Close
Enter your
text here

Preservation

eDiscovery Case Law: The Zubulake Rules of Civil Procedure
 

As noted in Law Technology News (N.Y. Appellate Division Continues to Press 'Zubulake' EDD Standard) recently, the New York Appellate Division has embraced the federal standards of Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 FRD 212 in two case rulings within a month’s time.

In Voom HD Holdings v. EchoStar Satellite LLC, 600292/08, the decision, written by Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, was the first by a New York state appellate court to apply the standard for spoliation of electronic evidence applied by Judge Shira Scheindlin in Zubulake in 2003.  As defined by Judge Scheindlin, the Zubulake standard asserts that "once a party reasonably anticipates litigation, it must suspend its routine document retention/destruction policy and put in place a 'litigation hold' to ensure the preservation of relevant documents."

The case relates to a 2005 contract dispute between EchoStar and Cablevision subsidiary Voom HD Holdings, within which Voom agreed to provide EchoStar rights to broadcast Voom's programming.  Once the case was filed by Voom in February 2008, EchoStar put a litigation hold in place, instructing employees to save anything that they deemed potentially relevant to the litigation, but did not extend this hold to stopping automatic deletion of eMails from EchoStar's computers until four months later in June 2008.

Voom moved for spoliation sanctions against EchoStar for failing to preserve its eMails and Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Richard Lowe granted the motion, citing Zubulake, finding that EchoStar should have put in place a litigation hold (including a stop to automatic deletion of e-mails) in June 2007, when its corporate counsel sent Voom a letter containing a notice of breach, a demand and an explicit reservation of rights (i.e., reasonably anticipated litigation).  Therefore, EchoStar was given an adverse inference sanction (they had also received a similar sanction in 2005 in Broccoli v. EchoStar Communications Corp., 229 FRD 506).

EchoStar appealed and requested the appellate court to adopt a rule that a company must preserve documents when litigation is pending or when it has "notice of a specific claim."  However, that argument was rejected by The First Department, which ruled that “EchoStar and amicus's approach would encourage parties who actually anticipate litigation, but do not yet have notice of a 'specific claim' to destroy their documents with impunity” and upheld the sanction.

In U.S. Bank National Association v. GreenPoint Mortgage Funding Inc., 600352/09, the First Department held that the producing party should bear the initial costs of "searching for, retrieving and producing discovery," but that lower courts may permit cost shifting based on the factors set forth in Zubulake.  The case was filed by U.S. Bank, NA (indenture trustee for the insurers and holders of the mortgage-backed notes issued by GreenPoint Mortgage Funding Inc., a now defunct mortgage lender specializing in "no-doc" and "low-doc" loans) against GreenPoint.

U.S. Bank served its first document production request on GreenPoint along with its original complaint; however, GreenPoint did not produce the requested documents.  Instead, they moved for a protective order arguing that U.S. Bank should pay the costs associated with its document requests including the cost of attorney review time for confidentiality and privilege assertions.  The court upheld GreenPoint's argument that the "party seeking discovery bears the costs incurred in its production" but rejected GreenPoint's request for U.S. Bank to also bear the attorney costs for privilege and confidentiality determinations.

Upon appeal, the First Department reversed the lower court's conclusion that the requesting party bear the cost of production, finding that, per the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Zubulake, the producing party should “bear the cost of the searching for, retrieving, and producing documents, including electronically stored information.”  In the February 28 ruling, Justice Rolando Acosta wrote that the court was “persuaded that Zubulake should be the rule in this Department.”  However, the court also ruled that the lower court could order cost shifting under CPLR Article 31 between the parties by considering the seven factors set forth in Zubulake.

What are those seven factors?  Tune in tomorrow, when we will provide a refresher to the Zubulake case and its various opinions!

So, what do you think?  Is the Zubulake standard appropriate for these two cases?  Is it appropriate for cases in general?  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.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Who’s On Your Team?
 

