Close
Enter your
text here

Preservation

Twitter Might “Bug” You if You Want to Retrieve Archive Data – eDiscovery Best Practices
 

Thanks to the Google Alerts that I set up to send me new stories related to eDiscovery, I found an interesting blog post from an attorney that appears to shed light on an archival bug within Twitter that could affect people who may want to retrieve Twitter archival data for eDiscovery purposes.

In Erik J. Heels’ blog, his latest post (Twitter Bug Makes Tweet Archives Unreliable For eDiscovery), he starts by noting that his very first tweet of October 30, 2008 is no longer active on his site – his earliest tweet was dated September 5, 2010.  All attempts to try to locate the tweets were unsuccessful and customer service was no help.

After some digging, Erik found out that, on October 13, 2010, Twitter announced the “new Twitter” which included a new user interface.  As part of that revamping, Twitter changed the format for its status URLs (Tweets) so that the sequential number at the end of each Tweet (the Tweet ID) changed length, eventually doubling from nine digits in 2008 to 18 digits today (which supports up to one quintillion tweets).

Then, on December 12, 2012, Twitter announced that users could export archives of their Tweets (via your account’s Settings page).  The result is a nine field comma-separated values (CSV) file with information, including the tweet ID.  So, now you could retrieve your old tweets that were no longer actively stored, right?  Not necessarily.

As Erik found out, when he exported the file and went to retrieve old tweets, some of his tweet IDs actually pointed to other people’s tweets!  You can see the details of his tests in his blog post or via his 60 second YouTube video here.

Obviously, if you need to retrieve archived tweets for eDiscovery purposes, that’s not a good thing.

As it happens, CloudNine Discovery has our own Twitter account (@Cloud9Discovery) and has since August of 2009 (we were known as Trial Solutions back then), so I decided to run my own test and exported our archive.  Here’s what I found:

  • Our very first tweet was August 17, 2009 (Trial Solutions Ranks 2,830 on the Exclusive 2009 Inc. 5000).  It retrieved correctly.  The bit.ly link within the tweet isn’t hyperlinked, but if you copy and paste it into the browser address, it correctly retrieves (obviously, this will only be the case if the referenced web page still exists).
  • In fact, all of the early tweets that I tested retrieved with no problem.
  • Then, on December 1, 2010, I encountered the first tweet that didn’t retrieve correctly (one of our blog posts titled eDiscovery Project Management:  Effectively Manage Your Staff) with a tweet ID of 9924696560635900 (Full URL: https://twitter.com/Cloud9Discovery/status/9924696560635900).  It didn’t point to a different person’s tweet, it simply said “Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!”
  • From that point on, none of the tweets that I tried to retrieve would retrieve – all gave me the “page doesn’t exist” message.
  • I even tried to retrieve our tweet of yesterday’s blog post (Defendant Ordered to Produce Archived Emails Even Though Plaintiff Failed to Produce Theirs – eDiscovery Case Law) via the tweet ID provided in the archive file (535098008715538000).  Even it wouldn’t retrieve.  Wait a minute, what’s going on here!

I then retrieved our tweet of yesterday’s blog post by clicking on it directly within Twitter.  Here is the URL to the tweet with the ID at the end: https://twitter.com/Cloud9Discovery/status/535098008715538434.

See the problem?  The tweet IDs don’t match.

I ultimately determined that all of the tweet IDs provided in the archive file starting on December 1, 2010 end with two or more zeroes.  Starting on November 5, 2010, they all end with at least one zero.  When I started testing those, I re-created Erik’s problem:

Our tweet on November 29, 2010 titled eDiscovery Trends: Sanctions at an All-Time High, (tweet ID: 9199940811100160) actually retrieves a tweet by @aalyce titled @StylesFever snog liam marry louis and niall can take me out 😉 hehe.  Whoops!

It appears as though the archive file provided by Twitter is dropping all digits of the tweet ID after the fifteenth digit and replacing them with zeroes, effectively pointing to either an invalid or incorrect page and rendering the export effectively useless.  Hopefully, Twitter can fix it – we’ll see.  In the meantime, don’t rely on it and be prepared to address the issue if your case needs to retrieve archived data from Twitter.  Thanks, Erik, for the heads up!

