Close
Enter your
text here

eDiscoveryDaily

2018 eDiscovery Case Law Year in Review, Part 2

As we noted yesterday, eDiscovery Daily published 65 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 56 unique cases!  Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to possession, custody and control, privilege disputes and form of production disputes.  Today, let’s take a look back at cases related to mobile device discovery, technology assisted review, the use of sampling to settle disputes, objections to production requests, an update on an interesting dispute between an eDiscovery provider and their former sales people and the final(?) post regarding the ubiquitous Apple v. Samsung case.

We grouped those cases into common subject themes and will review them over the next few posts.  Perhaps you missed some of these?  Now is your chance to catch up!

But first, it’s also worth noting that Tom O’Connor and I will be discussing some of these cases – and what the legal profession can learn from those rulings – on our webcast on Wednesday, January 23rd – Important eDiscovery Case Law Decisions of 2017 and Their Impact on 2018 at noon CT (1pm ET, 10am PT).  The webcast is CLE accredited in selected states, so come check it out!

MOBILE DEVICE DISCOVERY

Discovery involving mobile devices is increasing, so case law related to mobile device discovery is increasing too, including a landmark SCOTUS ruling regarding the need for a search warrant to obtain physical location data of a subject’s cell phone.  Despite that ruling, not all cases involving physical location data turned out the same way.  Here are six cases related to discovery of mobile devices:

Fourth Circuit Rules that Warrantless Cell Phone is Warranted: According to Sharon Nelson’s terrific Ride the Lightning blog (4th Circuit Says Border Search of Phones Requires Individualized Suspicion (But Not a Warrant)), on May 9th, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in US v. Kolsuz, ruling that in light of the immense privacy concerns, forensic searches of electronic devices seized at the border must be justified by individualized suspicion, or some reason to believe that a particular traveler had committed a crime.  But not a warrant.

Plaintiff Argument for Failure to Produce Cell Phone Data in Wife’s Name is “Unpersuasive”: In Ortiz v. Amazon.com LLC, et al, California Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James ordered the plaintiff, who failed to produce court-ordered cell phone records because the account was in his wife’s name and refused to provide her information, to provide defendant Golden State with his cell phone account holder’s name and address so that defendant could subpoena the cell phone records from her.  Judge James also ordered the plaintiff to appear for a deposition in San Francisco, as originally scheduled, instead of Los Angeles (where the plaintiff had moved).

SCOTUS Says Warrantless Access of Cell Phone Locations Violates Fourth Amendment: In Carpenter v. U.S., the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) held, in a 5–4 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, that the government violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution by accessing historical records containing the physical locations of cellphones without a search warrant.

Despite Carpenter, This Defendant’s Cell Site Location Information is Ruled Admissible: In United States v. Pleasant, Pennsylvania District Judge Gerald Austin McHugh ruled that the defendant’s motion to suppress historical cell-site location information associated with his cellular telephone lacked merit, despite the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Carpenter v. United States, because the agents proceeded “by means of a court order issued under a federal statute that had repeatedly withstood Fourth Amendment scrutiny…in good faith under then existing law”.

After Woman’s iPhone is Seized and She Sues, Homeland Security Agrees to Delete Her Data: In the case Lazoja v. Nielsen, an American Muslim woman filed suit and asked a federal judge to compel border officials to erase data copied from her iPhone.  Now, she has settled her lawsuit with the government because federal authorities have now agreed to delete the seized data.

No New Trial for Defendant After Carpenter Ruling Because of “Good-Faith” Exception: In U.S. v. Leyva, Michigan District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith, while acknowledging that the ruling in Carpenter v. United States (which held that the government must obtain a warrant before acquiring cell site location information (“CSLI”)) “applies retroactively” to the defendant’s case, ruled that “the question of whether a constitutional right is retroactive is distinct from the question of whether an individual is entitled to a remedy from any constitutional violation”.  Citing the “good-faith” exception, where law enforcement acts in good faith in obtaining evidence that is ultimately found to have been obtained in violation of an individual’s constitutional rights, Judge Goldsmith denied the defendant’s motion for a new trial on the basis of Carpenter.

TECHNOLOGY ASSISTED REVIEW

Talk about a mixed bag – we have one case that provides a terrific protocol on how TAR (or any search) should be conducted and another case that shows just how wrong a TAR process can go.  And, a third that isn’t even a TAR case, but illustrates how often lawyers negotiate on complex search terms instead of using TAR.  Here are three cases that relate to the use of TAR in eDiscovery:

Don’t Be “Chicken”! Consider Having a Good Protocol for Handling eDiscovery: In the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Illinois Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Gilbert appointed a special master (noted Technology Assisted Review expert Maura Grossman) to help the parties resolve eDiscovery disputes.  Judge Gilbert and Special Master Grossman issued a very detailed procedure (Order Regarding Search Methodology for Electronically Stored Information) for how the parties were to conduct TAR, including search, validation and document sourcing approaches, split into three primary sections: (1) how the parties will act, (2) what search technologies will be used, and (3) an outline of a document review validation protocol.  This case also had a ruling involving a defendant’s motion for protective order in the case.