When beginning a new eDiscovery project, a good place so start is to estimate the various tasks that will need to be performed and identify the type of personnel that will be needed. Every project is different and unique, so the requirements of each project must be assessed. As the project unfolds, the tasks required to complete it may change – not just in terms of tasks added, but also tasks removed if the work is deemed to be unnecessary.  So, it is important to revisit the project tasks and assignments to determine whether additional personnel are needed or if you can cut back. Here are the types of roles that could be associated with a typical eDiscovery project:

Client Contact(s): It’s important for the client to be involved in the process, so the team should include at least one client representative that can serve as the link between the internal and external teams, providing guidance on internal company workings and contact personnel. Typically, the client contact is from the in-house legal department, usually either a paralegal (to handle routine tasks) or an attorney (to discuss issues and coordinate decision making).  When preservation and collection are required, the client contact(s) generally assist with litigation hold procedures, locating and collecting ESI, and conducting interviews of custodians. It is up to the client contact(s) to involve key managers and custodians as needed to provide guidance during this process.

IT Personnel: When responding to requests for ESI, let’s face it – you need your trusty geek.  Or geeks.  It’s important to include personnel who understand technical details about the client’s various computer systems and data.  Depending on the case, you need one or more individuals who understand any and all of the above: email and email archiving, storage of employee ESI, servers, clients, intranets, and databases. It’s typical for IT personnel in larger organizations to specialize; for example, to have one or more that is more knowledgeable about structured data (i.e. database programs) while others may understand and have access to email systems. 

IT personnel should be involved in all issues related to the technology for the responding party to increase efficiency and optimize the approach to each new case. For many corporations, this is typically one or more individuals already employed as a member of the IT staff.  It’s important for IT personnel to have at least a basic understanding of the legal processes and requirements of discovery.  If they don’t have that, it may be necessary to provide some training before a case arises or employ an outside consultant.

Forensic Collection Personnel: In some cases, it’s necessary to perform forensic analysis on various types of ESI (or at least collect the ESI in a forensic manner in the event that’s required). Examples of cases that may require forensic collection of electronic data include internal integrity investigations, situations where fraud and data deletion are suspected (such as trade secret cases) and government civil or criminal investigations. To enable the forensic specialist to testify (if required) to the work that was performed and exactly how it was done, companies often use a vendor not employed by the company or by the outside law firm.

See at least one critical team component missing?  Tomorrow, we’ll talk about the rest of the team.  Same bat time, same bat channel!

So, what do you think?  Do you estimate the team members needed for your project before it begins?  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.

eDiscovery Humor: And Now For Something Completely Different…
 

Every now and then, it’s nice to take a break from the regular case law updates, emerging trends reports and best practices tutorials and just have a laugh.  We recently published a two part interview series from LegalTech New York with Ralph Losey, who always has interesting and educational thoughts to share regarding eDiscovery.  Ralph recently published a video post on his excellent blog, e-Discovery Team® entitled How Not to Cooperate in an E-Discovery Conference.

Based on the watermark, it appears that Ralph used XtraNormal to make the video.  XtraNormal enables you to make an animated movie by selecting your animated “actors”, type or record your dialogue, and select a background.  The “actors” sound a bit robotic if you type the dialogue, but that just adds to the humor as the pronunciations and inflections are rather humorous.  Sometimes, they put the emPHASis on the wrong sylLABle.  And, it’s funny to hear them try to pronounce words like “chutzpah”.  🙂

Ralph’s video depicts opposing parties negotiating terms of eDiscovery production, and his attorney representing the producing party is particularly uncooperative.  Complete with applause and a laugh track, the four minute video is guaranteed to amuse anybody that has dealt with discovery negotiations or even works in discovery or litigation support.

Ralph has posted several other videos to YouTube, some of which are educational and others of which (while possibly also being educational) are also fun, including a Star Trek Meets e-Discovery series.

