Close
Enter your
text here

Privileged

Want My Production? Here’s my Database! – eDiscovery Trends

A couple of weeks ago, we covered a case where the US Government was ordered to continue providing access to an eDiscovery database to a defendant in a criminal case.  That case shed light on a growing trend in the industry that I have also observed personally – “producing” documents to opposing counsel by providing access to the documents via a hosted eDiscovery solution.

In Craig Ball’s Lawyer’s Guide to Forms of Production (that we recently covered here), Craig identified hosted production as one of the options for forms of production that can be requested.  However, as Craig notes, “More commonly, hosted data and online review tools are used internally by a producing party’s counsel to search the data for privileged and responsive items rather than as a means to afford access to the requesting party. The items identified are then duplicated onto transfer media (e.g., optical disks or a hard drive) and produced in one or more of the formats described above.”

That is certainly true, though more parties in litigation are choosing to provide access to the online database as a means of production (“production without production” as Craig calls it).  While I don’t have any statistics to point to, that has at least been my recent experience as platform manager for OnDemand®, CloudNine Discovery’s own hosted eDiscovery platform.

Typically, there are two options for producing documents by providing online access: 1) provide access to the existing database, or 2) create a new database of produced documents.  Here are the pros and cons of each:

  • Existing Database: Many parties provide access to portions of their existing eDiscovery database.  This reduces costs because the data is already hosted and may be a way for both parties to share hosting costs.  In those instances, security becomes paramount.  As attorneys need to exclude access to non-responsive or privileged documents and other work product, the eDiscovery application needs to provide the ability to limit the documents that users can see as well as limit the fields that users can see.  In addition, it’s important to have a well-documented plan for the database administrator to follow to ensure that the correct rights are assigned.  If not, inadvertent disclosures of documents or data fields used during review and production can occur.
  • New Database: While it may cost more to create a new database of produced documents (essentially doubling the storage of those documents into a new database), it is much easier to secure privileged information and attorney work product because those documents and data fields simply aren’t there, essentially eliminating the possibility of an inadvertent disclosure due to incorrect rights assignments.  In these cases, the receiving party often agrees to bear the costs of hosting their portion of the data.

In both cases, the advantages to the receiving party include access to the same produced documents in the same format in which they were reviewed using the same search and analytical tools that the producing party used to produce the documents, putting both parties on equal footing.

So, what do you think?  Have you been part of a hosted production?  If so, how did it go?  Were you on the producing or receiving end?  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.

Portions of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel eDiscovery Ruled as “Overbroad” and “Moot” Reaffirmed by District Court – eDiscovery Case Law
 

In Elkharwily v. Mayo Holding Co., 12-3062 (DSD/JJK), 2014 U.S. Dist. (D. Minn. Apr. 18, 2014), Minnesota District Judge David S. Doty overruled the plaintiff’s objection to a magistrate judge’s order that denied in part the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, labeling some requests as overbroad or moot, particularly after the defendant contended it had already produced the requested discovery materials.

This employment dispute was brought about when the plaintiff was terminated from the defendant’s employment. The plaintiff claims that after observing and reporting several instances of negligence and fraud in this medical setting, he was placed on administrative leave and asked to resign. When the plaintiff refused, the defendant terminated his employment. The resulting civil action filed by the plaintiff accuses the defendant of breach of contract and retaliation.

At issue here was an earlier order by a magistrate judge that denied in part the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel discovery of the defendant’s Electronically Stored Information (ESI). Specifically, the plaintiff sought to overturn the decision denying his motion to compel related to:

  • Requests for Production 9 and 12 and Interrogatories 14, 15, 16, and 20
  • Requests for Production 1, 2, and 10
  • Requests for Production 4, 5, and 6

Regarding the Requests for Production 9 and 12 and Interrogatories 14, 15, 16, and 20, which sought in part “any communications between any [defendant’s] employee and any potential employer of [plaintiff],” it was initially determined that the requests were overbroad, as they “presented the opportunity to investigate other unpleaded claims.” These requests and interrogatories were deemed “unduly expansive and seek[ing] material well outside the boundaries of permissible discovery.” Judge Doty concluded that the initial ruling on these issues was “neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law,” as the plaintiff contended.