Plaintiffs Granted Discovery Extension Due to Defendant’s TAR Review Glitch: In the case In Re Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litigation, District of Columbia District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly granted the Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Extension of Fact Discovery Deadlines (over the defendants’ objections) for six months, finding that defendant “United’s production of core documents that varied greatly from the control set in terms of the applicable standards for recall and precision and included a much larger number of non-responsive documents that was anticipated” (United’s core production of 3.5 million documents contained only 600,000 documents that were responsive).

Court Plays Referee in Search Term Dispute Between Parties: In Digital Ally, Inc. v. Taser Int’l, Inc., Kansas Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s Motion to Compel ESI Discovery, sustaining in part the plaintiff’s overbreadth and relevance objections to specific defendant ESI Requests by providing a compromised scope between the defendant’s proposed searches (deemed to be overbroad) and the plaintiff’s proposed searches (most of which were deemed to be too narrow).

USING SAMPLING TO SETTLE DISPUTES

Here’s a new category – rulings by courts to order parties to conduct sampling to settle production disputes.  Now, that’s some progressive thinking!  Here are two such cases:

Court Sides with Plaintiff’s Proposal, Orders Random Sample of the Null Set: In City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD Inc., Illinois Magistrate Judge Iain D. Johnston adopted the parties’ proposed order establishing the production protocol for ESI with the inclusion of the plaintiffs’ proposal that a random sample of the null set will occur after the production and that any responsive documents found as a result of that process will be produced.

Court Orders Defendants to Sample Disputed Documents to Help Settle Dispute: In Updateme Inc. v. Axel Springer SE, California Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler ordered the defendants to review a random sample of unreviewed documents in dispute and produce any responsive documents reviewed (along with a privilege log, if applicable) and report on the number of documents and families reviewed and the rate of responsiveness within one week.

OBJECTIONS TO PRODUCTION REQUESTS

It was bound to happen sooner or later – a party using boilerplate objections having those objections waived!  Here is that case:

Court Rules that Defendant’s Boilerplate Objections Results in Waiver of Those Objections: In Halleen v. Belk, Inc., Texas District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III granted the plaintiffs’ motions in part, ruling that the defendant had waived its objections to the plaintiffs’ RFPs and Interrogatories by including “subject to” or boilerplate language in its responses and also granted the plaintiffs’ request for ESI for identified corporate custodians and 30(b)(6) witnesses.

ALSO…

If you remember the dispute between an eDiscovery provider and its former sales agents which called into question the scope of non-compete agreements that we covered last year, then you’ll be interested in this Second Circuit ruling on the case.

AND…

A moment of silence to commemorate the final settlement of the Apple v. Samsung case – our most written about case ever on this blog.  Not since King Kong vs. Godzilla have two mega-monsters slugged it out like this.  And, they’ll both live to fight again.

We’re only halfway done!  Tomorrow, we will cover cases related to sanctions and spoliation (believe it or not, for the first time ever, not our category with the most cases!).  Stay tuned!

Want to take a look at cases we covered the previous seven years?  Here they are:

So, what do you think?  Did you miss any of these?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

2018 eDiscovery Case Law Year in Review, Part 1

It’s that time of year again!  Time for our annual review of eDiscovery case law!  This is our eighth(!) annual review of cases that we covered on the eDiscovery Daily blog over the past year.  As always, we had a number of interesting cases related to various eDiscovery topics.  So, as we have done for the last seven(!) years, let’s take a look back at 2018!

Last year, eDiscoveryDaily published 65 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 56 unique cases!  Believe it or not, that’s a down year for us.  We’ve had 656 lifetime case law related posts, covering exactly 502 unique cases since our inception back in 2010.  That’s a lotta law!  :o)

As always for the cases we did cover, we grouped them into common subject themes and will review them over the next few posts (a few of them could be categorized in more than one category, so we took our best shot).  Perhaps you missed some of these?  Now is your chance to catch up!

It’s also worth noting that Tom O’Connor and I will be discussing some of these cases – and what the legal profession can learn from those rulings – on our webcast on Wednesday, January 23rd – Important eDiscovery Case Law Decisions of 2017 and Their Impact on 2018 at noon CT (1pm ET, 10am PT).  The webcast is CLE accredited in selected states, so come check it out!

And, here we go…

POSSESSION, CUSTODY & CONTROL

To get the data produced, you first need to show that the producing party has possession, custody and control of that data.  Sometimes, that’s easier said than done – even when you’re trying to prove that Twitter has legal custody and control of its own employees’ direct messages.  Here are two cases related to possession, custody and control disputes:

Court Denies Request for Production of Forensic Image: In Apex Colors, Inc. v. Chemworld Int’l Ltd., Inc., Magistrate Judge Paul R. Cherry, finding (among other things) that the defendants “have not met their burden of showing that” the plaintiff had control of the data, denied the defendants’ motion to compel the plaintiff to produce supplemental documents, including a forensically imaged hard drive.