So, what do you think?  Did you get a laugh?  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.

eDiscovery Trends: Craig Ball of Craig D. Ball, P.C., Part Two
 

This is the seventh (and final) of the 2012 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What do you consider to be the emerging trends in eDiscovery that will have the greatest impact in 2012?
  2. Which trend(s), if any, haven’t emerged to this point like you thought they would?
  3. What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends?
  4. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Craig Ball.  A frequent court appointed special master in electronic evidence, Craig is a prolific contributor to continuing legal and professional education programs throughout the United States, having delivered over 750 presentations and papers.  Craig’s articles on forensic technology and electronic discovery frequently appear in the national media, and he writes a monthly column on computer forensics and eDiscovery for Law Technology News called Ball in your Court, as well as blogs on those topics at ballinyourcourt.com. 

Our interview with Craig had so much good information in it, we couldn’t fit it all into a single post.  Yesterday, we published part one.  Enjoy the rest of the interview!

What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends?

Well, I've been coming to Legal Tech for well over a dozen years and ,each year, I think it couldn't possibly become more an eDiscovery conference (as opposed to a general forensic technology conference).  Then, next year, the aisles seem to grow longer and deeper with people providing eDiscovery solutions. 

So I'm just blown away.  I used to toil in this fairly obscure corner of the practice, and it’s now, literally, this whole event.  Walk down these aisles with me, and you'll see it's just one person after another after another offering some kind of eDiscovery tool or service or related product.  That’s also true of the educational sessions – some of which I guiltily helped plan, so the focus on eDiscovery does not come as much of a surprise.  But, remember that the vendors who sponsor these tracks have a hand in the content as well, and they’re the ones insisting, “We want to talk about eDiscovery.  We want to talk about technology-assisted review.”

It's not just because of what they're selling, although, certainly that’s a driver.  It's also what they want to hear about.  It's what their customers want to know more about. 

So, is it inconsistent that I'm saying there's not enough education about eDiscovery, and yet here, they talk of little else?  Other than LegalTech, and a few other events, the need remains to go longer and deeper.  Understanding information technology is a necessity for litigators.  That’s where the evidence lives.  IT is a discipline as broad, deep and complex in its way as the law.  Why then do we expect it should require so much less a dedication of time and effort to become even minimally proficient in information technology than it was to learn the law?

What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

For me, this is the year of trying to offer an earlier acquaintance in information technology to lawyers.  I've spent almost thirty years teaching lawyers and judges about forensic technology and helping them get their arms around it.  This year, I returned to teaching law students.  My e-discovery course is offered at the University of Texas School of Law and I’m trying to help the students appreciate that in a very difficult job market, entering the profession with a practical understanding of how to attack an eDiscovery effort is a distinguishing factor in trying to find and keep employment.  It's a crucial skill set, and it's not one they can expect will be handed down to them from older lawyers.

There's just simply no lore to hand down where eDiscovery is concerned, at least not much useful lore.  And so I'm gratified for the challenge, and it's very hard work.  It's much harder to teach law students than it is to teach lawyers for a host of reasons.  The challenge in teaching law students versus lawyers is giving them the crucial context.  Most haven’t much exposure to law practice, so you have to give them more information and explain much more of what you take for granted with lawyers. 

Moving forward this year, I'm also trying to find ways to do more testing of new tools and refine mechanisms for reducing the volume of electronic information, to help lawyers master strategies that will make it easier for them to hit the ground running and take advantage of some of the economies that are within easy reach.  The key is to educate them on “methods” more than “shortcuts”.  I want to show them techniques that they can apply with confidence to speed the process of identification and preservation, as well as help them apply a better and more precise working vocabulary to enable them to communicate with clarity and confidence about ESI.  Competent communication, even more than cooperation, will prove a major contributor to eliminating headaches in eDiscovery.

Thanks, Craig, for participating in the interview!

And to the readers, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic!

eDiscovery Trends: Craig Ball of Craig D. Ball, P.C.
 