Requests for Production 1, 2, and 10 sought discovery relevant to the case. Specifically, Production 1 sought “[a]ll documents…maintained by [defendant] or any employee or agent of [defendant], relating to [plaintiff],” Production 2 sought “[a]ll email and text messages sent or received on [plaintiff’s work assigned] email and text messaging accounts,” and Production 10 sought “[all] documents, notes, communications, emails and text messages relating to [plaintiff] or to any of the claims or defenses in this action prepared, sent or received by [defendant],” all of which were initially denied as being overbroad and moot. In response to this, the defendant noted that it had already produced responsive documents to these Requests for Production, with redactions and assertions of privilege subject to future consideration. Therefore, Judge Doty noted that the plaintiff appeared to have no persisting objection to the initial ruling.

With regard to Requests for Production 4, 5, and 6, which had initially been overruled as moot, the plaintiff cited the initial order and argued that “(1) the order does not explicitly require [defendant] to include in its log otherwise-responsive documents not produced due to an asserted privilege and (2) the order does not compel production of patient files.” The defendant responded that it had already produced all responsive and non-privileged documents, had provided the plaintiff with a privilege log which logged all withheld documents, and further that the requested documents did not “reference, rely upon or incorporate patient files.”

In this final issue, Judge Doty noted that the court “must accept, at face value, a party’s representation that it has fully produced all materials that are responsive to a discovery request,” and that Rule 26 “provides adequate protection to ensure that, if [d]efendants are found to be deficient in their document production, appropriate sanctions will be leveled and [the plaintiff] will not suffer undue prejudice.” Therefore, the plaintiff’s objection to the portion of the objection relating to those requests for production was also overruled.

So, what do you think? Should any of the plaintiff’s objections have been considered more seriously?  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.

Clawback Rights Upheld and Plaintiff Sanctioned for Refusal to Comply Concerning Inadvertently Produced Privileged Documents – eDiscovery Case Law
 

In RIPL Corp. v. Google Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02050-RSM, 2013 U.S. Dist. (W.D. Wash. Dec. 17, 2013), seven discovery-related motions were heard concerning this trademark infringement action. The various motions to seal, compel, enforce, and sanction were filed after the parties had entered into a stipulated protective order. Washington District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez granted in part, denied in part, and deferred in part the various motions.

The protective order in force included a clawback provision, which required inadvertently produced attorney-client privileged documents to be returned or destroyed, with certification for the deletion or destruction of the documents, provided the party invoking the provision took the steps of “promptly notifying the recipient(s) and expressly articulating the basis for the asserted privilege or immunity.”

In the filing, the defendant stated that privileged documents had been inadvertently produced to the plaintiff on July 2, 2013. However, counsel for the defendant did not realize the documents had been disclosed until August 12, 2013, while preparing for the defendant’s deposition. The defendant conducted a search the next day for other privileged documents that may have been disclosed, and communicated via email with the plaintiff to exercise the clawback provision. The plaintiff at this point refused to return or destroy the documents at issue.

When the defendant filed a motion to enforce the protective order and clawback provision, it also requested that the plaintiff be sanctioned for filing documents under seal that quoted the privileged documents at issue, and filed a request to strike, along with other motions.

In arguing the motion to enforce, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had waived its right to claw back the documents because “prompt” and “inadvertent” had not been defined under the protective order. The plaintiff cited the balancing test of Federal Rule of Evidence 502(b) for waiving attorney-client privilege with regards to “inadvertent” and claimed that the clawback request had not been “prompt.”

Judge Martinez rejected the arguments of the plaintiff concerning the clawback request, stating that there is “no requirement that, in order to supplant Rule 502(b), an agreement provide adequate detail regarding ‘what constitutes inadvertence, what precautionary measures are required, and what the producing party’s post production responsibilities are to escape waiver.’” Simply, it was ruled that “terms like ‘inadvertence’ and ‘prompt’ need not be defined in the protective order” under Rule 502. The plaintiff was ordered to certify the deletion or destruction of all unredacted copies of the privileged documents at issue within ten days.

The defendant’s request for sanctions were denied concerning the plaintiff’s filing documents under seal that contained quotes from attorney-client privileged documents. However, Judge Martinez ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s fees and costs for bringing the motion, as a sanction for refusing to comply with the clawback provision and “hold[ing] the documents hostage for roughly two months in violation of the Protective Order.”