Court Declines to Compel Defendant to Produce Direct Messages Between its Employees: In Shenwick v. Twitter, Inc., California Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim ruled on several discovery disputes between the parties, including denial of a request by the plaintiffs to order the defendants to produce protected direct messages of individual custodians who are not parties.

PRIVILEGE DISPUTES

As usual, there are disputes about the privilege status of documents and whether inadvertently disclosed materials can be subject to clawback.  Here are two cases related to privilege disputes:

Court Denies Plaintiff Request for “Quick Peek” to Privilege Log, Proposing Special Master Review Instead: In Winfield v. City of New York, New York Magistrate Judge Katherine H. Parker, ruling on a debate of what constitutes privileged ESI, denied the plaintiff’s request for a “quick peek” at 3,300 documents listed on the defendant’s privilege log, opting to propose instead for a special master to conduct a privilege review of those documents.

Court Rules “No Harm, No Foul” in Allowing Clawback After Protective Order Deadline: In the case In re Abilify (Aripiprazole) Prod. Liab. Litig., Florida Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones denied the plaintiff’s Disclosure Motion regarding two documents that defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) claimed were privileged and inadvertently disclosed, stating that “[a]lthough BMS might not have followed the precise terms of the Protective Order”, “the one-day delay in sending the privilege log can charitably be described as a situation where the expression ‘no harm, no foul’ applies.”

FORM OF PRODUCTION

As more lawyers learn about the benefits of producing native files with metadata while others stick to more traditional image-based production formats, disputes are bound to rise.  Even some judges have opinions on the subject.   Here are ten cases related to form of production disputes:

Court Orders Plaintiff to Reproduce ESI and Produce Search Term List As Agreed: In Youngevity Int’l Corp., et al. v. Smith, et al., California Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt, granted the defendants’ motion to compel proper productions against the plaintiffs and ordered the plaintiffs to either provide its search hit list to the plaintiffs, meet and confer on the results and screen the results for responsiveness and privilege OR produce 700,000 additional responsive documents and pay for the defendants to conduct Technology Assisted Review (TAR) on the results.  Judge Burkhardt also ordered the plaintiffs to designate “only qualifying documents” as confidential or Attorney’s Eyes Only (AEO) and to pay for the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, of bringing the motion.

Nobody Doesn’t Like Terminating Sanctions for Fabrication of Text Messages: In Lee v. Trees, Inc., Oregon Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta granted the defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions where the plaintiff was found to have manufactured text messages to support her claims of sexual harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination.

Court Grants Key Parts of Motion to Compel Against Safeway: In U.S. ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway, Inc., Illinois Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins allowed the Relator’s motion to compel in part, ordering the defendant to conduct and complete a TAR process on 575,000 issue files previously produced based on key number search alone and also ordering the defendant to produce PDX pharmacy transaction data (PDX Data) – all by March 16.  However, Judge Schanzle-Haskins declined to order the defendant to produce the issue files as Image Files since it had previously produced them in native form and instructions only directed the defendant to produce image files if it created a litigation database.

Defendant Sanctioned for “Deliberately” Altering a Skype Communication: In GoPro, Inc. v. 360Heros, Inc., California District Judge Susan Illston denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied the defendant’s motion in limine to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s forensic analysis expert, but granted (in part) the plaintiff’s motion for partial terminating sanctions against the defendant for forging evidence in two Skype conversations, opting for an adverse inference instruction sanction and reimbursement of expenses related to forensic analysis and testimony instead of the terminating sanctions sought.

Metadata from Photos Leads to Dismissal of Case Against New York City: In Lawrence v. City of New York, et al., New York Senior District Judge William H. Pauley, III granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for sanctions, ruling to dismiss the case against the defendants, but denying the motion for sanctions against the plaintiff’s counsel and denying the motion for reimbursement of attorney’s fees, stating “an award of attorney’s fees ‘would be a hollow victory … as it would likely be uncollectible.’”

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Request for Native Re-Production by Defendant: In Baker v. Santa Clara Univ., California Magistrate Judge Virginia K. Demarchi denied, without prejudice, the plaintiff’s request for an order compelling production of electronically stored documents in native format, finding that the plaintiff “does not have a compelling reason for demanding that SCU (Santa Clara University) re-produce its entire responsive document production in native format simply because she might find something missing.”

Court Denies Party’s Request to Produce in Native Format Instead of TIFF: In the case IN RE SYNGENTA AG MIR 162 CORN LITIGATION, Kansas Magistrate Judge James P. O’Hara, stating that “there is no dispute that documents in TIFF format are easier to work with and enable depositions and court proceedings to run more smoothly”, denied the request of party Louis Dreyfus Company Grains Merchandising LLC (LDC) to relieve it from the production requirements of the case’s ESI Protocol Order to produce electronically stored information (ESI) in TIFF image file format and instead allow LDC to produce in native format.