This is the seventh (and final) of the 2012 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What do you consider to be the emerging trends in eDiscovery that will have the greatest impact in 2012?
  2. Which trend(s), if any, haven’t emerged to this point like you thought they would?
  3. What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends?
  4. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Craig Ball.  A frequent court appointed special master in electronic evidence, Craig is a prolific contributor to continuing legal and professional education programs throughout the United States, having delivered over 750 presentations and papers.  Craig’s articles on forensic technology and electronic discovery frequently appear in the national media, and he writes a monthly column on computer forensics and eDiscovery for Law Technology News called Ball in your Court, as well as blogs on those topics at ballinyourcourt.com. 

Our interview with Craig had so much good information in it, we couldn’t fit it all into a single post.  So, today is part one.  Part two will be published in the blog tomorrow!

What do you consider to be the emerging trends in eDiscovery that will have the greatest impact in 2012?

Well, I see several things happening.  I'm gratified that people are starting to become more resigned to the obligation to pursue eDiscovery.  I think we're seeing some better practices, particularly with respect to preservation.

The preservation message is hitting home.  Whether it’s a function of the outsize fear factor prompted by sanctions decisions or whether lawyers and businesses are becoming better informed by virtue of education and dialogue like that here at LegalTech is hard to say.  Regardless, I think the message is starting to seep through that there are  things you must do early on to identify electronically stored information and be sure that it's properly preserved.

As I walk around the show and listen to the programs, I'm amazed by all discussion of Technology Assisted Review or TAR—maybe the worst acronym that industry’s come up with since ECA.  But, they didn't choose Super Human Information Technology, so I guess we should be thankful for small blessings.  I'm sure we'll soon an article mentioning TAR and feathers.

Technology Assisted Review is the use of more sophisticated algorithms—math–and advanced analytic to take replace or supplement the individualized judgment of lawyers' respecting the responsiveness, non-responsiveness and privileged character of documents and data sets.  The notion behind TAR is that we don't need legions of young associates or contract lawyers in darkened rooms staring at screens; instead, the broad distinctions between what is most likely to be relevant and what is not will be handled robotically.  It’s floated as a more palatable, more affordable alternative to poorly-chosen key words thrown at massive data volumes–a more intelligent, more intuitive tool that does the job in a way that’s no worse than human beings, hopefully somewhat better, and in any case, for a lot less money.  That is the dream, and it’s coming closer to a reality..

But the realization out there is spotty.  Expectations are unrealistic and marketing is overheated, but we are seeing some enthusiasm amidst the skepticism.  And, I think that trend is certainly going to continue, at least as a marketing trend whether it continues as a successfully-integrated technology or not.  For the moment, it’s an option only for those with big budgets, not the rank and file firm.  No surprises there, as eDiscovery has yet to become a process lawyers know how to manage cost-effectively, But they will learn, in time.  Clients, courts and malpractice carriers will leave no option but to learn it.

Which trend(s), if any, haven’t emerged to this point like you thought they would?

Oh, that's an easy one.  That's education.  I am appalled at the dearth of high-caliber educational options available to lawyers in this crucial and very costly corner aspect of the practice.  E-discovery education is still afflicted by the scourge of the one-hour CLE.  You know, where some earnest person’s trotted out for 30, 45 minutes, maybe an hour of introduction to electronic discovery.  That continuing, repeated, cursory treatment of this challenging area is what’s supposed to make us confident and competent.  It doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.

Lawyers are still not learning enough about the information infrastructure of their clients.  They're picking up a few buzz words.  I’ll see it some meet-and-confers.  It's like watching a little kid use a curse word.  This sort of smile creeps across their face when they’ve managed to work the word “metadata” into the conversation.  As though using the term is a talisman–a substitute for actually knowing what they're talking about.

I don't mean to be so dismissive, but it's really gets almost that absurd sometimes.  We don't have enough education.  We don't have enough lawyers starting to get it.  Most channel their energy and ingenuity into look for reasons why they don’t need to know this stuff.  The handful that really do want to learn have precious few places to go short of self-instruction.  We need to change that.

