Close
Enter your
text here

eDiscoveryDaily

eDiscovery Case Law: A Pennsylvania Court Conducts Its Own Social Media Relevancy Review

Pennsylvania seems to be taking the lead in setting social media discovery precedents, as evidenced by this case summarized on eDiscovery Daily earlier this week.  In this case, a Pennsylvania court agreed to review a plaintiff’s Facebook account in order to determine which information is subject to discovery in a case relating to the plaintiff’s claim of injury in a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff in Offenback v. L.M. Bowman, Inc., No. 1:10-CV-1789, 2011 WL 2491371 (M.D. Pa. June 22, 2011) was directed to allow the court to access his Facebook and MySpace accounts in order to determine which parts of his social media accounts are subject to discovery. After a thorough review, the court expressed its “confusion” over the plaintiff’s inability to conduct this review himself in order to present discoverable information to the court:

  • The plaintiff claimed that he suffered injuries in a car accident on November 6, 2008 that “limited his ability to sit, walk, stand, ride in a vehicle, bend, stoop, push, pull, and lift”. He also claimed he could not work and was unable to relocate as he’d planned to do before the accident.  Additionally, the plaintiff claimed that he “suffers anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress as a result of the accident”.
  • The court found the client’s physical and emotional experience relevant in this case, and sought discovery of key information in his social media accounts that might shed light on his health and well-being at the time of the accident and thereafter.
  • The court initially requested access to both the plaintiff’s Facebook and MySpace accounts, but changed the order to request access exclusively to his Facebook account once the plaintiff had asserted that he had not accessed MySpace since November 2008 and had lost the requested login information in the intervening period.
  • After its review, the court consulted both the plaintiff and the defendant about the Facebook photos, updates, and other materials it considered relevant, in consideration of the “broad scope of relevance” argued by the defendants.
  • Notably, the court ordered discovery of photographs and Facebook updates indicating that the plaintiff purchased a motorcycle in 2010 and may have ridden it from Kentucky to Pennsylvania and possibly on a trip to West Virginia.
  • The court ended its review by expressing its “confusion about why the parties required the Court’s assistance in deciding which information within the plaintiff’s Facebook account is responsive to Defendants’ discovery requests”. The court stated its desire that, in future cases of a similar nature, the plaintiff be accountable for reviewing his own Facebook profile, presenting discoverable materials and raising objections if so desired.

So, what do you think? Should the court have conducted the review itself? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Section 1782 – For Foreign Parties to Request U.S. Discovery
 

We've discussed international eDiscovery issues and the process that U.S. attorneys have to go through as they request electronic documents and evidence from locations in other countries around the world in a couple of recent posts. But what about the reverse? Does the Hague Evidence Convention cover international requests for electronic information that is held by U.S. businesses and individuals?

In fact, it does, but the Hague Convention is not the primary legal statute used by foreign entities to request discovery within the United States. Section 1782 of Title 28 of the United States Code, widely known as "Section 1782," is a federal statute that allows attorneys outside the U.S. to request discovery in American courts from an American citizen or business. This statute lays out the requirements that must be met by any international requests for either testimonial evidence or documents – including electronic documents requested in the discovery process.

In many ways, it's easier for foreign attorneys and interested parties to request data within the U.S. Section 1782 than it is for U.S. lawyers to request discovery in other countries. Section 1782 is designed to simplify the process and spell out what U.S. courts are trying to acquire through these international discovery requests. There are three requirements in Section 1782 for anyone applying for discovery information:

  1. The applicant under Section 1782 must demonstrate that he or she is an "interested person" in a proceeding outside the U.S.;
  2. The proceeding must be conducted before a foreign "tribunal"; and
  3. The application under Section 1782 must be filed in the district of the person or entity from which evidence is requested.

Section 1782 discovery isn't effortless by any means – it requires several types of proof of relevance before discovery will be permitted – but it does provide a framework for legal discovery across national boundaries, one that is arguably much friendlier and more transparent than the rules U.S. attorneys must navigate when conducting discovery requests in other nations in the European Union (E.U.), Asia, Africa, and elsewhere around the world.

