Close
Enter your
text here

Production

eDiscovery Daily is Two Years Old Today!
 

It’s hard to believe that it has been two years ago today since we launched the eDiscoveryDaily blog.  Now that we’ve hit the “terrible twos”, is the blog going to start going off on rants about various eDiscovery topics, like Will McAvoy in The Newsroom?   Maybe.  Or maybe not.  Wouldn’t that be fun!

As we noted when recently acknowledging our 500th post, we have seen traffic on our site (from our first three months of existence to our most recent three months) grow an amazing 442%!  Our subscriber base has nearly doubled in the last year alone!  We now have nearly seven times the visitors to the site as we did when we first started.  We continue to appreciate the interest you’ve shown in the topics and will do our best to continue to provide interesting and useful eDiscovery news and analysis.  That’s what this blog is all about.  And, in each post, we like to ask for you to “please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic”, so we encourage you to do so to make this blog even more useful.

We also want to thank the blogs and publications that have linked to our posts and raised our public awareness, including Pinhawk, The Electronic Discovery Reading Room, Unfiltered Orange, Litigation Support Blog.com, Litigation Support Technology & News, Ride the Lightning, InfoGovernance Engagement Area, Learn About E-Discovery, Alltop, Law.com, Justia Blawg Search, Atkinson-Baker (depo.com), ABA Journal, Complex Discovery, Next Generation eDiscovery Law & Tech Blog 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!

We like to take a look back every six months at some of the important stories and topics during that time.  So, here are some posts over the last six months you may have missed.  Enjoy!

We talked about best practices for issuing litigation holds and how issuing the litigation hold is just the beginning.

By the way, did you know that if you deleted a photo on Facebook three years ago, it may still be online?

We discussed states (Delaware, Pennsylvania and Florida) that have implemented new rules for eDiscovery in the past few months.

We talked about how to achieve success as a non-attorney in a law firm, providing quality eDiscovery services to your internal “clients” and how to be an eDiscovery consultant, and not just an order taker, for your clients.

We warned you that stop words can stop your searches from being effective, talked about how important it is to test your searches before the meet and confer and discussed the importance of the first 7 to 10 days once litigation hits in addressing eDiscovery issues.

We told you that, sometimes, you may need to collect from custodians that aren’t there, differentiated between quality assurance and quality control and discussed the importance of making sure that file counts add up to what was collected (with an example, no less).

By the way, did you know the number of pages in a gigabyte can vary widely and the same exact content in different file formats can vary by as much as 16 to 20 times in size?

We provided a book review on Zubulake’s e-Discovery and then interviewed the author, Laura Zubulake, as well.

BTW, eDiscovery Daily has had 150 posts related to eDiscovery Case Law since the blog began.  Fifty of them have been in the last six months.

P.S. – We still haven't missed a business day yet without a post.  Yes, we are crazy.

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: Twitter Loses Appeal in People v. Harris
 

As reported in the Gibbons E-Discovery Law Alert blog, Twitter filed an appeal of the trial court’s decision in People v. Harris with the Appellate Division, First Department in New York, arguing that Twitter users have the right to quash subpoenas pursuant to Twitter’s terms of service agreement as well as because defendants’ constitutional rights are implicated by a government-issued subpoena to a third party.  Unfortunately for Twitter, it didn’t take long for the appellate court panel to rule, as they denied Twitter’s motion for a stay of enforcement of the Trial Court’s order to produce Malcolm Harris’s tweets last week.

Attempts to Quash the Subpoena Fail

Back in April, Harris, an Occupy Wall Street activist facing criminal charges, tried to quash a subpoena seeking production of his Tweets and his Twitter account user information in his New York criminal case.  That request was rejected, so Twitter then sought to quash the subpoena themselves, claiming that the order to produce the information imposed an “undue burden” on Twitter and even forced it to “violate federal law”.

Then, on June 30, New York Criminal Court Judge Matthew Sciarrino Jr. ruled that Twitter must produce tweets and user information of Harris, noting: “If you post a tweet, just like if you scream it out the window, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. There is no proprietary interest in your tweets, which you have now gifted to the world. This is not the same as a private email, a private direct message, a private chat, or any of the other readily available ways to have a private conversation via the internet that now exist…Those private dialogues would require a warrant based on probable cause in order to access the relevant information.”  Judge Sciarrino indicated that his decision was “partially based on Twitter's then terms of service agreement”, which was subsequently modified to add the statement “You Retain Your Right To Any Content You Submit, Post Or Display On Or Through The Service.”