So, what do you think? Should a time limit be imposed as the definition of “prompt” with regard to stipulated protective orders? Should parties be permitted to submit attorney-client privileged information under seal when privileged documents are received inadvertently? 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.

Apple Can’t Mention Inadvertent Disclosure in Samsung Case – eDiscovery Case Law

Back in January, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP was sanctioned for their inadvertent disclosure in the Apple vs Samsung litigation (commonly referred to as “patentgate”).  California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal handed down an order on motions for sanctions against Quinn Emanuel (in essence) requiring the firm to “reimburse Apple, Nokia, and their counsel for any and all costs and fees incurred in litigating this motion and the discovery associated with it”.  Many felt that Samsung and Quinn Emanuel got off lightly.  Now, Apple can’t even mention the inadvertent disclosure in the upcoming Samsung trial.

According to a story on Law360 (subscription required), U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh barred Apple last Wednesday from presenting evidence that Quinn Emanuel leaked confidential information regarding an Apple license agreement, saying that such testimony could prejudice jurors.  “The court believes any evidence [on the leak] could be irrelevant and a waste of time. It would confuse the jury and is outweighed by prejudice,” Judge Koh said. “Apple says it doesn’t intend to bring in any information of that violation unless Samsung opens the door.”

Judge Koh also came close to barring Apple from introducing evidence on the total revenues Samsung earned selling its products that are alleged to infringe on Apple patents. In their damages retrial in November where Apple was awarded $290.5 million (bringing the total awarded for infringing on Apple products to almost $930 million), Samsung’s revenues became a sticking point.  Although Samsung argued last week that Apple shouldn’t be allowed to bring up any of Samsung’s revenues or profits from the accused products, Judge Koh said she wouldn’t go that far. Apple’s damages expert uses many of those numbers in his calculations, and it would be “weird” to limit his testimony on income he considered in those calculations, she said.

For our previous coverage of the case, click here, here, here, here, here and here.

So, what do you think? Is this the case that never ends?  Will there be much more to come?  Do you wish you had some of the fees from this case?  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.

EDRM Updates Privacy & Security Risk Reduction Model – eDiscovery Best Practices

The Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) continues to pile up the accomplishments. In addition to announcing a transition to nonprofit status by May 2014, since the May annual meeting, several EDRM projects (Metrics, Jobs, Data Set and the new Native Files project) have already announced new deliverables and/or requested feedback and EDRM also published new Collection Standards for collecting electronically stored information (ESI).  Now, EDRM is making updates to earlier accomplishments from just five months ago.

As they announced last week, EDRM announced the reintroduction and refinement of its Privacy & Security Risk Reduction Model (PSRRM). Initially introduced last September by EDRM’s Data Set group (and covered on this blog here), the model provides a process for reducing the volume of private, protected and risky data by using a series of steps applied in sequence as part of the information management, identification, preservation and collection phases of the Electronic Discovery Reference Model.

The PSRRM model is used prior to producing or exporting data containing risky information such as privileged or proprietary information. The middle steps are cyclical and are repeated until the amount of private material is reduced to a desirable amount. The private data is finally quarantined in the final step before the remaining information is produced.

Recent high profile data breaches at Target and Neiman Marcus are prime examples to illustrate that high risk data can cause significant trouble and exposure for organizations today.  As their press release notes, EDRM has revised the PSRRM to include industry feedback and real-world experiences using the model in data remediation and eDiscovery projects to help companies address this exposure in an organized and systematic manner.

The current resource page for the PSRRM model is located here.

So, what do you think?  How do you handle security of your organization’s sensitive data?  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.

Quinn Emanuel Sanctioned for Inadvertent Disclosure, Samsung Escapes Sanction – eDiscovery Case Law

California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal has now handed down an order on motions for sanctions against Samsung and the Quinn Emanuel law firm in the never-ending Apple v. Samsung litigation for the inadvertent disclosure of confidential agreements that Apple had with Nokia, Ericsson, Sharp and Philips – now widely referred to as “patentgate”.

After discovery on the matter, Judge Grewal ruled as follows:

“Quinn Emanuel shall reimburse Apple, Nokia, and their counsel for any and all costs and fees incurred in litigating this motion and the discovery associated with it, as required by Rule 37 in the absence of ‘substantial justification’ or other showing of ‘harmlessness,’ neither of which the court finds here. That expense, in addition to the public findings of wrongdoing, is, in the court’s opinion, sufficient both to remedy Apple and Nokia’s harm and to discourage similar conduct in the future.”