So, what do you think? Have you ever been involved in a proceeding that involved Section 1782 discovery? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Is eDiscovery Malpractice More Widespread Than You Think?
 

Last month, we discussed the eDiscovery malpractice case filed against McDermott Will & Emery for allegedly failing to supervise contract attorneys that were hired to perform the client’s work and to protect privileged client records.  This case is still continuing to generate much buzz in the eDiscovery community and I’m sure it will be closely followed as it progresses.

At least one attorney from another firm has weighed in on the possibility of eDiscovery malpractice in other cases.  Dennis Kiker, a partner with LeClair Ryan noted in their blog The e-Discovery Myth that eDiscovery malpractice is probably more widespread than most people think.  Among his observations:

  • “E-Discovery is a discipline.  Far too many attorneys in firms large and small think that e-discovery is something they can do on the side, when they are not drafting motions to dismiss an antitrust class action or preparing to depose a scientist in a patent infringement matter.  Unfortunately, this is simply not true.”
  • “[E]-discovery goes far beyond the rules.  It is one thing to understand that there are different possible forms of production permitted for electronically stored information under Rule 34, and quite another to know how to effectively and defensibly identify, preserve, collect, process, review and produce ESI.”
  • “Not even IT professionals pretend to understand all of the different information systems that exist in a single company.  Do we really expect every trial attorney to have greater expertise and understanding than the professionals that work in the field every day?”
  • “A large document review is, by definition, a large project requiring significant project management skills… In short, this is a complex, high-risk task that requires specialized skills and experience.  It is not something one does once a year and gets good at.”
  • “Malpractice claims are just one of the possible consequences of practicing in a complex area without the requisite expertise.  Loss of client goodwill, damaged reputations for lawyer and firm alike, monetary sanctions – all of these are the dancing partners of those that believe that e-discovery is something that every litigator knows how to do.”

It’s an excellent post with a number of good points.  There are some attorneys who have really worked hard at developing their eDiscovery expertise and knowing when to rely on others with the expertise they don’t have.  But, as I have observed, there are many attorneys that have tried to play “part-time eDiscovery expert” with less than terrific results (at best).  In many cases, their saving grace is that the opposing attorney is equally inept when it comes to eDiscovery best practices.

So, what do you think? Is eDiscovery malpractice more widespread than we think? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Social Media Posts Deemed Discoverable in Personal Injury Case

A Pennsylvania court recently ordered the plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit to disclose social media passwords and usernames to the defendant for eDiscovery.

On May 19, the court ruled in favor of a motion to compel the plaintiff in Zimmerman v. Weis Markets, Inc., No. CV-09-1535, 2011 WL 2065410 (Pa. Comm. Pl. May 19, 2011) to disclose his usernames, login names and passwords for Facebook and MySpace accounts that contained hidden or private posts. Discoverability of social media continues to be a hot topic in eDiscovery, as eDiscovery Daily has noted in summaries of prior cases here, here and here that reflect varied outcomes for requests to access social media data.

In Zimmerman v. Weis Markets, Inc., the court ruled in favor of the defendant’s motion for several reasons involving the plaintiff’s use of public social media as well as the circumstances of the case:

  • The plaintiff’s public postings on the social media sites in question included discussion of his injury, which was deemed relevant to his claim of serious and permanent impairment. These public postings were construed by the court as sufficient to demonstrate likelihood that his non-public postings would also contain relevant information about his injury.
  • Although, the court did not wish its decision in this matter to be viewed as authorizing “fishing expeditions” to private social media accounts in personal injury cases in general, it reasoned that since examination of the public portions of the plaintiff’s Facebook and MySpace accounts turned up relevant evidence on the subject of the plaintiff’s injury, discovery of the remaining private postings was also likely to do so.
  • The court also reasoned that the plaintiff’s choice to bring this issue to trial, as well as his decision to share information about his injury online (showing pictures of him in shorts with his scar visible, as well as recent pictures with his motorcycle), meant that he could not have a reasonable expectation of social media privacy.

Although courts often permit eDiscovery of private and hidden social media postings, this decision by the court illustrates a need for relevance of the evidence to be shown before that permission is granted.