We need a Manhattan Project in this country to help rescue the experienced lawyers and bring them up to speed.  We need a sort of reset, getting all trial lawyers talking about these topics in an intelligent, productive, and perhaps most importantly of all, cost-effective way.

Thanks, Craig, for participating in the interview!

To the readers, just a reminder to stay tuned for part two of our interview with Craig tomorrow!  And, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic!

eDiscovery Trends: Jim McGann of Index Engines
 

This is the third of the 2012 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What do you consider to be the emerging trends in eDiscovery that will have the greatest impact in 2012?
  2. Which trend(s), if any, haven’t emerged to this point like you thought they would?
  3. What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends?
  4. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Jim McGann.  Jim is Vice President of Information Discovery at Index Engines.  Jim has extensive experience with the eDiscovery and Information Management in the Fortune 2000 sector. He has worked for leading software firms, including Information Builders and the French-based engineering software provider Dassault Systemes.  In recent years he has worked for technology-based start-ups that provide financial services and information management solutions.

What do you consider to be the emerging trends in eDiscovery that will have the greatest impact in 2012?  And which trend(s), if any, haven’t emerged to this point like you thought they would?

I think what we're seeing is a lot of people becoming a bit more proactive.  I may combine your questions together because I'm surprised that people haven’t become proactive sooner.  LegalTech has included a focus on litigation readiness for how long? Ten years or so?  And we're still dealing with how to react to litigation, and you're still seeing fire drills occur.  There’s still not enough setting up of environments in the corporate world and in the legal world that would enable customers to respond more quickly.  It surprises me how little has been developed in this regard.. 

I think the reason for the slow start is that there are a lot of regulations that have been evolving and people haven't really understood what they need to prepare and how to react.  There’s been ten years of LegalTech and we're still struggling with how to respond to basic litigation requests because the volume has grown, accessibility arguments have changed, Federal rules have been solidified, and so forth.

What we're seeing when we go and talk to customers (and we talk to a lot of end-user customers that are facing litigation) is IT on one end of the table saying, ‘we need to solve this for the long term’, and litigation support teams on the other end of the table saying, ‘I need this today, I’ve been requesting data since July, and I still haven't received it and it's now January’.  That's not good.

The evolution is from what we call “litigation support”.  Litigation support, which is more on the reactive side to proactive litigation readiness, expects to be able to push a button and put a hold on John Doe's mailbox.  Or, specifically find content that’s required at a moment's notice.

So, I think the trend is litigation readiness.  Are people really starting to prepare for it?  Every meeting that we go into, we see IT organizations, who are in the compliance security groups, rolling up their sleeves and saying I need to solve this for my company long term but we have this litigation.  It's a mixed environment.  In the past, we would go meet with litigation support teams, and IT wasn't involved.  You're seeing buzz words like Information Governance.  You're seeing big players like IBM, EMC and Symantec jumping deep into it.

What's strange is that IT organizations are getting involved in formalizing a process that hasn't been formalized in the past.  It's been very much, maybe not “ad hoc”, but IT organizations did what they could to meet project needs.  Now IT is looking at solving the problem long term, and there’s a struggle.  Attorneys are not the best long term planners – they're doing what they need to do.  They've got 60 days to do discovery, and IT is thinking five years.  We need to balance this out.

What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends?

We're talking to a lot of people that are looking at next generation solutions.  The problems have changed, so solutions are evolving to address how you solve those problems.

There's also been a lot of consolidation in the eDiscovery space as well, so people are saying that their relationship has changed with their other vendors.  There have been a lot of those conversations.

I'm not sure what the attendance is at this year’s show, but attendees seem to be serious about looking for new solutions.  Maybe because the economy was so bad over the past year or maybe because it's a new budget year and budgets are freeing up, but people are looking at making changes, looking at new solutions.  We see that a lot with service providers, as well as law firms and other end users.