Twitter Continues to Fight Ruling

After the ruling, the New York District Attorney filed an order for Twitter to show cause as to why they should not be held in contempt for failure to produce the tweets. Twitter responded by seeking the stay of enforcement pending the appeal.  Last week, Twitter was given a deadline by the Trial Court during a hearing on the District Attorney’s motion to produce Harris’s information by Friday September 14 or face a finding of contempt. Judge Sciarrino even went so far as to warn Twitter that he would review their most recent quarterly financial statements in determining the appropriate financial penalty if Twitter did not obey the order.

So, what do you think?  With the appeal denied, will Twitter finally produce the plaintiff’s information?  What impact does this case have on future subpoenas of Twitter user 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.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Quality Control, Making Sure the Numbers Add Up
 

Yesterday, we wrote about tracking file counts from collection to production, the concept of expanded file counts, and the categorization of files during processing.  Today, let’s walk through a scenario to show how the files collected are accounted for during the discovery process.

Tracking the Counts after Processing

We discussed the typical categories of excluded files after processing – obviously, what’s not excluded is available for searching and review.  Even if your approach includes a technology assisted review (TAR) methodology such as predictive coding, it’s still likely that you will want to do some culling out of files that are clearly non-responsive.

Documents during review may be classified in a number of ways, but the most common ways to classify documents as to whether they are responsive, non-responsive, or privileged.  Privileged documents are also typically classified as responsive or non-responsive, so that only the responsive documents that are privileged need be identified on a privilege log.  Responsive documents that are not privileged are then produced to opposing counsel.

Example of File Count Tracking

So, now that we’ve discussed the various categories for tracking files from collection to production, let’s walk through a fairly simple eMail based example.  We conduct a fairly targeted collection of a PST file from each of seven custodians in a given case.  The relevant time period for the case is January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2011.  Other than date range, we plan to do no other filtering of files during processing.  Duplicates will not be reviewed or produced.  We’re going to provide an exception log to opposing counsel for any file that cannot be processed and a privilege log for any responsive files that are privileged.  Here’s what this collection might look like:

  • Collected Files: 101,852 – After expansion, 7 PST files expand to 101,852 eMails and attachments.
  • Filtered Files: 23,564 – Filtering eMails outside of the relevant date range eliminates 23,564 files.
  • Remaining Files after Filtering: 78,288 – After filtering, there are 78,288 files to be processed.
  • NIST/System Files: 0 – eMail collections typically don’t have NIST or system files, so we’ll assume zero files here.  Collections with loose electronic documents from hard drives typically contain some NIST and system files.
  • Exception Files: 912 – Let’s assume that a little over 1% of the collection (912) is exception files like password protected, corrupted or empty files.
  • Duplicate Files: 24,215 – It’s fairly common for approximately 30% of the collection to include duplicates, so we’ll assume 24,215 files here.
  • Remaining Files after Processing: 53,161 – We have 53,161 files left after subtracting NIST/System, Exception and Duplicate files from the total files after filtering.
  • Files Culled During Searching: 35,618 – If we assume that we are able to cull out 67% (approximately 2/3 of the collection) as clearly non-responsive, we are able to cull out 35,618 files.
  • Remaining Files for Review: 17,543 – After culling, we have 17,543 files that will actually require review (whether manual or via a TAR approach).
  • Files Tagged as Non-Responsive: 7,017 – If approximately 40% of the document collection is tagged as non-responsive, that would be 7,017 files tagged as such.
  • Remaining Files Tagged as Responsive: 10,526 – After QC to ensure that all documents are either tagged as responsive or non-responsive, this leaves 10,526 documents as responsive.
  • Responsive Files Tagged as Privileged: 842 – If roughly 8% of the responsive documents are privileged, that would be 842 privileged documents.
  • Produced Files: 9,684 – After subtracting the privileged files, we’re left with 9,684 responsive, non-privileged files to be produced to opposing counsel.

The percentages I used for estimating the counts at each stage are just examples, so don’t get too hung up on them.  The key is to note the numbers in red above.  Excluding the interim counts in black, the counts in red represent the different categories for the file collection – each file should wind up in one of these totals.  What happens if you add the counts in red together?  You should get 101,852 – the number of collected files after expanding the PST files.  As a result, every one of the collected files is accounted for and none “slips through the cracks” during discovery.  That’s the way it should be.  If not, investigation is required to determine where files were missed.