Basically, Judge Grewal determined that “what began as a chorus of loud and certain accusations had died down to aggressive suppositions and inferences, and without anything more, Quinn Emanuel and Samsung cannot reasonably be subject to more punitive sanctions”.

Apple and Nokia had proposed a number of “creative” sanctions that Quinn and Samsung ranging from an injunction against Samsung in the case to a ten-year ban from representing any party adverse to Nokia – suggestions that Judge Grewal referred to as “ludicrously overbroad”.

For a link to the order, click here.

For our previous coverage of the case, click here, here, here, here and here.

So, what do you think?  Did Samsung and Quinn Emanuel get off lightly?  Or was the sanction appropriate?   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.

Samsung Again Owes Apple Almost $1 Billion, Sanction Deadline Nears – eDiscovery Case Law

The news continues to get worse for Samsung Electronics Co. in its colossal legal battle with Apple Inc…

A California federal jury ruled on November 21 that Samsung owes Apple $290.5 million for selling mobile devices that infringed five iPhone and iPad patents, bringing the total awarded for infringing on Apple products to almost $930 million.

The jury deliberated over the course of three days before reaching its decision and awarding the amount, which was less than the $380 million Apple sought from Samsung, but far more than Samsung’s efforts to cap damages at $53 million.

In August of last year, Apple was awarded over a billion dollar verdict, but U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh later reduced those damages to a measly $599 million and ordered a retrial on 13 of Samsung’s products, saying the earlier jury’s math on those gadgets didn’t add up.

And, that may not be the worst of it for Samsung.  Due to the disclosure of confidential agreements that Apple had with Nokia, Ericsson, Sharp and Philips – now widely referred to as “patentgate” – Samsung and its outside counsel Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP are facing sanctions for that disclosure.

According to a declaration from Nokia’s Chief Intellectual Property Officer, Paul Melin, on June 4, in a meeting between Samsung and Nokia licensing executives, Dr. Seungho Ahn informed Nokia that the terms of the Apple-Nokia license were known to him. Specifically, according to Mr. Melin, Dr. Ahn stated that Apple had produced the Apple-Nokia license in its litigation with Samsung, and that Samsung’s outside counsel had provided his team with the terms of the Apple-Nokia license. Mr. Melin recounts that to prove to Nokia that he knew the confidential terms of the Apple-Nokia license, Dr. Ahn recited the terms of the license, and even went so far as to tell Nokia that “all information leaks.”

Partner John Quinn of Quinn Emanuel acknowledged the inadvertent disclosure, which was apparently due to an associate at the firm failing to obscure a footnote and two paragraphs while performing a digital redaction of a 150-page report which was posted on an FTP site that was accessible by Samsung personnel.

As a result, California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal ordered an “in camera” review of documents that Samsung claimed as privileged which Apple doubted that they were legitimately withheld from its lawyers.  Then, on November 8 after the review was conducted, Judge Grewal ordered Samsung and Quinn Emanuel to show cause why they should not be sanctioned, stating that “it appears…that sanctions against Samsung and its attorneys are warranted”.  However, he gave Samsung one last chance to defend its actions ordering Samsung to file a brief by December 2 (today) to explain why it should not be sanctioned, while also allowing Apple and Nokia to file a brief to propose appropriate sanctions, with a hearing on the matter set for next Monday, December 9.

So, what do you think?  Can it get any worse for Samsung?   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 Ubiquitous Apple Samsung Case and “Patentgate” – eDiscovery Case Law

When something gets the “gate” suffix added to it, that’s not a good thing.

It’s hard to believe that a case can get more intense than when a billion dollar verdict is awarded (later reduced to a measly $599 million), but the Apple v. Samsung case seems to only be getting more intense, due to the disclosure of confidential agreements that Apple had with Nokia, Ericsson, Sharp and Philips – now widely referred to as “patentgate”.

Here is a summary of events as they are described in California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal’s Order from October 2 regarding Apple’s motion for sanctions (which Nokia joined):

“During the massive fact discovery in this case between August 2011 and March 2012, Apple produced copies of a number of its patent license agreements, including a June 2011 license between Apple and Nokia. Apple marked the Apple-Nokia license as “Highly Confidential —Attorney Eyes’ Only” as permitted by the court’s protective order. Apple also produced and marked as “Highly Confidential —Attorney Eyes’ Only” similar patent license agreements it has reached with Ericsson, Sharp, and Philips.”