What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

We’ve announced the release of Octane Version 4.3, which preserves files and emails at a bit level from MS Exchange and IBM Lotus Notes, as well as indexing forensics images and evidence files at speeds reaching 1TB per hour using a single node.  Bit-for-bit email processing and forensic image indexing speeds are unprecedented breakthroughs in the industry.  Bit-level indexing is not only faster but also more reliable because email is stored in its original format with no need for conversion.  Index Engines can also now index terabytes of network data including forensic images in hours, not weeks, like traditional tools.  So, we’re excited about the new version of Octane.

We’ve also just announced a partnership with Merrill Corporation, to provide our technology to collect and process ESI from networks, desktops, forensic images and legacy backup tapes, for both reactive litigation and proactive litigation readiness.  Merrill has recognized the shift in reactive to proactive litigation readiness that I mentioned earlier and we are excited to be aligned with Merrill in meeting the demands of their customers in this regard.

Thanks, Jim, for participating in the interview!

And to the readers, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic!

eDiscovery Best Practices: Preparing Your 30(b)(6) Witnesses
 

When it comes to questions and potential issues that the receiving party may have about the discovery process of the producing party, one of the most common and direct methods for conducting “discovery about the discovery” is a deposition under Federal Rule 30(b)(6). This rule enables a party to serve a deposition notice on the entity involved in the litigation rather than an individual. The notice identifies the topics to be covered in the deposition, and the entity being deposed must designate one or more people qualified to answer questions on the identified topics.

While those designated to testify may not necessarily have day-to-day responsibility related to the identified topics, they must be educated enough in those issues to sufficiently address them during the testimony. Serving a deposition notice on the entity under Federal Rule 30(b)(6) saves the deposing party from having to identify specific individual(s) to depose while still enabling the topics to be fully explored in a single deposition.

Topics to be covered in a 30(b)(6) deposition can vary widely, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. However, there are some typical topics that the deponent(s) should be prepared to address.

Legal Hold Process: Perhaps the most common area of focus in a 30(b)(6) deposition is the legal hold process as spoliation of data can occur when the legal hold process is unsound and data spoliation is the most common cause of sanctions resulting from the eDiscovery process.  Issues to address include:

  • General description of the legal hold process including all details of that policy and specific steps that were taken in this case to effectuate a hold.
  • Timing of issuing the legal hold and to whom it was issued.
  • Substance of the legal hold communication (if the communication is not considered privileged).
  • Process for selecting sources for legal hold, identification of sources that were eliminated from legal hold, and a description of the rationale behind those decisions.
  • Tracking and follow-up with the legal hold sources to ensure understanding and compliance with the hold process.
  • Whether there are any processes in place in the company to automatically delete data and, if so, what steps were taken to disable them and when were those steps taken?

Collection Process: Logically, the next eDiscovery step discussed in the 30(b)(6) deposition is the process for collecting preserved data:

  • Method of collecting ESI for review, including whether the method preserved all relevant metadata intact.
  • Chain of custody tracking from origination to destination.

Searching and Culling: Once the ESI is collected, the methods for conducting searches and culling the collection down for review must be discussed:

  • Method used to cull the ESI prior to review, including the tools used, the search criteria for inclusion in review and how the search criteria was developed (including potential use of subject matter experts to flush out search terms).
  • Process for testing and refining search terms used.

Review Process: The 30(b)(6) witness(es) should be prepared to fully describe the review process, including:

  • Methods to conduct review of the ESI including review application(s) used and workflow associated with the review process.
  • Use of technology to assist with the review, such as clustering, predictive coding, duplicate and near-duplicate identification.
  • To the extent the process can be described, methodology for identifying and documenting privileged ESI on the privilege log (this methodology may be important if the producing party may request to “claw back” any inadvertently produced privileged ESI).
  • Personnel employed to conduct ESI review, including their qualifications, experience, and training.

Production Process: Information regarding the production process, including:

  • Methodology for organizing and verifying the production, including confirmation of file counts and spot QC checks of produced files for content.
  • The total volume of ESI collected, reviewed, and produced.

Depending on the specifics of the case and discovery efforts, there may be further topics to be addressed to ensure that the producing party has met its preservation and discovery obligations.