So, what do you think? Was the court wrong in allowing eDiscovery of personal Facebook and MySpace accounts, or does the plaintiff in a personal injury case waive his right to social media privacy? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Protocol for International eDiscovery Based on 41 Year Old Treaty
 

Last week, we talked about several challenges of international eDiscovery, including different laws regarding discovery practices, as well as cultural and privacy issues.  This week, we will talk about one of the primary mechanisms for conducting discovery internationally – the Hague Convention.

What is the Hague Convention? The Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters – commonly known as the Hague Evidence Convention – is an international treaty created by the Hague Conference on Private International Law. It was negotiated in the late 1960's and signed on March 18, 1970.

There are 54 countries contracted to the Hague Convention, which means they have agreed to permit international attorneys to request evidence across foreign borders without first requiring that they pursue diplomatic approval. U.S. attorneys often rely on the provisions of the Hague Evidence Convention when conducting cross-border eDiscovery requests. As a result, they can save time and paperwork by avoiding consular and diplomatic channels and corresponding directly with legal counsel and individuals in international countries where the Hague Convention has been ratified.

Although it can simplify the process of requesting eDiscovery across borders, the Hague Convention does not guarantee that international discovery requests will be honored, in part or at all. Foreign courts in receipt of discovery requests will often exercise their own judgment in responding, based on the laws of their own nation states. As a result, eDiscovery requests may be refused or misinterpreted without any penalty under the Hague Convention. What's more, some of the countries that have signed choose to exert limits on the extent to which they agree with the Hague Convention, further complicating matters in cases where international eDiscovery is required from groups or individuals within these nations' borders. Use of the Hague Convention may be slow, inefficient, and does not guarantee results.

The U.S. was instrumental in the creation of the Hague Convention and one of the first countries to adopt it.  However, many international parties requesting information in the U.S. now do so via Section 1782 Discovery. This simpler provision in Section 1782 of Title 28 of the United States Code facilitates discovery cases where a document or electronic information is located in the U.S.  We will talk about this federal statute in more detail in our next post regarding international eDiscovery.

So, what do you think? Does the Hague Convention simplify the discovery process internationally, or is it time for a new, more up-to-date treaty or provision to facilitate international eDiscovery? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

Happy Independence Day from all of us at eDiscovery Daily and Trial Solutions!

Working Successfully with eDiscovery and Litigation Support Service Providers: Intro to Preparing RFPs
 

In the past several weeks, we’ve talked a lot about working with service providers.  We’ve covered what to look for when you’re evaluating vendors, how to select vendors, how to monitor vendor work and prevent problems, and how to establish and manage a preferred vendor program in a law firm. 

In the next few posts (which will conclude this vendor series), I will give you some very concrete information that will help you to generate good requests for proposals (RFPs).  A good RFP has two essential elements:

  1. Information that you provide about the case, your requirements and your expectations.  A vendor can’t provide you with good schedule and cost information if you haven’t provided good information to the vendor.
  2. Information that you request of the vendor.  You’ll have lots of questions about the vendor’s services, capabilities, flexibility, capacity, qualifications and costs.

We’re going to look at several electronic discovery services – for example, ESI processing, and ESI hosting – and we’ll walk through the information pieces that are important.  For each service, I’ll make suggestions for the information that you should provide, and I’ll make suggestions for the questions that you should ask. When the blog series is complete, you should have a good resource of information points and questions to include in your RFPs.

What type of information do you provide to a vendor in a RFP?  Please share any comments you might have and let us know if you’d like to know more about an eDiscovery topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Discovery Violations Result in Sanctions Against Plaintiff and Counsel

Yesterday, we reported on a case with no sanctions; today, we report on a case with a different outcome.

Both the plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel have been ordered to pay sanctions for discovery abuses in a lawsuit in Washington court that was dismissed with prejudice on June 8, 2011.