So, what do you think?  Have you ever had to preserve or produce data from Twitter in litigation?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

The Watergate 18 Minute Gap in Audio Recordings Has Nothing on This Case – eDiscovery Case Law

Anybody who remembers Watergate remembers the big deal made about an 18 1/2 minute gap in audio recordings reported by President Nixon’s secretary, Rose Mary Woods.  This case involves a gap in audio recordings much longer than that.

In Novick v. AXA Network, LLC, 07-CV-7767 (AKH) (KNF) (S.D.N.Y.Oct. 22, 2014), New York Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox granted the plaintiff’s request for sanctions against the defendant, awarding an adverse inference jury instruction for several weeks of spoliated audio recordings and also awarding “reasonable attorney’s fees and costs” associated with the motion as well as retaking several depositions.

Case Background

In this wrongful termination case, the plaintiff contended that the defendants committed several “strikes” justifying his request for sanctions, including spoliating audio recordings because “audio recordings from the time period August 28, 2006 through November 5, 2006 (approximately one-third of the entire time period ordered) are missing,” and “Defendants admit that they were likely erased and taped over” (per defendants letter to the plaintiff on October 25, 2013).  According to the plaintiff, “these recordings are from the most important time period of all – directly before and directly after Mr. Novick’s termination.”  The plaintiff also contended that the defendant had numerous deficiencies in their email production, where the defendant again made several promises to rectify the mistakes.

The defendants contended that “no responsive emails have been withheld and there is no evidence that any emails are missing.”  They did, however, “acknowledge that there are approximately eight weeks of audio recordings, within the period of time for which production of audio recordings was eventually ordered, that cannot be located or produced,” but “[t]his is not a new issue,” and the defendants advised plaintiff of it, on October 17, 2013, when the majority of the recordings were produced to him, and “[t]he fact that these weeks of recordings are missing constitutes the only real issue in plaintiff’s sanctions motion.”  The defendant also acknowledged that they “cannot now explain the absence of these recordings”.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Fox stated that the court “determined that ‘[t]he defendants’ duty to preserve evidence arose when the plaintiff’s counsel notified the defendants, in the October 16, 2006 letter, that the audio recordings should be preserved because they may be relevant to future litigation’” and that the defendants conceded that “‘there are approximately eight weeks of audio recordings that are missing within the period for which defendants have been ordered to produce audio recordings,’ namely the period of August 28-31, 2006, and September 8-November 5, 2006, and they ‘have not been able to determine when, why or how these audio recordings came to be missing from the group of other audio recordings that were stored on DVDs and have been produced.’”  As a result, Judge Fox ruled that “the Court finds that the defendants spoliated relevant evidence, namely, audio recordings for the period August 28-31, 2006, and September 8-November 5, 2006”.

Judge Fox also noted that “Moreover, the defendants’ misconduct respecting the audio recordings was compounded by their deliberate and unjustified failure to search for and locate e-mail messages, as directed by the September 25, 2013 order. The defendants now admit that it was not until March 2014, that they realized that the Frontbridge archive was not searched for responsive documents, but contend this delay was ‘due to human error,’ without explaining what that error was or why they waited until March 2014 to conduct the investigation concerning the production of e-mail messages.”

As a result, Judge Fox Fox granted the plaintiff’s request for sanctions against the defendant, awarding an adverse inference jury instruction for the defendant’s actions and also awarding “reasonable attorney’s fees and costs” associated with the motion as well as retaking several depositions.

So, what do you think?  Did defense counsel’s quick reaction to the disclosure save the email’s privileged status?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

BTW, we also covered a ruling on this case last year here.

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

Simply Deleting a File Doesn’t Mean It’s Gone – eDiscovery Best Practices
 

I seem to have picked up a bit of a bug and I’m on cold medicine, so my writing brain is a bit fuzzy.  As a result, so I’m revisiting a topic that has come up a few times over the years that we covered early on in the blog’s history.  I should be back in the saddle with new posts next week!