So, what do you think?  Do you have a plan for accounting for all collected files during discovery?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine 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: Quality Control, It’s a Numbers Game
 

Previously, we wrote about Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) in the eDiscovery process.  Both are important in improving the quality of work product and making the eDiscovery process more defensible overall.  For example, in attorney review, QA mechanisms include validation rules to ensure that entries are recorded correctly while QC mechanisms include a second review (usually by a review supervisor or senior attorney) to ensure that documents are being categorized correctly.  Another overall QC mechanism is tracking of document counts through the discovery process, especially from collection to production, to identify how every collected file was handled and why each non-produced document was not produced.

Expanded File Counts

Scanned counts of files collected are not the same as expanded file counts.  There are certain container file types, like Outlook PST files and ZIP archives that exist essentially to store a collection of other files.  So, the count that is important to track is the “expanded” file count after processing, which includes all of the files contained within the container files.  So, in a simple scenario where you collect Outlook PST files from seven custodians, the actual number of documents (emails and attachments) within those PST files could be in the tens of thousands.  That’s the starting count that matters if your goal is to account for every document in the discovery process.

Categorization of Files During Processing

Of course, not every document gets reviewed or even included in the search process.  During processing, files are usually categorized, with some categories of files usually being set aside and excluded from review.  Here are some typical categories of excluded files in most collections:

  • Filtered Files: Some files may be collected, and then filtered during processing.  A common filter for the file collection is the relevant date range of the case.  If you’re collecting custodians’ source PST files, those may include messages outside the relevant date range; if so, those messages may need to be filtered out of the review set.  Files may also be filtered based on type of file or other reasons for exclusion.
  • NIST and System Files: Many file collections also contain system files, like executable files (EXEs) or Dynamic Link Library (DLLs) that are part of the software on a computer which do not contain client data, so those are typically excluded from the review set.  NIST files are included on the National Institute of Standards and Technology list of files that are known to have no evidentiary value, so any files in the collection matching those on the list are “De-NISTed”.
  • Exception Files: These are files that cannot be processed or indexed, for whatever reason.  For example, they may be password-protected or corrupted.  Just because these files cannot be processed doesn’t mean they can be ignored, depending on your agreement with opposing counsel, you may need to at least provide a list of them on an exception log to prove they were addressed, if not attempt to repair them or make them accessible (BTW, it’s good to establish that agreement for disposition of exception files up front).
  • Duplicate Files: During processing, files that are exact duplicates may be put aside to avoid redundant review (and potential inconsistencies).  Some exact duplicates are typically identified based on the HASH value, which is a digital fingerprint generated based on the content and format of the file – if two files have the same HASH value, they have the same exact content and format.  Emails (and their attachments) may be identified as duplicates based on key metadata fields, so an attachment cannot be “de-duped” out of the collection by a standalone copy of the same file.

All of these categories of excluded files can reduce the set of files to actually be searched and reviewed.  Tomorrow, we’ll illustrate an example of a file set from collection to production to illustrate how each file is accounted for during the discovery process.

So, what do you think?  Do you have a plan for accounting for all collected files during discovery?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine 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: Google Awarded $1 Million from Oracle, But Denied Discovery Costs
 

As noted in SiliconBeat and ARN, Judge William Alsup ordered Oracle on Tuesday to pay Google $1 million as reimbursement for Google’s fees for a court-appointed expert in their court battle over intellectual property and Google’s Android software.  However, the ruling is only a partial victory for Google, who was seeking $4 million from Oracle in reimbursement of costs associated with the case.

Claims Against Google Dismissed Despite Inadvertent Disclosure

As you may recall, claims against Google that its Android mobile phone platform infringes Oracle's copyrights relating to the Java computer language were dismissed by Judge Alsup back on May 31.  The claims were dismissed despite a significant inadvertent disclosure of information during discovery by Google, where drafts of a privileged email were not caught by Google’s search technology since they didn’t include the words “Attorney Work Product”, nor were they yet addressed to in-house counsel.  Judge Alsup ruled late last year that the draft emails were not privileged and the Federal Circuit court upheld that ruling.  However, these rulings did not ultimately cost Google as Oracle’s claims were dismissed.  As Judge Alsup noted, “Oracle initially sought six billion dollars in damages and injunctive relief but recovered nothing after nearly two years of litigation and six weeks of trial.”  Oracle plans to appeal.

