sessions, as well as the latest product and service offerings from exhibitors.  But, what if you can’t make it to one of these shows?

For those who can’t travel, but still wish to stay up to date on the latest trends, American Lawyer Media (ALM) has begun offering Virtual LegalTech (VLT) sessions quarterly.  This is the second full year that these sessions have been available and the sessions for this quarter are being held tomorrow (many of which are CLE eligible, at least in certain jurisdictions).  These online sessions are free to attend – you simply have to provide information to obtain a login ID and password.

VLT is set up just like an actual trade show.  There’s a “campus” with two exhibit halls, a CLE Center auditorium, a lounge and a resource room.  Copies of slides for presentations are usually available a short time after the presentation is conducted in the resource room.  You can even check out vendor “booths” in the virtual exhibit halls!

For tomorrow’s “show”, there are several sessions related to eDiscovery concepts, including:

9:00 am – 10:00 am ET:

Recover Costs, Improve Profits & Reduce Risk: Cost Recovery for eDiscovery Content

Description: Law firms, like all businesses, are constantly looking for ways to reduce costs and improve profits. Traditional cost recovery focuses on tracking, managing and assigning costs associated with activities such as scanning, faxing, printing, and e-mailing. To make documents eDiscoverable at point of capture, documents should be tagged with metadata such as filename, matter, client and billing code information; easing the burden on staff and lawyers, so more time can be spent strategizing the case and less time at the device handling administrative tasks. This session will explore various practices for integrating eDiscovery into traditional cost recovery tactics. Industry experts will also discuss tips and tricks to help profits soar while also reducing risk of data loss.

Speakers are: Chris Wyszkowski – Nuance Communications; Thomas Goldman, JD – Author of Technology in the Law Office, Second Edition

11:00 am – 12:00 pm ET:

Attack of the Clouds: Virtual Privacy & Online Security

Description: Look at cloud computing through the lens of eDiscovery and its easy to become confused as to whether the cloud is a great equalizer; allowing firms of all sizes to spend less time and money on the mechanics of eDiscovery, or the refuge of the naïve for whom its only a matter of time until their miracle solution falls flat. The cloud offers great cost savings and convenience to law practitioners, but there are very real concerns about cloud privacy and security.

Our expert panel will share a unique legal and technical perspective on privacy and security in the cloud, looking at case law regarding the liability of cloud providers and how it impacts the health of the cloud industry. This informative discussion will span legal and cybersecurity issues with the cloud, giving you a clear view of the risks and rewards involved with this exciting new technology.

Speakers are: Caitlyn Murphy, Esq. – Senior Product Manager, AccessData Group; Joshua Gilliland – Attorney and Author of the Bow Tie Law Blog; Jeffrey Dye – CISSP, Network Defense and Digital Forensics, General Dynamics

12:00 pm – 1:00 pm ET:

Unbundling Litigation: Selecting and Using E-Discovery Counsel

Description: There was a time when corporations expected litigation counsel to handle all aspects of litigation, including discovery.  However, as e-discovery becomes more complex and mistakes are increasingly common, there is a trend toward unbundling litigation and selecting a separate e-discovery counsel.  E-discovery counsel is often a separate law firm that specializes in e-discovery issues and can do the work better, faster and cheaper than general litigation lawyers.  This panel will discuss the pros and cons of using e-discovery counsel in complex litigation.  We will also discuss best practices for selecting and integrating e-discovery counsel into the litigation process.

Speakers are: Chris Dale – Moderator and Author of the eDisclosure Information Project (UK); Darryl Shetterly – Partner, LeClair Ryan, LLC; William Belt – Partner and Team Leader, Discovery Solutions Practice, LeClair Ryan LLC; Heather Bryden – Assistant General Counsel. e-Discovery Manager, Capitol One Bank

2:00 pm – 3:00 pm ET:

Information Security – A Systematic Approach to Protecting Your Organization’s Data During the eDiscovery Process

Description: Information security is a high priority concern for both corporations and law firms in the eDiscovery process. The challenge is translating this concern into practice. Failing to take special care to ensure security can expose your company or client’s most critical information and breaches the ethical standards of  client-lawyer confidentiality. A centrally managed, systematic approach based upon a formal management system is the best way to ensure the highest level of information security.