So, what do you think?  Have you had to prepare 30(b)(6) witnesses for deposition?  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.

eDiscovery Case Law: KPMG Loses Another Round to Pippins
 

As discussed previously in eDiscovery Daily, KPMG sought a protective order in Pippins v. KPMG LLP, No. 11 Civ. 0377 (CM)(JLC), 2011 WL 4701849 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2011) to require the preservation of only a random sample of 100 hard drives from among those it had already preserved for this and other litigation or shift the cost of any preservation beyond that requested scope.  Lawyers for Pippins won a ruling last November by Magistrate Judge James Cott to use all available drives and Judge Cott encouraged the parties to continue to meet and confer to reach agreement on sampling.  However, the parties were unable to agree and KPMG appealed to the District Court.

Last Friday, District Court Judge Colleen McMahon upheld the lower court ruling, noting:

"It smacks of chutzpah (no definition required) to argue that the Magistrate failed to balance the costs and benefits of preservation when KPMG refused to cooperate with that analysis by providing the very item that would, if examined, demonstrate whether there was any benefit at all to preservation.”

“KPMG could have established [that producing all the drives was unnecessary] by producing several hard drives to Plaintiffs and Magistrate Judge Cott. … But KPMG has established nothing of the sort,” McMahon added.

“Even assuming that KPMG’s preservation costs are both accurate and wholly attributable to this litigation — which I cannot verify — I cannot possibly balance the costs and benefits of preservations when I’m missing one side of the scale (the benefits).”

“I gather that KPMG takes the position that the only Audit Associates who are presently ‘parties’ are the named plaintiffs, and so only the named plaintiffs’ hard drives really need to be preserved. But that is nonsense,” she continued. “Under Zubulake IV, the duty to preserve all relevant information for ‘key players’ is triggered when a party ‘reasonably anticipates litigation.’ … At the present moment, KPMG should ‘reasonably anticipate’ that every Audit Associate who will be receiving opt-in notice is a potential plaintiff in this action,” McMahon concluded.

Outten & Golden partner Justin Swartz, representing Pippins, commented after the ruling: "All we're asking for is the chance to look at a few hard drives, find out what's on them, and negotiate a resolution."  Steven Catlett, representing Sidley Austin for KPMG, did not provide a comment.

So, what do you think?  Was this a ruling against proportionality in eDiscovery or is KPMG’s refusal to provide any hard drives defeating their proportionality argument?  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.

eDiscovery Case Law: Burn Your Computer and the Court Will Burn You
 

In Evans v. Mobile Cnty. Health Dept., No. CA 10-0600-WS-C, (S.D. Ala. Jan. 24, 2012), Alabama Magistrate Judge William Cassady granted a motion for sanctions, including an adverse inference instruction, where the plaintiff had burned and destroyed her computer that she used during the time she claimed she was harassed.

Evans sued the Mobile County Health Department alleging reverse discrimination. The court entered a scheduling order that instructed Evans to preserve all relevant information. In discovery, the health department asked Evans for all documents, including electronically stored information (ESI), related to her claims.

Initially, Evans did not produce any documents in response to the defendant's request, but at her deposition, she produced a small number of documents and admitted that she had others, including e-mails. After her deposition, the defendant renewed its request for Evans to produce all ESI in her possession and asked to inspect her personal computer. When the plaintiff did not comply, the defendant filed a motion to compel.

After the motion was filed, Evans' counsel told the defendant that Evans had destroyed her computer. Evans explained that her computer crashed about eight months after her complaint was filed. When she sought help from computer experts, who told her to buy another computer, she burned her computer to destroy the personal information it contained due to the "threat of identity theft." She then bought a new computer. The defendant filed a motion for sanctions and sought dismissal of the case.

Judge Cassady granted the defendant's motion to compel, finding that the plaintiff's claims that she had produced all relevant ESI difficult to believe in light of her deposition testimony and her other discovery violations. Accordingly, Judge Cassady required Evans to produce e-mails from her gmail account and a notebook she referenced in her deposition that contained relevant evidence. The plaintiff also had to produce her new computer for inspection and pay for the defendant's fees and costs in bringing the motion.