Disk drives use an index or table to keep track of where each file begins and ends on the disk.  You may have heard terms such as “FAT” (file allocation table) or NTFS ({Windows} NT File System) – these filing systems enable the file to be retrieved quickly on the drive.  They’re like a “directory” of all of the active files on the disk.  When a file is “deleted” (i.e., actually deleted, not just moved to the Recycle Bin), the data for that file isn’t actually removed from the disk (in most cases).  Instead, the entry pertaining to it is removed from the filing system.  As a result, the area on the disk where the actual data is located becomes unallocated space.

Unallocated space, also known as inactive data or drive free space, is the area of the drive not allocated to active data. On a Windows machine, deleted data is not actually destroyed, but the space on the drive that can be reused to store new information. Until the unallocated space is overwritten with new data, the old data remains.  This data can be retrieved (in most cases) using forensic techniques. On MAC O/S 10.5 and higher, there is an application that overwrites sectors when a file is deleted. This process more securely destroys data, but even then it may be possible to recover data out of unallocated space.

Because the unallocated space on a hard drive or server is that portion of the storage space to which data may be saved, it is also where many applications “temporarily” store files when they are in use. For instance, temporary Internet files are created when a user visits a web page, and these pages may be “cached” or temporarily stored in the unallocated space.  Rebooting a workstation or server can also clear some data from the unallocated space on its drive.

Since computers are dynamic and any computer operation may write data to the drive, it is nearly impossible to preserve data in the unallocated space on the hard drive and that data is not accessible without special software tools. To preserve data from the unallocated space of a hard drive, the data must be forensically collected, which basically copies the entire drive’s contents, including every sector (whether those sectors contain active data or not). Even then, data in the unallocated space may not be complete. Because the unallocated space is used to store new data, writing a new file may overwrite part of a deleted file, leaving only part of that file in the unallocated space.

Nonetheless, “deleted” files have been recovered, collected and produced in numerous lawsuits, despite efforts of some producing parties to destroy that evidence.

So, what do you think?  Have you ever recovered deleted data that was relevant to litigation?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Dealing with the Departed – eDiscovery Best Practices
 

Having addressed this recently with a client, I thought this was a good topic to revisit here on the blog…

When litigation hits, key activities to get a jump on the case include creating a list of key employees most likely to have documents relevant to the litigation and interviewing those key employees, as well as key department representatives, such as IT for information about retention and destruction policies.  These steps are especially important as they may shed light on custodians you might not think about – the departed.

When key employees depart an organization, it’s important for that organization to have a policy in place to preserve their data for a period of time to ensure that any data in their possession that might be critical to company operations is still available if needed.  Preserving that data may occur in a number of ways, including:

  • Saving the employee’s hard drive, either by keeping the drive itself or by backing it up to some other media before wiping it for re-use;
  • Keeping any data in their network store (i.e., folder on the network dedicated to the employee’s files) by backing up that folder or even (in some cases) simply leaving it there for access if needed;
  • Storage and/or archival of eMail from the eMail system;
  • Retention of any portable media in the employee’s possession (including DVDs, portable hard drives, smart phones, etc.).

As part of the early fact finding, it’s essential to determine the organization’s retention policy (and practices, especially if there’s no formal policy) for retaining data (such as the examples listed above) of departed employees.  You need to find out if the organization keeps that data, where they keep it, in what format, and for how long.

When interviewing key employees, one of the typical questions to ask is “Do you know of any other employees that may have responsive data to this litigation?”  The first several interviews with employees often identify other employees that need to be interviewed, so the interview list will often grow to locate potentially responsive electronically stored information (ESI).  It’s important to broaden that question to include employees that are no longer with the organization to identify any that also may have had responsive data and try to gather as much information about each departed employee as possible, including the department in which they worked, who their immediate supervisor was and how long they worked at the company.  Often, this information may need to be gathered from Human Resources.

Once you’ve determined which departed employees might have had responsive data and whether the organization may still be retaining any of that data, you can work with IT or whoever has possession of that data to preserve and collect it for litigation purposes.  Just because they’re departed doesn’t mean they’re not important.

So, what do you think?  Does your approach for identifying and collecting from custodians include departed custodians?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Image © Warner Bros.