In this session, we will offer an overview of approaches that will allow lawyers to ethically meet their  professional obligations related to information security best practices, standards and processes, such as:

  • Why a process driven approach to information security is needed?
  • Who should be responsible for information security in the eDiscovery process?
  • What are the hallmarks of good information security?
  • How to evaluate information security practices in your eDiscovery partner or vendor?

Speakers are: Doug Stewart – EnCE, Director of Technology, Daegis; Andy Teichholz, Esq. – Senior eDiscovery Consultant, Daegis; Mark Michels – Former eDiscovery and Litigation Counsel, Cisco; Aaron Crews – eDiscovery Counsel, Littler Mendelson

3:00 pm – 4:00 pm ET:

Judge's Panel: Leveraging Technology to Reduce the Challenges of Discovery

Description: What are the most important facts that will allow you to leverage the technology created to assist attorneys with litigation and discovery? This group of distinguished judges will spotlight decisive concerns, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure reform and what can be done to alleviate the responsibility and obligation that is essential to compliant discovery practice. The most technologically advanced methods to effectively approach the planning and managing of litigation preparation to meet key requirements will be discussed. This session is a “must attend” for those interested is lessening the burden of discovery.

Speakers are: Hon. Frank Maas – Magistrate Judge, Southern District of New York; Hon. Patty Shwartz – Magistrate Judge, District of Newark, NJ and Adjunct Professor of Law, Fordham University Law School; Hon. Ron Hedges – Former Magistrate Judge

4:00 pm – 5:00 pm ET:

Cross-Border Discovery and Investigations – Developing a Strategic Response Plan

Description: Companies operating in the global economy face increasing scrutiny from regulators in the US and Europe, with enhanced risk of related cross-border litigation and discovery. Join Howard Sklar, Senior Counsel of Recommind and Denise Backhouse, Associate, eData Practice, Morgan Lewis, as they address the data management issues in developing a strategic, cost-effective plan for responding to international discovery and investigations:

  • Data protection issues in European/US investigations and discovery:  the legal framework and recent developments
  • Preparing for investigations and discovery: creating a response plan; establishing a team; effective communication and privilege protection
  • Best practices for handling data in international matters

Speakers are: Denise E. Backhouse – Associate, eData Practice Morgan Lewis; Howard Sklar – Senior Counsel Recommind, Inc.

To “attend” any of these sessions or learn more about Virtual Legal Tech, go to Virtual Legal Tech Show.

So, what do you think?  Do you attend virtual seminars?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Are Attachments Part of the Email Or Are They Separate?

A Special Master recently investigated the legal standard concerning whether or not attachments must be produced with the emails to which they were attached in discovery proceedings, and determined that there is no certain answer to be found in case law precedent.

In Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co, Inc., No. 08 Vic. 7508(SAS), 2011 WL 3738979 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2011), the defendants argued that SEI Investments (“SEI”) was at fault for neglecting to produce certain attachments to emails as part of discovery, and that SEI was obligated to produce these attachments and explain their absence. This request ultimately delved into issues of precedent and legal standard:

  • SEI stated that it had already produced the documents that were relevant and were not protected by privilege, and argued that it was not obligated to produce the attachments in question because they were non-responsive to discovery.
  • A Special Master was convened to consider the issue and to establish the legal standard for this type of discovery question.
  • The Special Master found a number of conflicting examples: In some cases, the obligation to produce attachments with the relevant emails was implied, but most of these instances assumed that attachments were required to be produced and focused solely on the format of production. In a number of cases, producing attachments with their emails has been the norm; however, in other cases, emails and attachments were treated as separate in terms of privilege determination.
  • The Special Master concluded that “conceptually” the two could be viewed separately, or they could be seen as a single unit for the purpose of discovery, and advised that the decision should generally be made by the parties involved in advance, during pretrial discovery talks.
  • In this case, the Special Master questioned SEI’s argument for not producing the attachments in question, and at the same time, argued against the probably unnecessary expense of forcing SEI to produce all attachments to all emails previously included in discovery.
  • Therefore, the Special Master made a series of recommendations that were adopted by District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin. These included: a) Production of the non-privileged attachments to the 126 emails previously identified by the defendants, as well as a complete list of any such documents that it proves unable to produce; b) permission for the defendants to request further such attachments as deemed relevant and necessary to this case; and, c) a meeting between all parties to discuss this issue and reach an agreement on policy regarding the production or withholding of email attachments and their format.

So, what do you think? Do you believe that email attachments should generally be produced as a matter of course with the emails to which they were attached, or that they should be considered as separate documents for the purpose of discovery? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

A Marriage Made for eDiscovery: EDRM and ARMA
 

EDRM has been busy lately, with a new Model Code of Conduct drafted recently and now this announcement.

As discussed in our recent two–part series on eDiscovery standards, there is a growing movement to develop industry standards, frameworks, or reference models to help manage eDiscovery. This week, there was perhaps a major move in that direction as the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) and ARMA International announced that they would be collaborating on information governance guidelines for eDiscovery.  

According to EDRM, the partnership began at LegalTech in New York back in February when ARMA reached out to suggest working together. The plan is still vague, but together these two groups hope to provide a framework for records management in the eDiscovery context. “I don’t know where this partnership will take us, but it’s just silly that two groups with similar goals and ideals would work in isolation,” says George Socha, an eDiscovery consultant and one of the co-founders and co-managers of EDRM.

Two years ago, EDRM started its Information Governance Reference Model, providing a conceptual framework for information governance. Today, the Information Governance Reference Model is primarily a rough guide for developing information management programs. But EDRM, which is a relatively small volunteer effort, hopes that the weight of ARMA, which boasts 11,000 members, will help flesh out the framework.

By contrast, the Association for Information Management Professionals (ARMA) International is an established and relatively large and influential group claiming 11,000 members in 30 countries. ARMA international has developed its Generally Accepted Record-keeping Principles, or GARP, framework to provide best practices for information management. The framework is designed generally for records-keeping management, but has been designed to account for the demands of eDiscovery. Though ARMA’s core constituency is records managers, the demands of litigation have been driving many of the group’s recent initiatives. 

Interestingly, as we’ve noted previously, ARMA has previously described the EDRM effort as falling “short of describing standards or best practices that can be applied to the complex issues surrounding the creation, management, and governance of electronic information.” However, the organization clearly believes EDRM’s network of experienced litigators and IT professionals will help it address the demands of eDiscovery.

If broad industry standards efforts are going to be developed, it will take more such efforts like this that cut across industries and bring expertise from different areas into alignment. Socha believes that though the EDRM and ARMA have traditionally served different groups, they have both realized that they are concerned with many of the same problems.  “A lot of the root causes of eDiscovery issues come from a failure to have your electronic house in order,” says Socha. “What the Information Governance Reference Model and GARP are about is addressing that issue.”

So, what do you think? Does the EDRM need ARMA? Or vice versa? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Defendant Ordered to Re-Post Infringing Photograph to Facebook Profile

A New Jersey court ordered the defendant to re-post a photograph displaying infringing trade dress to his Facebook profile for a brief period of time to allow the plaintiff to print copies, in a case involving trademark infringement.