“As fact discovery transitioned to expert discovery, on March 24, 2012, Samsung’s outside counsel sent Samsung a draft expert report by Dr. David J. Teece. Dr. Teece’s report concerned damages to be awarded for Apple’s alleged infringement of Samsung’s asserted declared-essential patents. Because it addressed highly confidential, attorneys’ eyes only information, the report should have been fully redacted of that information before it was sent. However, intentionally or inadvertently, it was not. The report as distributed included key terms of each of the four Apple license agreements.”

“Samsung’s outside counsel [Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP] posted the report on an FTP site that was accessible by Samsung personnel. An email providing instructions to access the FTP site was addressed to the regular client distribution list used by counsel to provide Samsung personnel updates regarding this case. The information was then sent, over several different occasions, to over fifty Samsung employees, including high-ranking licensing executives. Specifically, on at least four occasions between March 24, 2012 and December 21, 2012, Samsung’s outside counsel emailed a copy of some version of the report to Samsung employees, as well as various counsel representing Samsung in courts and jurisdictions outside the United States.”

“At this point, things get murky. According to a declaration from Nokia’s Chief Intellectual Property Officer, Paul Melin, on June 4, 2013, in a meeting between Samsung and Nokia licensing executives, Dr. Seungho Ahn informed Nokia that the terms of the Apple-Nokia license were known to him. Specifically, according to Mr. Melin, Dr. Ahn stated that Apple had produced the Apple-Nokia license in its litigation with Samsung, and that Samsung’s outside counsel had provided his team with the terms of the Apple-Nokia license. Mr. Melin recounts that to prove to Nokia that he knew the confidential terms of the Apple-Nokia license, Dr. Ahn recited the terms of the license, and even went so far as to tell Nokia that “all information leaks.” Mr. Melin also reports that Dr. Ahn and Samsung then proceeded to use his knowledge of the terms of the Apple-Nokia license to gain an unfair advantage in their negotiations with Nokia, by asserting that the Apple-Nokia terms should dictate terms of a Samsung-Nokia license.”

Over the next few weeks, Samsung appealed the order to District Judge Lucy Koh, who was even more critical, finding the disclosures “improper” and Samsung’s lack of cooperation “inexcusable”.  A couple weeks later, Samsung provided sworn declarations, including one by Dr. Ahn that strongly contradicted Nokia’s representation of the June meeting. At a follow up hearing, Judge Grewal said he was not yet convinced that sanctions were warranted, ordering an “in camera” review of documents that Samsung claimed as privileged which Apple doubted that they were legitimately withheld from its lawyers.

As for Quinn Emanuel, who is also facing potential sanctions, partner John Quinn acknowledged the inadvertent disclosure, which was apparently due to an associate at the firm failing to obscure a footnote and two paragraphs while performing a digital redaction of the 150-page report and announced the creation of a new document retention policy to provide a “second pair of eyes” and avoid similar errors in the future (as reported by IT-Lex)

This past Friday, Judge Grewal ordered Samsung and Quinn Emanuel to show cause why they should not be sanctioned, stating “Having finally crawled out from under the boxes, it appears to the undersigned that if anything was breached, it was this court’s protective order, and that sanctions against Samsung and its attorneys are warranted”.  However, he gave Samsung one last chance to defend its actions ordering Samsung to file a brief by December 2 to explain why it should not be sanctioned, while also allowing Apple and Nokia to file a brief to propose appropriate sanctions, with a hearing on the matter set for December 9.

It will be interesting to see what transpires from here.  There have been at least 31 court filings so far this year in this case, so it looks like they’re just getting warmed up.

So, what do you think?  Are Quinn Emanuel and Samsung in serious trouble?  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 Rules Defendant Doesn’t Have Controls of PCs of Former Members, Denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel – eDiscovery Case Law

To require a party to produce evidence in discovery, the party must have “possession, custody, or control” of the evidence. In Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas v. Nemaha Brown Watershed Joint District No. 7, No. 06-CV-2248-CM-DJW (D. Kan. Sept. 23, 2013), the defendant did not have control over the personal computers of its former members, employees, or staff; it did not have the legal right to obtain information from them “on demand.” Therefore, the court rejected the plaintiff’s motion to compel and refused to order the forensic examination of the personal computers of current or former members, employees, or staff.