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

Plaintiff Slips, But Defendant Takes the Fall – eDiscovery Case Law
 

In Riley v. Marriott Int’l, 12-CV-6242P (W.D. N.Y. Sept. 25, 2014), New York Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson agreed with the plaintiffs that spoliation of data had occurred when the defendant failed to preserve video surveillance and “sweep logs” after one of the plaintiffs slipped and fell in the defendant’s hotel garage and that the defendant was at least grossly negligent for not preserving the information.  However, the judge denied the plaintiffs request for summary judgment, granting an adverse inference instruction instead.

Case Background

The plaintiffs filed suit, claiming a slip and fall accident had occurred at the defendant’s hotel in Maui when Linda Riley slipped and fell on the floor of the hotel's parking garage after exiting an elevator because the floor was wet from rainwater that had been permitted to pool there.  The defendant had a surveillance camera that monitored and recorded the area of Linda's accident twenty-four hours a day and the loss prevention manager at the hotel, testified that the recordings are maintained for thirty days, at which time the stored recordings are overwritten by new recordings.  

According to the loss prevention manager, once he is notified of a potential claim against the Hotel, he is responsible for preserving information relating to that claim and he testified that the video showed Linda's fall, her removal from the scene in a wheelchair, and hotel employees placing wet floor signs and sweeping up the water on the floor.  He also testified that he turned the recording over to the hotel's liability insurance carrier.  The plaintiffs stated that the defendant provided only approximately seven minutes of the footage, which begins about one minute before Linda's accident and filed the motion for summary judgment due to the unavailability of more of the video as well as “sweep logs” that kept a record of floor maintenance by employees.  The defendant did not dispute that the sweep logs and video footage existed or that it had a duty to preserve them, but objected, claiming that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate prejudice due to the destruction of data.

Judge’s Ruling

Noting that “Marriott has not challenged the Rileys' contention that it had a duty to preserve the destroyed evidence” and that “no genuine question exists that video footage depicting the scene of an accident and sweep logs reflecting maintenance performed at the scene of an accident is likely to contain relevant information”, Judge Payson “easily conclude[d] that Marriott had a duty to preserve both the sweep logs and the video footage from the day of the accident”.  She also stated that “Marriott has failed to offer any justification for its failure to preserve the evidence” and “failed to offer any facts concerning how or why the evidence was destroyed”; therefore, “Marriott's failure to preserve the entire video footage relating to Linda's accident and the sweep logs for the day in question despite the Hotel's loss prevention employee's testimony that he knew that he had a duty to preserve relevant evidence constitutes, at a minimum, gross negligence.” 

However, Judge Payson stopped short of granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, concluding “that an adverse inference instruction is both appropriate and sufficient to deter Marriott from similar future conduct, to shift the risk of an erroneous judgment to Marriott and to restore the Rileys' position in this litigation.”

So, what do you think?  Did the judge go far enough or should the motion for summary judgment have been granted?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Failure to Preserve Data on Various Devices Causes Special Master to Recommend Default Judgment – eDiscovery Case Law
 

In Small v. University Medical Center of Southern Nevada, No. 2:13-cv-00298-APG-PAL (D. Nev. Aug. 18, 2014), Special Master Daniel B. Garrie, calling the defendant’s widespread failure to preserve data a “mockery of the orderly administration of justice”, recommended that the court enter an order of default judgment, along with further sanctions, in favor of the plaintiffs.

This employment law dispute had required to date “a fully briefed motion to compel with accompanying oral argument; seven discovery status conferences over eight months before Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen; the appointment of Special Master Daniel B. Garrie; five in person, all day hearings conducted by the Special Master; 14 telephonic hearings before the Special Master; over 20 declarations submitted by employees and agents of UMC (many supplementing or amending prior incomplete or inaccurate declarations); and written submissions by counsel and ESI experts.”

A partial chronology within the Special Master’s report demonstrated that the defendant did not issue or put any litigation hold in place until after the plaintiffs had deposed a defendant witness, which was more than 250 days after the plaintiffs initiated the action.  As Special Master Garrie noted, “In fact, these proceedings confirmed UMC has no ‘litigation hold’ policy, and did not institute any "litigation hold" procedures in response to this lawsuit.”

