Close
Enter your
text here

eDiscoveryDaily

Test Your Searches Before the Meet and Confer: eDiscovery Replay

Sometimes, even blog editors need to take a vacation.  But, instead of “going dark” for the week, we thought we would re-cover some topics from the past, when we had a fraction of the readers we do now.  If it’s new to you, it’s still new, right?  Hope you enjoy!  We’ll return with new posts on Monday, August 7.

This was one of the “pitfalls” and “potholes” in eDiscovery we discussed in a recent webcast.  Click here to learn about others.

One of the very first posts ever on this blog discussed the danger of using wildcards.  For those who haven’t been following the blog from the beginning, here’s a recap.

Years ago, I provided search strategy assistance to a client that had already agreed upon several searches with opposing counsel.  One search related to mining activities, so the attorney decided to use a wildcard of “min*” to retrieve variations like “mine”, “mines” and “mining”.

That one search retrieved over 300,000 files with hits.

Why?  Because there are 269 words in the English language that begin with the letters “min”.  Words like “mink”, “mind”, “mint” and “minion” were all being retrieved in this search for files related to “mining”.  We ultimately had to go back to opposing counsel and attempt to negotiate a revised search that was more appropriate.

What made that process difficult was the negotiation with opposing counsel.  My client had already agreed on over 200 terms with opposing counsel and had proposed many of those terms, including this one.  The attorneys had prepared these terms without assistance from a technology consultant (I was brought into the project after the terms were negotiated and agreed upon) and without testing any of the terms.

Since they had been agreed upon, opposing counsel was understandably resistant to modifying the terms.  The fact that my client faced having to review all of these files was not their problem.  We were ultimately able to provide a clear indication that many of the terms in this search were non-responsive and were able to get opposing counsel to agree to a modified list of variations of “mine” that included “minable”, “mine”, “mineable”, “mined”, “minefield”, “minefields”, “miner”, “miners”, “mines”, “mining” and “minings”.  We were able sort through the “minutia” and “minimize” the result set to less than 12,000 files with hits, saving our client a “mint”, which they certainly didn’t “mind”.  OK, I’ll stop now.

However, there were several other inefficient terms that opposing counsel refused to renegotiate and my client was forced to review thousands of additional files that they shouldn’t have had to review, which was a real “mindblower” (sorry, I couldn’t resist).  Had the client included a technical member on the team and had they tested each of these searches before negotiating terms with opposing counsel, they would have been able to figure out which terms were overbroad and would have been better prepared to negotiate favorable search terms for retrieving potentially responsive data.

When litigation is anticipated, it’s never too early to begin collecting potentially responsive data and assessing it by performing searches and testing the results.  However, if you wait until after the meet and confer with opposing counsel, it can be too late.

So, what do you think?  What steps do you take to assess your data before negotiating search terms?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. 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.

When Litigation Hits, The First 7 to 10 Days is Critical: eDiscovery Replay

Sometimes, even blog editors need to take a vacation.  But, instead of “going dark” for the week, we thought we would re-cover some topics from the past, when we had a fraction of the readers we do now.  If it’s new to you, it’s still new, right?  Hope you enjoy!  We’ll return with new posts on Monday, August 7.

When a case is filed, several activities must be completed within a short period of time (often as soon as the first seven to ten days after filing) to enable you to assess the scope of the case, where the key electronically stored information (ESI) is located and whether to proceed with the case or attempt to settle with opposing counsel.  Here are several of the key early activities that can assist in deciding whether to litigate or settle the case.

Activities:

  • Create List of Key Employees Most Likely to have Documents Relevant to the Litigation: To estimate the scope of the case, it’s important to begin to prepare the list of key employees that may have potentially responsive data. Information such as name, title, eMail address, phone number, office location and where information for each is stored on the network is important to be able to proceed quickly when issuing hold notices and collecting their data.
  • Issue Litigation Hold Notice and Track Results: The duty to preserve begins when you anticipate litigation; however, if litigation could not be anticipated prior to the filing of the case, it is certainly clear once the case has been filed that the duty to preserve has begun. Hold notices must be issued ASAP to all parties that may have potentially responsive data.  Once the hold is issued, you need to track and follow up to ensure compliance.  Did you know that issuing litigation hold notices today can be automated?  Here’s a short webcast to show you how.
  • Interview Key Employees: As quickly as possible, interview key employees to identify potential locations of responsive data in their possession as well as other individuals they can identify that may also have responsive data so that those individuals can receive the hold notice and be interviewed.
  • Interview Key Department Representatives: Certain departments, such as IT, Records or Human Resources, may have specific data responsive to the case. They may also have certain processes in place for regular destruction of “expired” data, so it’s important to interview them to identify potentially responsive sources of data and stop routine destruction of data subject to litigation hold.
  • Inventory Sources and Volume of Potentially Relevant Documents: Potentially responsive data can be located in a variety of sources, including: shared servers, eMail servers, employee workstations, employee home computers, employee mobile devices, portable storage media (including CDs, DVDs and portable hard drives), active paper files, archived paper files and third-party sources (consultants and contractors, including cloud storage providers). Hopefully, the organization already has created a data map before litigation to identify the location of sources of information to facilitate that process.  It’s important to get a high level sense of the total population to begin to estimate the effort required for discovery.  And, don’t forget to consider those custodians who are no longer there.
  • Plan Data Collection Methodology: Determining how each source of data is to be collected also affects the cost of the litigation. Are you using internal resources, outside counsel or a litigation support vendor?  Will the data be collected via an automated collection system or manually?  Will employees “self-collect” any of their own data?  Answers to these questions will impact the scope and cost of not only the collection effort, but the entire discovery effort.

These activities can result in creating a data map of potentially responsive information and a “probable cost of discovery” spreadsheet (based on initial estimated scope compared to past cases at the same stage) that will help in determining whether to proceed to litigate the case or attempt to settle with the other side.

So, what do you think?  How quickly do you decide whether to litigate or settle?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. 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.

Improving your eDiscovery Vocabulary is as Easy as 123: eDiscovery Replay

Sometimes, even blog editors need to take a vacation.  But, instead of “going dark” for the week, we thought we would re-cover some topics from the past, when we had a fraction of the readers we do now.  If it’s new to you, it’s still new, right?  Hope you enjoy!  We’ll return with new posts on Monday, August 7.

Want to be better equipped to speak the “lingo” of eDiscovery and understand what you’re saying?  Here’s a glossary that can help.

As provided via the JDSupra Business Advisor site, Electronic Discovery: Glossary of 123 Commonly Used Terms, provided by Seattle law firm Lane Powell PC, is a glossary of 123 commonly used terms to help you navigate the world of Electronic Discovery.  For those of us who have been in the industry for years, call them Terms of Endearment!

From Active Data to Zip, the glossary defines 123 total terms related to eDiscovery as well as technology in general.  You get discovery terms defined ranging from Bates Number and Chain of Custody to Redaction and Spoliation and technology terms from Cache (pronounced “cash”) and Compression to Unallocated Space and VPN (Virtual Private Network).

You can review the terms from the window on the JD Supra site or download the PDF document for reference purposes.  This list comes in handy for anyone who may need a better understanding of eDiscovery and technology or simply needs a refresher on certain terms.

I did not see definitions for all of the EDRM phases (e.g., no definitions for Identification, Collection, Analysis, Processing or Presentation) and some other terms that might be useful to define (e.g., Searching), so maybe they can eventually issue a supplemented version that has 144 defined terms.  Now, that’s gross!  :o)

Speaking of EDRM, they have their own even more extensive glossary (we covered it here last year) and you can find it (and its sub-glossaries) here.  And, if you want a glossary specific to Technology Assisted Review, here is a terrific one from Maura Grossman and Gordon Cormack.  To become more comfortable with the lingo, be sure not to “gloss” over any of these resources.  :o)

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

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. 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.

Other Production Parameters from a Provider’s Point of View: eDiscovery Replay

Sometimes, even blog editors need to take a vacation.  But, instead of “going dark” for the week, we thought we would re-cover some topics from the past, when we had a fraction of the readers we do now.  If it’s new to you, it’s still new, right?  Hope you enjoy!  We’ll return with new posts on Monday, August 7.

Yesterday, we began to discuss some of the production parameters that CloudNine collects from our clients in order to ensure that the production includes the correct documents in the required format.  But, wait – there’s more!  Let’s take a look at some other examples of information we collect from our clients.