Judge Cassady also granted defendant's request for sanctions. In determining the appropriate punishment, he looked first to Eleventh Circuit law, but the court had not set forth specific guidelines for the imposition of sanctions. Therefore, Judge Cassady applied Alabama state law, since it was consistent with general federal spoliation standards. Alabama law requires courts to consider five factors in analyzing a request for sanctions: "(1) the importance of the evidence destroyed; (2) the culpability of the offending party; (3) fundamental fairness; (4) alternative sources of the information obtainable from the evidence destroyed; and (5) the possible effectiveness of other sanctions less severe than dismissal."

Judge Cassady found that Evans had destroyed the evidence in bad faith: her culpability was "excessively high." However, the judge stopped short of dismissing the case. Since the defendant could still defend itself against Evans' allegations, the magistrate judge decided that the court would give the jury an adverse inference instruction at trial. It also awarded defendant its attorneys' fees and costs for the motion.

So, what do you think?  Should the case have been dismissed or were the sanctions sufficient?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).

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.

Social Tech eDiscovery: Facebook Law Enforcement Policies Revisited

One of the very first posts we published on this blog, over 16 months ago, was a post regarding Facebook’s Subpoena Policy, describing and providing a link to Facebook’s Law Enforcement page to request information from Facebook.  With numerous cases involving discovery of information on Facebook, (including this one, this one, this one, this one, this one and this one – all just in the past year), it seems appropriate to revisit this page to see if anything has changed.

The first thing that has changed is the link itself.  The old link we published 16 months ago no longer takes you to that page – it defaults to the general Facebook help page.  So, I had to “go hunting” for the new location for the law enforcement page.  It took a few tries, but I did finally find it here.  If you prefer your Facebook Law Enforcement information in downloadable document form, the link to the PDF is here.

The page has a lot more information than the old page.  Sections include:

  • US Legal Process Requirements: Notes that Facebook discloses account records solely in accordance with their terms of service and applicable law, including the federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), 18 U.S.C. Sections 2701-2712, which requires a valid subpoena, court order or search warrant to compel disclosure of Facebook content.
  • International Legal Process Requirements: A Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty request or letter rogatory may be required to compel the disclosure of the contents of an account.  More information found here.
  • Account Preservation: Link to form to request preservation of account records for up to 90 days pending receipt of formal legal requests.
  • Emergency Requests: Email address for a law enforcement official to obtain an emergency request form in cases “involving imminent harm”.
  • Child Safety Matters: What to do when requests relate to child exploitation or safety concerns.
  • Data Retention and Availability: Reiteration that Facebook does “not retain data for law enforcement purposes unless we receive a valid preservation request before a user has deleted that content from our service”, with links to 1) how a Facebook user can request their account to be permanently deleted (with no recovery), 2) Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities and 3) Facebook’s Data Use Policy.
  • Form of Requests: Information required with requests for information, including 1) name of the issuing authority, badge/ID number of responsible agent, email address from a law-enforcement domain, and direct contact phone number; 2) email address, user ID number or username of the Facebook profile.
  • User Consent: Instructions for users who have consented to provide their own information to law enforcement officials using Facebook’s Download Your Information feature (previously featured on this blog here).
  • Notification: What to do if officials believe that notification would jeopardize an investigation.
  • Testimony: Facebook’s declaration that they do not provide expert testimony support, but if “a special form of certification is required”, the requestor should attach it to the records request.
  • Cost Reimbursement: Facebook’s statement that they “may seek reimbursement for costs in responding to requests for information as provided by law”, without specifying what those costs might be (which is different than the specific costs stated in the previous page).
  • Contact Information: To submit records requests via email, snail mail or fax – but only if you’re a law enforcement officer.

So, what do you think?  Have you needed to request information from Facebook for litigation purposes?  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.