Court Rejects Plaintiffs’ “Mindlessly Deficient” Objections to Native Format Production: In McDonnel Grp., LLC v. Starr Surplus Lines Ins. Co. et al., Louisiana Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr. granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to compel, granting the defendants’ requests for the plaintiffs to produce construction schedules in native format, to identify responsive materials already produced to other specified defendants’ requests and to provide a privilege log for any documents withheld based on privilege to those requests.  Judge Wilkinson denied the defendants’ request for attorney’s fees and other expenses incurred in connection with the defendants’ motion.

Court Rules on Dispute over Native File Format Production and Metadata: In Metlife Inv’rs. USA Ins. Co. v. Lindsey, Indiana Magistrate Judge John E. Martin granted the motion of the defendants/counter plaintiffs (defendants) to compel the plaintiff/counter-defendant (plaintiff) to produce all responsive documents in the form in which they are maintained in the usual course of business (i.e., native files with metadata) and also ordered the defendants to file an itemization of costs and fees, including attorney’s fees, incurred in making the Motion to Compel.

Court Orders Defendants to Resubmit Production of “Inferior” Quality Documents: In Dunne v. Resource Converting, LLC et al., Missouri Magistrate Judge David D. Nocel granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel and to enforce, ordering the defendants to “resubmit to plaintiff the subject low-quality documents in a non-blurry, legible form digitally accessible to plaintiff, and with the same bates-stamp numbers as the original production”.  Judge Nocel also ordered the defendants to pay plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and expenses associated with his motion to compel, but decided that the plaintiff’s request for an independent forensic expert to preside over the technical discovery requests and responses was not warranted at this time.

We’re just getting started!  Tomorrow, we will cover cases related to mobile device discovery, technology assisted review, the use of sampling to settle disputes, objections to production requests, an update on an interesting dispute between an eDiscovery provider and their former sales people and we (finally) say goodbye to the ubiquitous Apple v. Samsung case.  Stay tuned!

Want to take a look at cases we covered the previous seven years?  Here they are:

So, what do you think?  Did you miss any of these?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Here’s a Webcast to Learn about Key Case Law for 2018 and How it Affects Your 2019: eDiscovery Webcasts

2018 was another notable year for eDiscovery case law with several significant rulings that stand to impact eDiscovery practices and the admissibility of evidence.  How can these key case law decisions affect discovery within your organization?  Here’s a webcast that will discuss key case law rulings from last year and their impact on this year.

Wednesday, January 23rd at noon CST (1:00pm EST, 10:00am PST), CloudNine will conduct the webcast Important eDiscovery Case Law Decisions of 2018 and Their Impact on 2019. In this one-hour webcast that’s CLE-approved in selected states, we will cover key 2018 case law decisions covered by the eDiscovery Daily blog and what the legal profession can learn from those rulings. Topics include:

  • Technology Assisted Review best practices and trends
  • The use of sampling to settle disputes
  • Admissibility vs. proportionality and privacy disputes
  • Form of production disputes and the issues involved
  • Key case rulings on discoverability of mobile device data
  • Privilege disputes and clawback requests
  • Impact of rules changes on boilerplate objections
  • The state of sanctions three years after the 2015 Fed Rules updates

As always, I’ll be presenting the webcast, along with Tom O’Connor.  To register for it, click here.  Even if you can’t make it, go ahead and register to get a link to the slides and to the recording of the webcast (if you want to check it out later).  If you want to learn how key case law rulings from last year can impact this year, this webcast is for you!

So, what do you think?  Are you big on case law and like to second guess judicial decisions?  Sure you do(!), so please join us!  And, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily 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 Sides with Defendants in Subpoena of Police Department Records of Unsolved Murder: eDiscovery Case Law

This case combines civil and criminal concerns, so it’s a great case to lead off the new year!

In Farmers New World Life Ins. Co. v. Atchison, No. CIV-17-1254-D (W.D. Okla. Dec. 17, 2018), Oklahoma District Judge Timothy D. DiGiusti granted the “Children” defendants’ Motion to Compel against non-party City of Oklahoma City Police Department (“OCPD”) to comply with the Children’s subpoena of records related to the murder of their father in a civil case with the insurance company.

Case Background

In an interpleader action arising from the murder of the father of minor Defendants (“Children”), one of the other defendants was the named beneficiary on an insurance policy provided by the plaintiff, but was also the primary suspect in the murder of the Children defendants’ father.  The plaintiff filed the action seeking interpleader relief on the basis of Oklahoma’s “slayer statute,” and the “Children” became aware of the action and the insurance policy in February 2018 when they were served with summons. The Children submitted a request to the OCPD, but OCPD denied the request.  The “Children” then issued a subpoena to defendant City of Oklahoma City requesting records related to the murder.