In this water rights lawsuit, the Tribe filed a motion to compel seeking an order that the defendant district produce documents and permit the forensic examination of its computers. In August 2012, the Tribe issued a request for production of the documents and computers for inspection on two counts it had recently added to its second amended complaint. Although the district responded, the Tribe found the response lacking and claimed that the district had not produced all responsive documents.

The district objected on four grounds. First, and most important to the requests at issue here, the district maintained that it could not “compel former members of the Board of Directors, former staff, or former employees to produce documents that are in their possession but that are not in the possession of the Watershed District itself.” Second, the district averred that the requests duplicated earlier discovery requests on the first four counts of the complaint, where discovery had already closed. Third, the requests were vague and could include privileged documents. Fourth, the district had already produced all documents.

The court agreed that the district did not “have the duty or ability to compel production of documents from persons no longer associated with the District that are not parties to this action.” Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1), the district did not have “possession, custody, or control” of the requested documents, which it defined as having “actual possession, custody, or control” or “the legal right to obtain the documents on demand.” The Tribe could not meet its burden to prove that the district had control of the requested documents.

However, the district had not shown that the requests were duplicative or cumulative; if any documents were privileged, the district would have to provide a privilege log. It rejected the Tribe’s claim that documents from a third party supported its argument that the district had not produced all documents.

As for the Tribe’s request for an order requiring the forensic mirror imaging of the computers personally owned by the current and former district board members, employees, and staff, the court sided with the district. The advisory committee notes to Rule 34(a), which permits the inspection of electronically stored information, provide that “the inspection of a responding party’s hard drive is not routine, but might be justified in some circumstances.” Here, the district did not have possession, custody, or control of these computers and thus could not produce them; moreover, the Tribe could not show “beyond speculation” that these computers were used for district business. Finally, the court noted that it had “significant concerns regarding the intrusiveness of the request and the privacy rights of the individuals to be affected,” especially in light of the Tribe’s “broad, non-specific request” for inspection.

So, what do you think?  Should the motion to compel have been granted?   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).  For eDiscovery news and best practices, check out the Applied Discovery Blog 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.

What is “Reduping?” – eDiscovery Explained

We’ve talked about “reduping” before, but since this question came up with a client recently, I thought it was worth revisiting.

As emails are sent out to multiple custodians, deduplication (or “deduping”) has become a common practice to eliminate multiple copies of the same email or file from the review collection, saving considerable review costs and ensuring consistency by not having different reviewers apply different responsiveness or privilege determinations to the same file (e.g., one copy of a file designated as privileged while the other is not may cause a privileged file to slip into the production set).  Deduping can be performed either across custodians in a case or within each custodian.

Everyone who works in electronic discovery knows what “deduping” is.  But how many of you know what “reduping” is?  Here’s the answer:

“Reduping” is the process of re-introducing duplicates back into the population for production after completing review.  There are a couple of reasons why a producing party may want to “redupe” the collection after review:

  • Deduping Not Requested by Receiving Party: As opposing parties in many cases still don’t conduct a meet and confer or discuss specifications for production, they may not have discussed whether or not to include duplicates in the production set.  In those cases, the producing party may choose to produce the duplicates, giving the receiving party more files to review and driving up their costs (yes, it still happens).  The attitude of the producing party can be “hey, they didn’t specify, so we’ll give them more than they asked for.”
  • Receiving Party May Want to See Who Has Copies of Specific Files: Sometimes, the receiving party does request that “dupes” are identified, but only within custodians, not across them.  In those cases, it’s because they want to see who had a copy of a specific email or file.  However, the producing party still doesn’t want to review the duplicates (because of increasing costs and the possibility of inconsistent designations), so they review a deduped collection and then redupe after review is complete.

As a receiving party, you’ll want to specifically address how dupes should be handled during production to ensure that you don’t receive duplicate files that provide no value.

Many review applications support the capability for reduping.  For example, CloudNine Discovery‘s review tool (shameless plug warning!) OnDemand®, enables duplicates to be suppressed from review, but then enables the same tags to be applied to the duplicates of any files tagged during review.  When it’s time to export documents for production, the user can decide at that time whether or not to export the dupes as part of that production.

So, what do you think?  Do any of your cases include “reduping” as part of production?   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.