  • Naming Structure for Files: Files that are produced follow some sort of naming convention and structure, typically either the original file name or some sort of naming convention that involves a unique identifying prefix followed by a zero-filled number (e.g., ABC000001.{file extension}).
  • Image Endorsements: Of course, images that are produced typically include a Bates number on each page that involves a unique identifying prefix followed by a zero-filled number (see example above), but endorsements can also include special endorsements such as a confidential stamp, so we provide a place on our questionnaire for clients to provide additional endorsement instructions for text and placement.
  • Metadata Fields and/or Tags to Be Produced: If the client is producing metadata, it’s obviously important to know the fields to be produced and the desired order. We also ask them to specify the delivery format – the typical formats are CSV (comma separated values, which can be loaded into Excel) or DAT (data) file.
  • Populate Production Numbers Back into Database: When clients produce documents, they typically want to track the production numbers, so we give them the option for us to create new fields in their CloudNine database with those production numbers.
  • Branded Images Back into Database: We also offer the same option for putting images branded with the Bates numbers and other endorsements back into the database, so that the client can easily reference the production number when looking at the page.
  • Load File: Often parties agree to produce load files to make it easy for opposing counsel to load the documents and metadata into their own eDiscovery platform, so we will create load files in several industry standard formats to support that requirement.
  • Delivery Method for Production: There are several options for delivering documents and data including CD or DVD, portable hard drive or electronically via File Transfer Protocol (FTP). Some projects, due to HIPAA requirements require special security handling, such as encrypted hard drives or Secured File Transfer Protocol (SFTP).
  • Where to Send Production: If the client selects CD, DVD or Portable Hard Drive, we require the Name, Street Address and Phone Number where the media is being delivered, if they select FTP, we need an FTP address (and any credentials, if necessary, to access it).
  • Name of Production Set: We request that each production set be uniquely named for later reference purposes, which is especially useful when there are multiple productions to track.
  • Other Instructions: Believe it or not, all of the parameters that we’ve identified over the past two days don’t cover every scenario, so we provide a place on the questionnaire to provide any other instructions. Those can range from special handling for other file types, extra copies requested, etc.

As you can see, we collect a lot of information from our clients at production time to ensure a proper production.  There are a lot of variables to consider, so it’s important to be consider those variables not just when producing, but WAY back at the beginning of the case, to ensure that you will be able to fulfill your discovery obligations to opposing counsel.  Hope this list of parameters was helpful.

So, what do you think?  How do you ensure proper productions?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. 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.

Production from a Provider’s Point of View: eDiscovery Replay

Sometimes, even blog editors need to take a vacation.  But, instead of “going dark” for the week, we thought we would re-cover some topics from the past, when we had a fraction of the readers we do now.  If it’s new to you, it’s still new, right?  Hope you enjoy!  We’ll return with new posts on Monday, August 7.

We sometimes forget that the end goal of the discovery process is production: to produce responsive electronically stored information (ESI) to opposing counsel.  But, do you realize how many parameters and potential permutations there can be to the production process?  Let’s take a look.

eDiscovery providers like (shameless plus warning!) CloudNine handle productions for our clients routinely, (in our case, often out of our own eDiscovery review application, but sometimes out of other applications as well).  When a client asks for a production, there are a series of questions to ask to ensure that the production includes the correct documents in the required format.  To ensure that and avoid potential confusion, we provide a questionnaire to the client to complete to define the parameters of that production.  Examples of information we collect from our clients:

  • Documents to be produced: Typically, we expect the client to identify a tag that was applied to the documents (especially when the documents are in CloudNine) to be used to identify the documents to be produced (e.g., To Be Produced, Responsive-Produce, etc.) and confirm the count of documents that are included in that tag. If the count doesn’t match the tag, we resolve with the client before proceeding.
  • Output Formats to Include: Productions can be native or image, may or may not include Optical Character Recognition (OCR) or extracted text and may or may not include metadata. It’s important to confirm the formats to be produced, which can include all or just some of the available formats.
  • Format of Images: If images are to be produced, we confirm whether they single or multi-page TIFF, or in Adobe PDF.
  • Format of OCR/Extracted Text Files: OCR files can also be produced either in single or multi-page files, so we enable the client to specify the format.
  • Handling of Excel Files: Because they are often not formatted for printing, Excel files often don’t image well and generate a high number of image pages. So, we provide options for producing a placeholder image along with the native Excel file (which is the default option), or TIFFing all or part of the Excel document.
  • Handing of AutoCad Files: Though less common, AutoCad DWG files can also be problematic to convert to TIFF, so we provide a placeholder and native option for this file type as well.
  • Handling of Redactions: If redactions are present, we confirm the production of documents with the redactions present. We also recommend that (and assist clients with) ensuring redacted text is removed from OCR files of the redacted images to ensure that there are no inadvertent disclosures of privileged or confidential information via those text files.