The defendant had two policies for mobile devices: a “company-issued, personally enabled” (COPE) device policy and a “bring your own device” (BYOD) policy where employees used personal smart phones. Ultimately, it was determined that the devices under the COPE policy were not put under litigation hold until after a number of the devices were wiped clean, which resulted in the loss of 26,310 messages. As for devices under the BYOD policy, the defendant did not issue a litigation hold on the devices at all, which resulted in the loss of approximately two years of ESI that would have been potentially responsive to the case. 

The defendant also failed to identify and preserve network file shares, two laptops belonging to key custodians and work computers used by 24 of the 27 custodians, among other data sources.  As Special Master Garrie noted, “Not a single UMC executive took any of the steps necessary to ensure the preservation of evidence. No UMC executive took responsibility for instituting or enforcing a ‘litigation hold,’ or otherwise acting to ensure the preservation of documents in this case.”

As a result, Special Master Garrie recommended sanctions, stating, “Defendant UMC's extraordinary misconduct and substantial and willful spoliation of relevant ESI in this case resulted in substantial prejudice to Plaintiffs and the classes, and misled Plaintiffs, the Court, and the Special Master on numerous discovery issues…The level of intentional destruction of evidence by UMC shocks the conscious. As such, as to the 613 Opt-In Plaintiffs, default judgment should be entered against UMC pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(iii) & (vi) and the Court's inherent powers.”  He also stated his belief that “Plaintiffs are entitled to sanctions in the form of specific factual findings relating to class certification, and a rebuttable presumption regarding certain merit issues.”  Finally, he recommended that the defendant “be ordered to reimburse Plaintiffs' reasonable costs and fees in these proceedings, including their costs in bringing a motion to compel production, in attending discovery status conferences before Magistrate Judge Leen, and for time spent in the proceedings before Special Master Garrie.”

So, what do you think?  Do the actions by the defendant merit such a harsh sanction?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

How Mature is Your Organization in Handling eDiscovery? – eDiscovery Best Practices

A new self-assessment resource from EDRM helps you answer that question.

A few days ago, EDRM announced the release of the EDRM eDiscovery Maturity Self-Assessment Test (eMSAT-1), the “first self-assessment resource to help organizations measure their eDiscovery maturity” (according to their press release linked here).

As stated in the press release, eMSAT-1 is a downloadable Excel workbook containing 25 worksheets (actually 27 worksheets when you count the Summary sheet and the List sheet of valid choices at the end) organized into seven sections covering various aspects of the e-discovery process. Complete the worksheets and the assessment results are displayed in summary form at the beginning of the spreadsheet.  eMSAT-1 is the first of several resources and tools being developed by the EDRM Metrics group, led by Clark and Dera Nevin, with assistance from a diverse collection of industry professionals, as part of an ambitious Maturity Model project.

The seven sections covered by the workbook are:

  1. General Information Governance: Contains ten questions to answer regarding your organization’s handling of information governance.
  2. Data Identification, Preservation & Collection: Contains five questions to answer regarding your organization’s handling of these “left side” phases.
  3. Data Processing & Hosting: Contains three questions to answer regarding your organization’s handling of processing, early data assessment and hosting.
  4. Data Review & Analysis: Contains two questions to answer regarding your organization’s handling of search and review.
  5. Data Production: Contains two questions to answer regarding your organization’s handling of production and protecting privileged information.
  6. Personnel & Support: Contains two questions to answer regarding your organization’s hiring, training and procurement processes.
  7. Project Conclusion: Contains one question to answer regarding your organization’s processes for managing data once a matter has concluded.

Each question is a separate sheet, with five answers ranked from 1 to 5 to reflect your organization’s maturity in that area (with descriptions to associate with each level of maturity).  Default value of 1 for each question.  The five answers are:

  • 1: No Process, Reactive
  • 2: Fragmented Process
  • 3: Standardized Process, Not Enforced
  • 4: Standardized Process, Enforced
  • 5: Actively Managed Process, Proactive

Once you answer all the questions, the Summary sheet shows your overall average, as well as your average for each section.  It’s an easy workbook to use with input areas defined by cells in yellow.  The whole workbook is editable, so perhaps the next edition could lock down the calculated only cells.  Nonetheless, the workbook is intuitive and provides a nice exercise for an organization to grade their level of eDiscovery maturity.

You can download a copy of the eMSAT-1 Excel workbook from here, as well as get more information on how to use it (the page also describes how to provide feedback to make the next iterations even better).