Google Seeks Recovery of Costs

As the prevailing party, Google was able to seek recovery of costs and did so, seeking nearly $4 million from Oracle.  As noted above, Judge Alsup awarded Google $1 million as reimbursement for Google’s fees for a court-appointed expert.  However, Judge Alsup rejected Google's request that Oracle also pay $2.9 million for discovery-related costs, calling the search giant's arguments "unpersuasive".

“The problem with Google's e-discovery bill of costs is that many of [the] item-line descriptions seemingly bill for 'intellectual effort' such as organizing, searching, and analyzing the discovery documents," Judge Alsup stated in the ruling. "Most egregious are attempts to bill costs for 'conferencing,' 'prepare for and participate in kickoff call,' and communications with co-workers, other vendors, and clients. These are non-taxable intellectual efforts.”

So, what do you think?  Should Google have been reimbursed more?  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: Citing Rule 26(g), Court Orders Plaintiff’s Counsel to Disclose Search Strategy
 

Our 501st post on the blog addresses S2 Automation LLC v. Micron Technology, No. CIV 11-0884 JB/WDS, 2012 U.S. Dist. (D. New Mexico, Aug 9, 2012), where New Mexico District Judge James Browning ordered the plaintiff’s attorneys to disclose the search strategy their client used to identify responsive documents, based on Federal Rule 26(g) that requires attorneys to sign discovery responses and certify that they are “complete and correct.”

Motion to Compel

Last October, S2 Automation filed a Complaint against Micron Technology for breach of contract, conversion, misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.  After various objections to Micron’s requests for production by S2, Micron filed a Motion to Compel, indicating that S2 Automation “has utterly failed to meet its obligation to meaningfully respond to discovery in this matter” and requested, among other things that the court order S2 Automation to identify the search strategy it used to provide responsive documents to its requests for production.

A sworn declaration from one of Micron’s attorneys indicated that, during a discovery conference, it became apparent that S2′s counsel may not have worked with their client sufficiently during the discovery process and, as a result, may have failed to provide a number of responsive documents:

“During that call, we discussed the April 25 deficiency letter and Micron’s request that S2 supplement its production. Counsel for S2 stated that he had not yet reviewed the letter in detail. We then discussed the format for production of S2′s documents. Counsel stated that he was not aware that S2 had separated attachments from e-mails, that he had delegated the process of gathering documents to S2, and that he was generally unaware of the manner in which S2 had provided the documents. Counsel also stated that he was unsure what protocol S2 followed to locate responsive documents.”

S2’s Obligations under Federal Rule 26(g)

Micron asserted in its motion to compel that S2′s counsel violated their obligations under Federal Rule 26(g), stating “it is not proper for counsel to sit back and allow the client to search for documents without active direction and participation by counsel; to the contrary, counsel must be actively involved in the search to ensure that all responsive documents have been located, preserved, and produced.”  In response, S2′s attorneys denied that they had failed to supervise the discovery process, indicating that they had “met with the client on multiple occasions during the discovery process in order to organize and respond to discovery.”

Judge Browning’s Ruling

Noting that Rule 26(g) imposes an obligation on the attorney who signs the discovery response to conduct “a reasonable inquiry into the facts and law supporting the pleading”, Judge Browning stated:

“Accordingly, it can become necessary to evaluate whether an attorney complied with his rule 26(g) obligations and to evaluate the strategy an attorney used to provide responsive discovery, with relevant circumstances including: (i) “[t]he number and complexity of the issues”; (ii) “[t]he location, nature, number and availability of potentially relevant witnesses or documents”; (iii) “[t]he extent of past working relationships between the attorney and the client, particularly in related or similar litigation”; and (iv) “[t]he time available to conduct an investigation.” 6 J. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, § 26.154[2][a], at 26-615 (3d ed. 2012). Consequently, the analysis in which courts must engage to evaluate whether a party’s discovery responses were adequate is often a fact-intensive inquiry that requires evaluation of the procedures the producing party adopted during discovery.”

As a result, Judge Browning ruled that S2 Automation would have to provide to Micron “its search strategy for identifying pertinent documents, including the procedures it used and how it interacted with its counsel to facilitate the production process.”

So, what do you think?  Was the ruling appropriate?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Daily will return with a new post on Tuesday after the Labor Day holiday.

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 Milestones: Our 500th Post!

One thing about being a daily blog is that the posts accumulate more quickly.  As a result, I’m happy to announce that today is our 500th post on eDiscoveryDaily!  In less than two years of existence!