The City of Oklahoma City objected to the subpoena on behalf of OCPD stating that the criminal investigation into the death was ongoing and that the release of the requested reports might interfere with the investigation (where no charges had been filed).  In response, the “Children” filed a Motion to Compel seeking compliance with the subpoena or, in the alternative, an in-camera inspection of the investigative file.  The City of Oklahoma City opposed the motion on privilege grounds, but indicated they would agree to an in camera inspection with counsel for the “Children” during the review but objected to the presence of counsel for the defendant suspected of murder; in turn, that defendant objected to an ex parte in-camera inspection or any production of discovery that is not likewise provided to her.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge DiGiusti cited United States v. Winner in stating “To assert the law enforcement evidentiary privilege, the responsible official in the department must lodge a formal claim of privilege, after actual personal consideration, specifying with particularity the information for which protection is sought, and explain why the information falls within the scope of the privilege.”  Given that the “Children” asserted that OCPD failed to comply with these requirements, Judge DiGiusti said:

“The Court agrees with the Children. The only objections received on behalf of OCPD are an email from an individual of unidentified position in the Oklahoma City government and a letter from a municipal counselor…OCPD presents no formal claim from any responsible official within the department indicating “personal consideration” and “specifying with particularity the information for which protection is sought.” Instead, the City presents only the affidavit and search warrant along with a general objection that producing the requested information falls under the privilege because it will harm the ongoing investigation. Such a broad explanation does not comply with the requirements of Winner.”

Noting that the victim was “murdered nearly two years ago, no charges have been filed, and no arrest made” and that the affidavit informed the suspected defendant “of the theory of the case against her, the types of evidence in possession of OCPD at the time of the affidavit, as well as the evidence sought through the search warrant”, Judge DiGiusti found that “OCPD has failed to establish with particularity how production would harm the ongoing murder investigation.”  Finding that “the Children have made a compelling argument that the investigative material is relevant and necessary to their case aimed at preventing Defendant Keisha Jones from recovering a life insurance policy on the basis of her alleged involvement in Mr. Atchison’s murder”, Judge DiGiusti ordered OCPD to produce “all materials responsive to the Children’s subpoena” to the chambers of the undersigned judge within thirty days.

So, what do you think?  Should the judge have allowed those materials to be produced, even for an in camera review?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

It’s 2019! Here Are Key Events Happening This Year in eDiscovery: eDiscovery Trends

Happy New Year everybody!  It’s 2019, and (as Mike Greenberg used to say on the old Mike and Mike ESPN morning sports show), we’re back and better than ever!  So, what is happening in eDiscovery in 2019?  A lot more than you probably realize and, thanks to Rob Robinson’s Complex Discovery blog, you have one place to check it all out!

In his post An Early Start: A Working List of 2019 eDiscovery Events, Rob provides not just a list of events (45 in all listed on the post – so far), but also provides links to each of them so that you can check them out for more info.  Here are a few highlights:

  • January 1.28-31: Legalweek, New York, NY (it’s only 26 days away!)
  • February 2.27-3.2: ABA TECHSHOW, Chicago, IL
  • February 2.28: Masters Conference, Dallas, TX (the first of several Masters Conference events this year)
  • March 3.5-7: 8th Annual Arkfeld eDiscovery Conference, Phoenix, AZ
  • May 5.8-10: 2019 Women in eDiscovery Conference, Austin, TX
  • May 5.14-16: Annual Corporate Legal Operations Consortium (CLOC) Institute, Las Vegas, NV
  • August 8.18-22: ILTACON 2019, Lake Buena Vista, FL
  • October 10.20-23: Relativity FEST, Chicago, IL
  • October 10.27.30: 2019 ACC Annual Meeting, Phoenix, AZ

Of course, as you can imagine on January 2, the timing of several events is still to be determined and some events may not yet be listed.  If you know of an event that needs to be listed or any corrections or other updates to be made, Rob provides a mechanism on his post to send him an email to let him know the event name, date, location and URL for the event.  So, this post will continue to reflect an updated list of events over time.

Also, believe it or not, Rob’s quarterly eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey is entering its fourth year.  Last week, Rob issued the Winter 2019 survey in this post titled A Winter of Discontent? The Winter 2019 eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey.  “A Winter of Discontent”?  We’ll see.  Anyway, Rob indicates that the response period is up to mid-January 2019, so if you want to participate, you should complete the survey ASAP.  As usual, we will cover the results here as we have done for the previous 12 surveys (click here for our coverage of the last survey, which includes trends over the 12 surveys and links to each of them).

So, what do you think?  How many events do you plan to attend this year?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily 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 Have Gifts Already Waiting for You This Holiday Season: eDiscovery Holiday Greetings

Tom O’Connor and I conducted another successful CLE webcast yesterday, recapping the 2018 eDiscovery Year in Review, and it occurred to me that we don’t emphasize enough that all of the CLE webcasts we do are available for you to check out on your own – even months after the webcast has been conducted!  You just might be able to complete your entire CLE requirement by watching our webcasts!