The EDRM Maturity Model Self-Assessment Test is the fourth release in recent months by the EDRM Metrics team. In June 2013, the new Metrics Model was released, in November 2013 a supporting glossary of terms for the Metrics Model was published and in November 2013 the EDRM Budget Calculators project kicked off (with four calculators covered by us here, here, here and here).  They’ve been busy.

So, what do you think?  How mature is your organization in handling 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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Grants Motion for Spoliation Sanctions Due to Data that is “Less Accessible” – eDiscovery Case Law
 

In Mazzei v. Money Store, 01cv5694 (JGK) (RLE) (S.D. N.Y. July 21, 2014), New York Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis granted the plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions against the defendant, ordering the defendant to bear the cost of obtaining all the relevant data in question from a third party as well as paying for plaintiff attorney fees in filing the motion.

In this class action fraud case, the plaintiff requested that the defendants be sanctioned for violating the duty to preserve information within an electronic database created by a third party, claiming that the information had been lost from the electronic database system and was now in the possession of another third party, making it more costly to retrieve.  Accordingly, the plaintiff asked the court to direct the defendants to obtain the information from the third party, as a sanction for their failure to preserve the information in its original format.

On the other hand, the defendants claimed that the information was preserved, but it was “not readable,” and stated that it would cost a minimum of $10,000 to determine if the information was even searchable. The defendants also argued that the “not readable” documents were not their responsibility to preserve and produce because the information was controlled by a third party.

Judge Ellis stated that “[a] party is in control of any documents in the possession of a third party if that third party is contractually obligated to make them available…Defendants had both the legal right and practical ability to obtain the information relating to fees in the New Invoice System after the initiation of this action”. He noted that the defendants had a Master Services Agreement with the original third party provider of the database, which gave the defendants “a contractual right to demand the information specifically identifying the fees being charged”, so the defendants “were in control of that information”.

Regarding the defendant’s contention that there is no spoliation issue because the plaintiffs have not shown that the information in the system is less accessible now than prior to the transfer of the defendants' access to the system, Judge Ellis declared “This argument has no merit. Mazzei asserts, and Defendants do not dispute, that the only remaining trace of the information in the New Invoice System is possessed by Lender Processing Services and is not presently in a readable format. Therefore, the information is less accessible than it was when Defendants had access to it.”

Finding that the information was relevant and that the defendants “acted with a culpable state of mind” when they failed to preserve the data in its original form, Judge Ellis ordered the defendants “to 1) bear the cost of determining whether the New Invoice System data currently in the possession of LPS is searchable; 2) pay Mazzei his attorneys' fees for this application.”  The plaintiff was ordered to “submit an affidavit detailing reasonable hours and rates associated with its motion by August 1”.

So, what do you think?  Was the judge right to sanction the defendant for failing to preserve the accessibility of the information?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Our 1,000th Post! – eDiscovery Milestones

When we launched nearly four years ago on September 20, 2010, our goal was to be a daily resource for eDiscovery news and analysis.  Now, after doing so each business day (except for one), I’m happy to announce that today is our 1,000th post on eDiscovery Daily!

We’ve covered the gamut in eDiscovery, from case law to industry trends to best practices.  Here are some of the categories that we’ve covered and the number of posts (to date) for each:

We’ve also covered every phase of the EDRM (177) life cycle, including:

Every post we have published is still available on the site for your reference, which has made eDiscovery Daily into quite a knowledgebase!  We’re quite proud of that.

Comparing our first three months of existence to now, we have seen traffic on our site grow an amazing 474%!  Our subscriber base has more than tripled in the last three years!  We want to take this time to thank you, our readers and subcribers, for making that happen.  Thanks for making the eDiscoveryDaily blog a regular resource for your eDiscovery news and analysis!  We really appreciate the support!

We also want to thank the blogs and publications that have linked to our posts and raised our public awareness, including Pinhawk, Ride the Lightning, Litigation Support Guru, Complex Discovery, Bryan University, The Electronic Discovery Reading Room, Litigation Support Today, Alltop, ABA Journal, Litigation Support Blog.com, InfoGovernance Engagement Area, EDD Blog Online, eDiscovery Journal, e-Discovery Team ® and any other publication that has picked up at least one of our posts for reference (sorry if I missed any!).  We really appreciate it!