This is just the beginning of what we ask clients.  Tomorrow, we will cover other information we collect to ensure a proper production.

So, what do you think?  How do you ensure proper productions?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. 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.

Plaintiff Can Review Documents Deemed as Non-Responsive, But Has to Bear its Own Costs: eDiscovery Case Week

eDiscovery Case Week concludes today.  We covered four cases this week and, Wednesday, we covered our Wednesday webcast Key eDiscovery Case Law Review for First Half of 2017 (click here to check out the replay of that) as well.  Here’s the final case.  Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the courtroom!

In Nachurs Alpine Solutions, Corp. v. Banks, No. 15-CV-4015-LTS (N.D. Iowa July 7, 2017), Iowa Chief Magistrate Judge C. J. Williams granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s motion to compel ESI discovery, by ordering the defendants to produce all of the ESI documents it identified as unresponsive under an Attorneys Eyes Only label and that the plaintiff bear its own costs of reviewing the documents for the categories it believes may hold relevant documents.

Case Background

In this case regarding allegations of confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information taken by a former employee of the plaintiff to the defendant (his new employer), the Court entered an order regarding ESI after a dispute between the parties.  Using search terms approved in the Court’s order, the defendants searched their ESI for documents containing those search terms. The defendants then reviewed those documents for privilege, duplication, and relevance.

The defendants produced two batches of ESI, along with a privilege log reflecting documents withheld on privilege grounds.  The second production batch included placer-sheets stating “Non-Responsive File” marking 235 documents that the defendants believed were nonresponsive.  Through discussions, the plaintiff apparently discovered there were as many as 44,000 other documents that the defendants had withheld from the first batch as nonresponsive (defendants put the number at approximately 24,000 documents).

Attempts to resolve their differences on the first batch proved fruitless and, while the plaintiff identified 28 categories of documents it believed were properly withheld as non-responsive, it identified four categories of documents it believed were relevant and requested an order requiring defendants to produce all of the nonresponsive documents under the same conditions as those produced in the second batch (i.e., (1) Attorneys Eyes Only designation; and (2) no admission of relevance), with defendants paying attorneys’ fees for the cost of culling through the documents for responsive documents.  The defendants argued that plaintiff’s motion amounts to a request that defendants “perform a second, costly review of all of the 24,479 documents withheld as non-responsive.”

Judge’s Ruling

In considering the “countervailing factors”, Judge Williams found that “it would be disproportional to require defendants to go back through the documents to identify those that fall within the four categories plaintiff believes are most likely to generate relevant documents. Nor, even if it did, is it likely that plaintiff would not be any more satisfied or the Court more confident with the result.”  He also presumed that the defendants were “unwilling to comply with the alternative because plaintiff wants defendants to pay the attorneys’ fees associated with culling through the documents”, not because the defendants had something to hide.

As a result, Judge Williams ruled, as follows: “The Court finds the appropriate resolution to this dispute is: (1) defendants produce all of the ESI documents it identified as unresponsive under an Attorneys Eyes Only label; (2) that the production is not to be deemed as an admission by defendants that the documents are relevant; and (3) that plaintiff bear its own costs of reviewing the documents for the categories it believes may hold relevant documents. Should plaintiff discover relevant documents during this review which it believes were wrongfully withheld by defendants, then plaintiff can bring a motion for sanctions at that time to recover some or all of the attorneys’ fees associated with the search.”