But first, a quick note that The Expert Institute’s 2018 Best Legal Blog Contest has a little over two days left.  If you like our blog, please consider voting for us!  Simply go to this link, log in via Google, LinkedIn or Twitter, and cast your vote.  We appreciate the support!

Anyway, here’s a list of the CLE webcasts we’ve conducted this year:

Twelve CLE webcasts, twelve days of Christmas!  Coincidence?  I think not!  :o)

What a lot of people don’t realize is that CLE-accreditation is not just available for those who attended these webcasts live, it’s also available for those who view the webcasts on demand.  They are truly the gift that keeps on giving – CLE credits.  While each of these webcasts were accredited in selected states, CLE accreditation is available in additional states via reciprocity credit.  So, if you want to ask about CLE credit on any particular webcast, feel free to email me at daustin@cloudnine.com.

These twelve are part of nearly forty total informative webcasts on our site at our Webcasts page here.

I want to thank all of you who have read this blog over the course of this year and all of you who have attended at least some of our webcasts.  There are literally thousands of you who have done one or both and we wouldn’t have a reason to do it without your support.  Also, thanks to Tom O’Connor, my “wingman” for all of his contributions to our webcasts this year, he’s not only highly informative, but also a fun webcast partner.

We’re into our ninth year for eDiscovery Daily, and (other than the couple of weeks I take off at the end of each year to “recharge my batteries” – starting now!), are still going strong.  As we always say, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.  We love your feedback and suggestions (like the case law suggestion we received and published in yesterday’s post)!

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and Happy New Year!!  eDiscovery Daily will resume with new posts after the new year on January 2.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily 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 Denies Defendant’s Request for Protective Order Against Producing Metadata for Medical Records: eDiscovery Case Law

I love it when a reader suggests a case for us to cover!  Thanks for the tip, Mike Hannon!

In Miller v. Sauberman, Index No. 805270/16 (N.Y. Dec. 6, 2018), New York Supreme Court Justice Joan A. Madden, despite the defendant’s estimated cost of $250,000 to produce metadata related to the plaintiff’s medical records, denied the defendant’s motion for a protective order and granted the plaintiff’s cross-motion to compel the production of that metadata within 30 days of the decision and order.

Case Background

In this action for damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff’s counsel indicated that she received conflicting versions of the plaintiff’s medical record, with conflicting entries for the same items on the same record for the same days and those records were provided pre-suit.  The plaintiff argued that given the materiality of the fact as to when plaintiff developed bed sores, he was entitled to the audit trail and metadata that would presumably show when plaintiff’s electronic medical record was altered and by whom.

The defendant’s Chief Information Officer indicated his understanding that the record history was a “true record audit detailing any records with modifications that took place to the records after 7/29/14”.  However, he also indicated that they had not been able to determine the “root cause of why certain fields in the EMR print differently from the electronic version as seen on the computer screen.”  The plaintiff responded by stating that the defendant failed to provide an explanation for the “alteration” of the medical records, failed to produce the metadata and the audit trail exchanged was insufficient, since it did not cover the period after plaintiff’s discharge.

On August 16 after oral argument, the Court ordered the defendant to provide an affidavit regarding various parameters, including the software and storage systems, the date and parameters of the search, accessibility of the data in other storage systems or by other software systems and the cost of producing the requested metadata.  The vendor responsible for storing and maintaining the defendant’s electronic medical records indicated that they used “a software system called ‘SQL Server Management Studio’” and the “storage system from where the audit report was generated is called ‘SQL Server 2014’”.  The vendor also stated that “[b]ased on my many years of experience in the software and information technology sector generally, and in the area of metadata extraction specifically, in my opinion the cost estimate of producting [sic] full metadata for plaintiff’s entire medical record would be approximately $250,000 if MatrixCare were to outsource it to a vendor.”  Noting that the application is a “legacy system”, he also classified that as a “reasonable estimate, that could change extremely, either up or down, based on the specifics we would learn afer [sic] hiring the team and learning more about how the system gathers data.”

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Madden stated: “Based on the foregoing, plaintiff has made a sufficient showing for the production of metadata. Defendant has yet to provide a credible explanation for the different and conflicting versions of plaintiff’s medical record…Moreover, while the audit report is intended to show ‘all edits, changes, or modifications to any single record’ from May 8, 2014 through April 10, 2018, the report produced by Village Care shows no changes or modifications. Under these circumstances, where there is no explanation for the different and conflicting versions of plaintiff’s medical record, and where the issue as to when plaintiff developed bed sores is clearly material to plaintiff’s malpractice claim, plaintiff is entitled to the metadata for his medical record to determine if the medical record was altered, and if so, when and by whom.”  As agreed to by the plaintiff, Judge Madden limited the metadata to be produced to “Village Care’s Physician Progress Notes from May 8, 2014 through July 29, 2014”.  As a result, she denied the defendant’s motion for a protective order and granted the plaintiff’s cross-motion to compel the production of that metadata within 30 days of the decision and order.