I also want to extend a special thanks to Jane Gennarelli, who has provided some serial topics, ranging from project management to coordinating review teams to what litigation support and discovery used to be like back in the 80’s (to which some of us “old timers” can relate).  Her contributions are always well received and appreciated by the readers – and also especially by me, since I get a day off!

We always end each post with a request: “Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.”  And, we mean it.  We want to cover the topics you want to hear about, so please let us know.

Tomorrow, we’ll be back with a new, original post.  In the meantime, feel free to click on any of the links above and peruse some of our 999 previous posts.  Now is your chance to catch up!  😉

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

Circuit Court Affirms Denial of Sanctions Over Spoliation by Defendant – eDiscovery Case Law

In Automated Solutions Corp. v. Paragon Data Sys., Inc., 13-3025/3058 (6th Cir. June 25, 2014), the Sixth Circuit court affirmed the holdings of the district court, rejecting the plaintiff’s arguments that the district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions due to defendant’s failure to preserve information on a hard drive and server.  The circuit court also affirmed the ruling by both the magistrate and district judge that the defendant’s back-up tapes were not subject to the duty to preserve.

In a business deal that “soured” and a litigation that has been ongoing for over eight years, it all began back in 2001 when the plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract to develop and support computer software that would allow the Chicago Tribune to track newspaper subscriptions via a handheld device that communicated with a remote server.  After “tensions emerged between the two companies”, the defendant terminated the contract in 2003. The plaintiff sued the defendant in Ohio state court, and after a bench trial, the state court found in the plaintiff’s favor and declared that it was the sole owner of the software system. Soon after the state court issued its judgment, the plaintiff filed an instant action alleging, inter alia, that the defendant had infringed on its copyright and trademark in the software via its development of a new similar software program that it provided to the Cleveland Plain Dealer.  The defendant removed the new matter to federal court.

After numerous discovery disputes, the district court noted that “Paragon appears to have failed in its duty to preserve information because of pending or reasonably anticipated litigation.” Because the defendant had not produced documentary evidence of development of the new software code to the plaintiff, the court ordered the defendant to submit to a forensic expert investigation of its computer systems for evidence that the defendant copied the plaintiff’s software when creating its own.

The plaintiff moved for sanctions when it became apparent that the defendant disposed of a “Sun Server” key to the software development, and also lost information on two programmer’s hard drives.  The magistrate judge found that defendant was “at most negligent” in its failure to preserve and recommended consideration of an adverse inference only for the loss of one programmer’s information, to be imposed at trial and not at the summary judgment stage.  No sanctions were recommended for any other lost data and the magistrate judge not only concluded that back-up tapes created by the defendant were not subject to preservation, but also recommended granting partial summary judgment in favor of the defendant.  After the district court adopted the recommendations in part and dismissed plaintiff’s claims (rendering the sanctions moot), the plaintiff appealed to the circuit court.

With regard to the “Sun Server” and a programmer’s hard drive, despite the failure to preserve having been found to be negligent, the plaintiff had not shown that the devices contained evidence relevant to the litigation, so the circuit court ruled that the district court did not clearly err in its conclusion that a reasonable trier of fact could not find that the missing information would support plaintiff’s claim.  As for the back-up tapes, the circuit affirmed the earlier court rulings that cited Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), which noted that a “litigation hold does not apply to inaccessible backup tapes (e.g., those typically maintained solely for the purpose of disaster recovery), which may continue to be recycled on the schedule set forth in the company’s policy.”

The Sixth Circuit noted that the Second Circuit reasoned that “the better approach is to consider [the failure to adopt good preservation practices] as one factor in the determination of whether discovery sanctions should issue…that a finding of gross negligence does not mandate an adverse inference instruction…and that a case-by-case approach to the failure to produce relevant evidence, at the discretion of the district court, is appropriate”.  Noting that “[t]his case-by-case approach is the law in our circuit as well”, the court stated that “the district court did not commit a clear error of judgment” and affirmed the lower court ruling.

So, what do you think?  Did the plaintiff get a fair shake?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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