In Katiroll Co., Inc. v. Kati Roll & Platters, Inc., No. 10-3620 (GEB), 2011 WL 3583408 (D.N.J. Aug. 3, 2011), the plaintiff argued for sanctions after the defendant pulled down infringing materials from his Facebook page and altered his Facebook profile photo, removing a profile picture that included the distinctive trade dress at issue in this case. The court ultimately decided against sanctions, but did order the defendant to re-post the photo in question, as follows.

  • The court first set out to establish whether or not the defendant’s actions could be considered as spoliation, citing the standard of review for the four criteria in spoliation. The four criteria include the party’s control over the evidence, apparent suppression or withholding of evidence, relevance of the destroyed evidence, and that it be “reasonably foreseeable” that the evidence would be required for discovery at a current or later date.
  • The altered profile photograph was deemed by the court to be relevant, and under the control of the defendant. However, whether that evidence was suppressed or withheld, and whether it was foreseeable that it would be required as part of discovery, remained at issue.
  • The plaintiff argued that the defendant should be sanctioned for failing “to preserve his Facebook pages in their original state” and “wanted PDFs of these pages prior to their being taken down”, but the court maintained that because these infringing pages had been removed at the plaintiff’s earlier request, it “would be unjust” to sanction the defendant for those actions.
  • The court also noted that Facebook profile photos are changed as often as weekly by those who use the site regularly, and that the defendant could not have known that changing his photo would have been an issue. “It would not have been immediately clear that changing his profile picture would undermine discoverable evidence,” the court maintained.
  • As result, the court declined to order sanctions against the defendant. Instead, the defendant was ordered to re-post the Facebook profile photo in question “for a brief time,” including the trade dress at issue (as they “ha[d] not been destroyed” and were “attached in several PDFs” to the court), so that the plaintiff might print whatever photos and Facebook pages it wishes. Afterward, the defendant was told to replace the photo again with a non-infringing image.

So, what do you think? Was the court’s decision fair, or should the defendant have been sanctioned for spoliation? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Social Media Lessons Learned Through Football
 

The NFL Football season begins tonight with the kick-off game pitting the last two Super Bowl winners – the New Orleans Saints and the Green Bay Packers – against each other to start the season.

An incident associated with my team – the Houston Texans – recently illustrated the issues associated with employees’ use of social media sites, which are being faced by every organization these days and can have eDiscovery impact as social media content has been ruled discoverable in many cases across the country.

Last year’s NFL rushing leader, Arian Foster, recently “tweeted” a picture of the MRI image showing his injured hamstring to all of his followers on Twitter. The “tweet” provided an explanation of where his hamstring was specifically damaged.

The problem is that NFL teams guard specific injury information regarding their players as if they were trade secrets and in a sport where sidelining your opponents’ best players is a competitive advantage, telling those opponents where your injury is located is not a wise move (what was he thinking?).  Also, there are strict guidelines within the NFL regarding the disclosure of injury information because (big surprise!) it can impact betting on the games.

Foster, who subsequently “tweeted” that he was just joking around, provided yet the latest reminder that former congressman Anthony Weiner and many others have provided before: think before you hit send.

But, as bad as the consequences can be to individuals who post content on social media sites unwisely, it can be just as bad (or worse) for organizations that employ those individuals.

Postings on social media sites by employees can range from simply embarrassing for an organization from a public relations standpoint to downright damaging to the organization in the form of disclosure of confidential information.  The risk is clear.  Yet, in the socially technological world in which we live today, it is impractical for organizations to “ban” use of social media sites by their employees.  It’s going to happen and companies have to be prepared to address it.

The best way to address it is to implement a sound social governance policy that provides guidelines for acceptable and unacceptable behavior on social media sites and the consequences for the unacceptable behavior.  Implementation includes education with training examples that clarify any ambiguities.  This blog post from last year illustrates factors to address in a good social governance policy.  Hopefully, someone from the Texans is explaining these concepts to Arian Foster.

So, what do you think? Does your organization have a social governance policy?  Does it train employees on the use of that policy? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.