So, what do you think?  Is it possible that it could actually cost $250K to produce metadata for a single patient’s medical records, even in a “legacy system”?  And, how do you get hired for that gig?  ;o)  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Today’s the Day to Learn about Important eDiscovery Developments for 2018: eDiscovery Webcasts

2018 has been a very busy and significant year from an eDiscovery standpoint. This year has had everything from new data privacy laws here and in Europe to the use of Internet of Things (IoT) devices in discovery to important trends regarding the use (or non-use) of Technology Assisted Review (TAR) to a landmark SCOTUS case regarding accessing cell phone location data without a warrant.  Today’s webcast will discuss what do you need to know about these and other important 2018 events and how they impact your eDiscovery efforts.  It’s our last webcast of the year!

Today at noon CST (1:00pm EST, 10:00am PST), CloudNine will conduct the webcast 2018 eDiscovery Year in Review. In this one-hour webcast that’s CLE-approved in selected states, we will discuss key events and trends in 2018, what those events and trends mean to your discovery practices and provide our predictions for 2019. Topics include:

  • Technology Competence Trends and Developments
  • CLOUD Act and the Microsoft Ireland Case
  • General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and California Data Privacy Law
  • Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Trends and Challenges
  • SCOTUS Ruling in Carpenter v. US
  • Technology Assisted Review (TAR) Trends
  • Internet of Things (IoT) Devices as Sources of ESI
  • Business and Investment Trends within eDiscovery
  • Form of Production Trends and Disputes
  • New Resources for eDiscovery Best Practices

As always, I’ll be presenting the webcast, along with Tom O’Connor.  To register for it, click here.  It’s not too late!  Even if you can’t make it, go ahead and register to get a link to the slides and to the recording of the webcast (if you want to check it out later).  If you want to learn how key events and trends in 2018 can affect your eDiscovery practice, this webcast is for you!

So, what do you think?  Were you busy this year and have FOMO (fear of missing out) on important info for 2018?  If so, please join us!  And, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

No New Trial for Defendant After Carpenter Ruling Because of “Good-Faith” Exception: eDiscovery Case Law

In U.S. v. Leyva, No. 16-cr-20723 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 26, 2018), Michigan District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith, while acknowledging that the ruling in Carpenter v. United States (which held that the government must obtain a warrant before acquiring cell site location information (“CSLI”)) “applies retroactively” to the defendant’s case, ruled that “the question of whether a constitutional right is retroactive is distinct from the question of whether an individual is entitled to a remedy from any constitutional violation”.  Citing the “good-faith” exception, where law enforcement acts in good faith in obtaining evidence that is ultimately found to have been obtained in violation of an individual’s constitutional rights, Judge Goldsmith denied the defendant’s motion for a new trial on the basis of Carpenter.

Case Background

The defendant was charged with conspiracy to possess, and attempted possession of, heroin. At her trial, the Government introduced, among other evidence, location information from three cell phones.  The CSLI evidence showed that two of the phones traveled between Detroit and Columbus in late October 2016, and that the other phone traveled between Michigan and Texas in spring 2016. The Government used this evidence in an attempt to show that Leyva was participating in a drug-trafficking conspiracy and the jury returned its verdict on June 7, 2018, finding the defendant guilty on both counts.

After the Supreme Court ruling in Carpenter on June 22, 2018, the defendant then filed an instant motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(a), arguing that the CSLI evidence introduced at her trial was inadmissible and, therefore, a new trial was required.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Goldsmith noted that “The parties do not dispute that the warrantless search of Leyva’s cell phone records violated her Fourth Amendment rights. Evidence obtained in violation of an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights may be subject to exclusion at trial. However, because “`exclusion exacts a heavy toll on both the judicial system and society at large,’ not all violations of the Fourth Amendment result in the exclusion of evidence.” United States v. Fisher.”

Judge Goldsmith continued: “One exception to the exclusionary rule is the “good-faith” exception, where law enforcement acts in good faith in obtaining evidence that is ultimately found to have been obtained in violation of an individual’s constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has ‘said time and again that the sole purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter misconduct by law enforcement.’”

Judge Goldsmith stated that “Leyva argues that Carpenter should be applied retroactively to her case, citing Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 (1965) and Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (1987). The Court agrees that Carpenter applies retroactively to her case. But the question of whether a constitutional right is retroactive is distinct from the question of whether an individual is entitled to a remedy from any constitutional violation.”  Noting that “the Government argues that it relied on the then-valid SCA, as well as the Sixth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Carpenter, 819 F.3d 880 (6th Cir. 2016), in obtaining the CSLI for the three cell phones. It contends that the good-faith exception should apply to permit the introduction of this evidence at Leyva’s trial”, Judge Goldsmith stated “The Court agrees” and denied the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

So, what do you think?  Should the “good-faith” exception enable CSLI evidence acquired before the SCOTUS Carpenter ruling to remain admissible?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Another Commentary from The Sedona Conference: eDiscovery Best Practices

The Sedona Conference® (TSC) Conference and its Working Group 1 on Electronic Document Retention & Production (WG1) have yet another publication to announce in 2018.  Last week, TSC’s WG1 group announced a new second edition commentary on Legal Holds.