So, what do you think?  Should parties be ordered to produce documents determined to be non-responsive absent a clear showing that they were misclassified?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

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 Grants Most of Plaintiff’s Cost Recovery Request, Including All eDiscovery Costs: eDiscovery Case Week

eDiscovery Case Week continues.  We’ll cover four cases this week and, yesterday, we covered our Wednesday webcast Key eDiscovery Case Law Review for First Half of 2017 (click here to check out the replay of that) as well.  Here’s the next case.  Just as there are five “Sharknado” movies (sadly), there will be five case law related posts this week.

In Ariel Inv., LLC v. Ariel Capital Advisors LLC, No. 15 C 3717 (N.D. Ill., July 17, 2017), Illinois District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly granted the prevailing plaintiff’s request to tax most requested costs in the amount of $99,378.32, including the entire amount ($85,666.51) requested for reimbursement for eDiscovery costs.

Case Background

In this case where the plaintiff sued the defendant alleging trademark infringement, unfair competition, and cybersquatting in violation of the Lanham Act, the Court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the cybersquatting claim before trial, but the plaintiff prevailed in a bench trial on its remaining Lanham Act and state law claims.  The Court entered a permanent injunction barring the defendant from continuing to use the term “Ariel” in connection with its business.

After the ruling, the plaintiff submitted a request to cover “nearly $110,000 in costs” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d).  The defendant contended that no costs should be awarded because the plaintiff only partially prevailed, whereas the plaintiff argued that it was the prevailing party because it was awarded substantial relief.

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to the defendant’s claim that no costs should be awarded because the plaintiff only partially prevailed, Judge Kennelly ruled: “The prevailing party for purposes of Rule 54(d) is the party that prevails with regard to a substantial part of the litigation…There is no question that Ariel Investments prevailed with regard to a substantial part of the litigation. Indeed, it was the prevailing party on all of its claims other than the cybersquatting claim.”

With that issue decided, Judge Kennelly considered reimbursement requests related to costs for depositions, court transcripts, exemplification and other costs, including eDiscovery costs totaling $85,666.51.  Judge Kennelly noted that the “Seventh Circuit has not addressed in detail the recoverability of e-discovery expenses” and that “[t]his Court and others in the district have previously followed the reasoning of the Third Circuit” in cases like Race Tires of America, Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 674 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. 2012) (covered by us here), which ruled against several eDiscovery related costs as not constituting “making copies”.

Nonetheless, Judge Kennelly stated: “Ariel Investments has sufficiently shown that the costs it requests are recoverable. Specifically, Ariel Investments has established, by way of an affidavit offered in response to Ariel Capital’s challenge to the content of the e-discovery vendor invoices, that the charges for which it seeks reimbursement all involved expenses for ‘the process by which documents in a variety of native forms . . . are copied and converted’ to a readable format…Ariel Capital cannot reasonably object to otherwise recoverable costs that it required Ariel Investments to incur.”

As a result, Judge Kennelly granted the plaintiff’s request to tax the entire amount ($85,666.51) requested for reimbursement for eDiscovery costs and total costs in the amount of $99,378.32.

So, what do you think?  Why do some courts award reimbursement of eDiscovery costs while others don’t?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

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 How Recent eDiscovery Case Law Has Affected Your Organization: eDiscovery Case Week

eDiscovery Case Week continues.  We’ll cover four cases this week (catching up on a couple from earlier this year) and we’ll cover today’s webcast Key eDiscovery Case Law Review for First Half of 2017 (click here to sign up for that) as well.  Land shark!

The best predictor of future behavior is relevant past behavior. Nowhere is that truer than with legal precedents set by past case law decisions, especially when it relates to eDiscovery best practices.  Are you aware of recent case law decisions related to eDiscovery best practices and what that those decisions mean to your organization?

Today at noon CST (1:00pm EST, 10:00am PST), CloudNine will conduct the webcast Key eDiscovery Case Law Review for First Half of 2017.  This one-hour webcast will cover key case law covered by the eDiscovery Daily blog related to eDiscovery for the first half of 2017, what the legal profession can learn from those rulings and whether any of the decisions run counter to expectations set by Federal and State rules for civil procedure. Topics include:

  • How should objections to production requests be handled?
  • Are you required to produce subpoenaed data stored internationally?
  • Should there be a limit to fees assessed for discovery misconduct?
  • When is data stored by a third party considered to be within your control?
  • Should courts dictate search terms to parties?
  • How can you make an effective proportionality argument to address burdensome requests?
  • Can the requesting party dictate the form of production?
  • Does storing data on a file share site waive privilege?
  • If data is intentionally deleted, should Rule 37(e) apply?
  • Is circumstantial evidence of intentional spoliation good enough to warrant sanctions?
  • Should keyword search be performed before Technology-Assisted Review?