In Play Visions, Inc. v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., No. C09-1769 MJP (W.D. Wash. June 8, 2011), the plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss its case with prejudice. The defendants did not argue against dismissal but did seek sanctions from the plaintiff based on what they considered to be “a pattern of sanctionable discovery misconduct.” The court ruled that discovery abuses had occurred, and fined the plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel $137,168.41 “jointly and severally”. The misconduct of the plaintiff, Play Visions, Inc., included:

  • Misrepresentation of Available Documents: Play Visions claimed that all relevant documents were kept in hard copy only; however, deposition of Play Visions’ CFO revealed that electronic records existed that should have been presented months earlier under discovery.
  • Falsified Expert’s Report: The plaintiff’s expert report was prepared by plaintiff’s counsel Mark Lorbiecki and only signed and “approved” by the expert. In addition, the court discovered that the plaintiff had violated the court’s protective order by revealing confidential information to the same expert witness.

As a result of these misrepresentations and discovery abuses and others, the court ruled for the defendant’s motion and demanded the plaintiff and its counsel pay sanctions:

  • The court found that Play Visions, Inc. had falsely certified that all relevant records had been saved in paper format and delayed the search and production of documents. Play Visions’ counsel was found to have been negligent in familiarizing himself with Play Visions’ document practices and to have failed in assisting his client in mandatory discovery.
  • Accordingly, the court considered every case where the defendant was forced to do extra work as a result of the plaintiff’s delays and inaccuracies, and fined Play Visions, Inc. and its counsel $137,168.41 jointly and severally, due within 15 days of the order.
  • Not finding “that the discovery violations in this case merit finding the entire case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285”, the court ruled against shifting any attorney’s fees in this case.  Otherwise, the sanctions award could have been even higher!

So, what do you think? Do the discovery violations committed by Play Visions and by its attorney demand monetary sanctions on this scale? Did Play Visions actually believe that they had no relevant electronic files?  Please share any comments you might have, or let us know if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: No Sanctions Ordered for Failure to Preserve Backups

A sanctions motion has been dismissed by the U.S. District Court of Texas in a recent case involving electronic backups and email records, on the grounds that there was no duty to preserve backup tapes and no bad faith in overwriting records.

The plaintiffs in Ajay Gaalla, et al v. Citizens Medical Center, et al, No. V-10-14, 2011 WL 2115670 (S.D. Tex. May 27, 2011) had made a motion for sanctions against the defendant for alleged damage to backup tapes, including emails and other electronic documentation. On May 27, the court denied the motion for sanctions against the defendant, although new instructions on maintaining copies of disaster recovery files have been imposed in this case.

  • Plaintiffs presented the argument that the “recycling” or overwriting of disaster recovery backup tapes by the defendant, performed on a 7- or 14-day cycle after the lawsuit was filed, represented spoliation. Accordingly, the plaintiffs requested the maximum sanctions against the defendant for “failure to preserve the backup tapes.”
  • Preservation of backup tapes was not previously been discussed in this case until this motion for sanctions on grounds of data spoliation, but plaintiffs alleged that the failure to preserve backups, coupled with the failure to take snapshots of particular email accounts and “evidence that certain CMC employees had deleted emails from their account at some point in the past”, warranted harsh sanctions.
  • The defendants argued that they had no duty to preserve backups of records, since disaster recovery systems are “rarely” backed up after litigation has begun. They also presented “snapshots” taken of email accounts to demonstrate that there was no intent to destroy information and that attempts had been made to record all relevant evidence.
  • The court referred to the ruling in Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. (S.D.N.Y. 2003), which states: “[A] litigation hold does not apply to inaccessible backup tapes (e.g., those typically maintained solely for the purpose of disaster recovery), which may continue to be recycled on the schedule set forth in the company’s policy.” Under this standard, the court found that the defendant was within its rights to overwrite the existing backups as often as such maintenance was normally scheduled.
  • The court also ruled that, with no prior discussion of the backup tapes and “in the context of this case,” there was no cause for sanctions against the defendant, lacking evidence that the defendant acted in bad faith in recycling the tapes used to make the recovery backups.
  • However, the court did order additional discovery efforts to be undertaken in the form of “disaster recovery first of the month” email files to be preserved in their current state and that plaintiffs’ expert be allowed to search them (at defendant’s expense) as well as a “journaling” process to retain email accounts of key parties in the case.