Thursday, TSC’s WG1 group announced its Commentary on Legal Holds, Second Edition: The Trigger & The Process.  Much has changed in the law and technology since The Sedona Conference published the First Edition of this Commentary back in September 2010 (hey, that’s when this blog was founded!). This Second Edition of the Commentary on Legal Holds, which provides practical guidelines for determining when the duty to preserve relevant information arises as well as the scope of preservation, reflects:

  • the 2015 amendments emphasizing the proper scope of discovery and the enhanced role of proportionality in preservation, as well as sharpening the analysis of sanctions for the loss of discoverable electronically stored information (ESI);
  • clarification of the duty of a non-party to respond to a subpoena compared to the duty to preserve information;
  • new guidance on how organizations should address data protection laws and regulations that may affect an organization’s ability to implement legal hold data preservation measures outside of the United States;
  • developments in state and federal case law on preservation and spoliation;
  • new and novel sources of ESI requiring preservation and collection; and
  • advances in electronic document management technology.

Importantly, this Second Edition incorporates the knowledge and guidance embodied in the updated Third Edition of The Sedona Principles.

This Commentary is contained within a manageable 43 page PDF document and, as many good TSC commentaries do, includes several guidelines “to help a party meet its duty to preserve discoverable information and to provide pragmatic suggestions and a framework for creating a set of preservation procedures.”  Here they are:

Guideline 1: A reasonable anticipation of litigation arises when an organization is on notice of a credible probability that it will become involved in litigation, seriously contemplates initiating litigation, or when it takes specific actions to commence litigation.

Guideline 2: Adopting and consistently following a policy governing an organization’s preservation obligations are factors that may demonstrate reasonableness and good faith.

Guideline 3: Adopting a procedure for reporting information relating to possible litigation to a responsible decision maker may assist in demonstrating reasonableness and good faith.

Guideline 4: Determining whether litigation is or should be reasonably anticipated should be based on a good-faith and reasonable evaluation of relevant facts and circumstances.

Guideline 5: Evaluating an organization’s preservation decisions should be based on the good faith and reasonableness of the decisions (including whether a legal hold is necessary and how it should be implemented) at the time they are made.

Guideline 6: Fulfilling the duty to preserve involves reasonable and good-faith efforts, taken as soon as is practicable and applied proportionately, to identify persons likely to have information relevant to the claims and defenses in the matter and, as necessary, notify them of their obligation to preserve that information.

Guideline 7: Factors that may be considered in determining the scope of information that should be preserved include the nature of the issues raised in the matter, the accessibility of the information, the probative value of the information, and the relative burdens and costs of the preservation effort.

Guideline 8: In circumstances where issuing a legal hold notice is appropriate, such a notice is most effective when the organization identifies the custodians and data stewards most likely to have discoverable information, and when the notice:

(a) communicates in a manner that assists persons in taking actions that are, in good faith, intended to be effective;

(b) is in an appropriate form, which may be written, and may be sent by email;

(c) provides information on how preservation is to be undertaken, and identifies individuals who can answer questions about preservation;

(d) includes a mechanism for the recipient to acknowledge that the notice has been received, read, and understood;

(e) addresses features of discoverable information systems that may make preservation of discoverable information more complex (e.g., auto delete functionality that should be suspended, or small sections of elaborate ac-counting or operational databases);

(f) is periodically reviewed and amended when necessary; and

(g) is followed up by periodic reminder notices, so the legal hold stays fresh in the minds of the recipients.43

Guideline 9: An organization should consider documenting the procedure of implementing the legal hold in a specific case when appropriate.

Guideline 10: Compliance with a legal hold should be regularly monitored.

Guideline 11: Any legal hold process should include provisions for releasing the hold upon the termination of the duty to preserve, so that the organization can resume adherence to policies for managing information through its useful life cycle in the absence of a legal hold.

Guideline 12: An organization should be mindful of local data protection laws and regulations when initiating a legal hold and planning a legal hold policy outside of the United States.

The Sedona Conference Commentary on Legal Holds, Second Edition: The Trigger & The Process is open for public comment through February 8, 2019. As always, questions and comments regarding the Commentary may be sent to comments@sedonaconference.org and the drafting team will carefully consider all comments received and determine what edits are appropriate for the final version.  You know the drill.

It’s been a busy year for The Sedona Conference® (TSC).  Earlier this year, the TSC has published the Public Comment Version of its Principles and Commentary on Defensible Disposition, the Public Comment Version of their Primer on Social Media, Second Edition (which we discussed in our panel at Relativity Fest earlier this week), the Public Comment version of its Commentary on BYOD: Principles and Guidance for Developing Policies and Meeting Discovery Obligations, the final version of its new Data Privacy Primer and its Commentary on Information Governance, Second Edition.

So, what do you think?  Does your organization have a program for Legal Holds?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.