I’ll be presenting the webcast, along with Julia Romero Peter, General Counsel and VP of Sales at CloudNine AND Karen DeSouza, Director of Review Services for CloudNine.  To register for the webcast, click here.  If you miss it, it’s gone forever! (not really, it’s being recorded)… :o)

So, what do you think?  Do you think case law regarding eDiscovery issues affects how you manage discovery?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. 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.

Defendant Not Sanctioned Despite Use of Evidence Wiping Software: eDiscovery Case Week

eDiscovery Case Week continues.  We’ll cover four cases this week (catching up on a couple from earlier this year) and we’ll cover our Wednesday webcast Key eDiscovery Case Law Review for First Half of 2017 (click here to sign up for that) as well.  Here’s the next case.  And, unlike the “Phelps vs. Shark” debacle, I promise nothing about this post was computer generated… :o)

In HCC Ins. Holdings, Inc. v. Flowers, No. 1:15-cv-3262-WSD (N.D. Ga., Jan. 30, 2017), Georgia District Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. denied the plaintiff’s motion for adverse inference sanctions despite evidence that the defendant had used evidence wiping software twice after being ordered to produce her personal computer, stating that the plaintiff “offers only bare speculation that any of its trade secrets or other data were actually transferred” to the defendant’s laptop.

Case Background

In this case, the defendant was accused of misappropriating trade secrets after she left her company and started a competitive company. The plaintiff claimed that when the defendant left the company, she took confidential files with her to benefit her new company and also claimed that, after receiving the lawsuit papers in this case, and after the Court ordered the defendant to produce her personal computer, she destroyed data on her personal laptop and also on a thumb drive that was plugged into her personal computer on September 20, 2015 (which was after she received a preservation notice and the complaint in the case).

The defendant’s husband, an experienced IT professional, claimed he inserted his personal thumb drive on September 20 to back-up data on the defendant’s personal laptop, but the thumb drive was corrupted and did not work, and that he therefore threw it away (the defendant’s own computer forensic expert claimed that it did work properly the second time, when it was plugged in for 38 seconds.

On September 19, 2015, and again three days later, the day after the Court ordered the defendant to produce her personal computer, the computer wiping program CCleaner was manually run on her personal laptop.  During that time, the program Defraggler (program that overwrites deleted files in unallocated space on a computer’s hard drive) was also run and so was a program called WinUndelete (which is used to recover deleted files).  The plaintiff claimed the defendant’s husband used WinUndelete to confirm that he had destroyed evidence, but he claimed he ran the program off of his work thumb drive to familiarize himself with it for future use for work purposes.  After running extensive searches over several weeks, a neutral examiner did not locate any of the plaintiff’s confidential information or trade secrets on any of the devices produced by the defendant.

Judge’s Ruling

In reviewing the results, Judge Duffey stated: “HCC’s Motion is based on a series of events it casts as suspicious, but HCC offers only bare speculation that any of its trade secrets or other data were actually transferred from HCC Life’s systems to Flowers’ personal laptop. A party seeking spoliation sanctions must prove that (1) the missing evidence existed at one time; (2) the defendant had a duty to preserve the evidence; and (3) the evidence was crucial to the plaintiff’s prima facie case… Here, after extensive discovery, including examinations by a neutral forensic examiner and the parties’ expert forensic examiners, depositions, and subpoenas of email and cloud-based storage companies, HCC does not provide any evidence to show that Flowers or her husband actually transferred any data from HCC Life to her personal devices or cloud storage media she controlled.”

As a result, Judge Duffey ruled as follows: “Though Flowers’ and her husband’s actions are troubling, and in breach of her duty to preserve, the Court finds spoliation sanctions are not warranted.”

So, what do you think?  Is this ruling troubling?  Or should the motioning party be required to show evidence of actual responsive ESI deleted?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

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.