So, what do you think? Do parties have an obligation to maintain copies of all backup tapes for litigation? Please share any comments you might have, or let us know if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Legal Project Management is the Same as Project Management
 

I found this article (Holy semantics Batman! There is no such thing as ‘legal project management’) which provides a good look at legal project management on the Legal IT Professionals site from Jeffrey Brandt, a previous thought leader interviewee of eDiscovery Daily.  I like this article for two reasons:

  • References to the Old Batman TV Series: Like the author, I watched every episode of the show back in the day, so I had to appreciate the analogy of putting the prefix “Bat” on everything (e.g., “Batcave”, “Batmobile”, “Shark Repellent Bat Spray”, etc.) to adding “legal” to “project management”.  It also gave me the opportunity to re-link to one of very first posts, which has a link at the bottom to a snippet from the old Batman series that always makes me laugh.
  • Clarification as to the Differentiation of ‘Legal Project Management’: According to the author, there is no differentiation.

The author notes that “The underpinnings and basic tenets of project management are 1) accomplishing a defined goal or set of goals; 2) working within a specific time line; and 3) working within a set of defined resources (most often personnel and cost). That can be applied to literally anything.”

True.  While I don’t necessarily believe that an experienced project manager can just “waltz” into managing legal-related projects with no knowledge of the legal industry and what the issues are, the best practices of project management are the same, regardless of the type of project being managed.

For example, I manage rollout coordination for our review platform, OnDemand®.  In a past life, I used to develop, but now I’m too far removed from the process to write web code, implement server configurations or fully understand all of the differences between the different versions of SQL Server.  My primary focus in the rollout management role is to coordinate communication between the developers, testers and support staff to make sure we stay on schedule for each software release to get as many of the proposed features as ready for rollout as possible.  Every time I try to get too much into the details of development, I get in trouble.  Just ask the development staff!  😉

So, what do you think?  Is there a difference between ‘legal project management’ and ‘project management’?   How much legal industry experience do you need to have to manage legal-related projects?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Full disclosure: I work for Trial Solutions, which provides SaaS-based eDiscovery review applications FirstPass® (for first pass review) and OnDemand® (for linear review and production).

eDiscovery Case Law: Never Mind! Judge Scheindlin Withdraws FOIA Requests Opinion

Back in February, eDiscovery Daily reported that Southern District of New York Judge Shira A. Scheindlin’s latest opinion regarding eDiscovery best practices.  In National Day Laborer Organizing Network v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, 10 Civ. 3488, she ruled that the federal government must provide documents “in a usable format” when it responds to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

In this case, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, Center for Constitutional Rights and the Immigration Justice Clinic at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law sued to require production of a wide range of documents under the Freedom of Information Act in August 2010.  In response, the government agency defendants produced documents grouped together in large files that were not searchable, for which individual documents could not be easily identified, with emails separated from their attachments.

In ruling at that time, Judge Scheindlin noted that “Once again, this Court is required to rule on an eDiscovery issue that could have been avoided had the parties had the good sense to ‘meet and confer,’ ‘cooperate’ and generally make every effort to ‘communicate’ as to the form in which ESI would be produced.”, and ruled that federal agencies must turn over documents that include “metadata,” which allows them to be searched and indexed.  Indicating that “common sense dictates” that the handling of FOIA requests should be informed by “the spirit if not the letter” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Scheindlin indicated the government offered “a lame excuse” for delivering non-searchable documents.  A copy of the original opinion and order can be found here.

Now, that opinion has been withdrawn.

In a very short order withdrawing the opinion, Judge Scheindlin stated:

“This court has been informed that the parties have recently resolved their dispute regarding the form and format in which records will be produced by defendants in this Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.  In the interests of justice, this Court now believes that it would be prudent to withdraw the opinion it issued on February 7, 2011 (Docket #41).  I do so because, as subsequent submissions have shown, that decision was not based on a full and developed record.  By withdrawing the decision, it is the intent of this Court that the decision shall have no precedential value in this lawsuit or in any other lawsuit.

The Court also withdraws its Supplemental Order dated February 14, 2011 (Docket # 50).”

So, as Emily Litella would say, “Never Mind!”

So, what do you think?  What impact does the withdrawal of the opinion have on future eDiscovery cases?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.