When we launched on September 20, 2010, our goal was to be a daily resource for eDiscovery news and analysis and we have done our best to deliver on that goal.  During that time, we have published 144 posts on eDiscovery Case Law and have identified numerous cases related to Spoliation Claims and Sanctions.   We’ve covered every phase of the EDRM life cycle, including:

We’ve discussed key industry trends in Social Media Technology and Cloud Computing.  We’ve published a number of posts on eDiscovery best practices on topics ranging from Project Management to coordinating eDiscovery within Law Firm Departments to Searching and Outsourcing.  And, a lot more.  Every post we have published is still available on the site for your reference.

Comparing our first three months of existence with our most recent three months, we have seen traffic on our site grow an amazing 442%!  Our subscriber base has nearly doubled in the last year alone!

And, we have you to thank for that!  Thanks for making the eDiscoveryDaily blog a regular resource for your eDiscovery news and analysis!  We really appreciate the support!

I also want to extend a special thanks to Jane Gennarelli, who has provided some wonderful best practice post series on a variety of topics, ranging from project management to coordinating review teams to learning how to be a true eDiscovery consultant instead of an order taker.  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 499 previous posts.  Maybe you missed some?  😉

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: No Kleen Sweep for Technology Assisted Review
 

For much of the year, proponents of predictive coding and other technology assisted review (TAR) concepts have been pointing to three significant cases where the technology based approaches have either been approved or are seriously being considered.  Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe and Global Aerospace v. Landow Aviation are two of the cases, the third one is Kleen Products v. Packaging Corp. of America.  However, in the Kleen case, the parties have now reached an agreement to drop the TAR-based approach, at least for the first request for production.

Background and Debate Regarding Search Approach

On February 21, the plaintiffs asked Magistrate Judge Nan Nolan to require the producing parties to employ a technology assisted review approach (referred to as "content-based advanced analytics," or CBAA) in their production of documents for discovery purposes.

In their filing, the plaintiffs claimed that “[t]he large disparity between the effectiveness of [the computer-assisted coding] methodology and Boolean keyword search methodology demonstrates that Defendants cannot establish that their proposed [keyword] search methodology is reasonable and adequate as they are required.”  Citing studies conducted between 1994 and 2011 claimed to demonstrate the superiority of computer-assisted review over keyword approaches, the plaintiffs claimed that computer-assisted coding retrieved for production “70 percent (worst case) of responsive documents rather than no more than 24 percent (best case) for Defendants’ Boolean, keyword search.”

In their response, the defendants contended that the plaintiffs "provided no legitimate reason that this Court should deviate here from reliable, recognized, and established discovery practices" in favor of their "unproven" CBAA methods. The defendants also emphasized that they have "tested, independently validated, and implemented a search term methodology that is wholly consistent with the case law around the nation and that more than satisfies the ESI production guidelines endorsed by the Seventh Circuit and the Sedona Conference." Having (according to their briefing) already produced more than one million pages of documents using their search methods, the defendants conveyed outrage that the plaintiffs would ask the court to "establish a new and radically different ESI standard for cases in this District."

Stipulation and Order

After “a substantial number of written submissions and oral presentations to the Court” regarding the search technology issue, “in order to narrow the issues, the parties have reached an agreement that will obviate the need for additional evidentiary hearings on the issue of the technology to be used to search for documents responsive to the First Requests.”  That agreement was memorialized this week in the Stipulation and Order Relating to ESI Search (link to stipulation courtesy of Law.com).  As part of that agreement, the plaintiffs have withdrawn their demand that the defendants apply CBAA to the first production request (referred to in the stipulation as the “First Request Corpus”). 

As for productions beyond the First Request Corpus, the plaintiffs also agreed not to “argue or contend” that the defendants should be required to CBAA or “predictive coding” with respect to any requests for production served on any defendant prior to October 1, 2013.  As for requests for production served after October 1, 2013, it was agreed that the parties would “meet and confer regarding the appropriate search methodology to be used for such newly collected documents”, with the ability for either party to file a motion if they can’t agree.  So, there will be no TAR-based approach in the Kleen case, at least until next October.

So, what do you think?  Does this signal a difficulty in obtaining approval for TAR-based approaches?  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: More Sanctions for Fry’s Electronics
 

In E.E.O.C. v Fry’s Electronics, Inc., No. C10-1562RSL, 2012 U.S. Dist. (W.D. Wash. July 3, 2012), Washington District Judge Robert S. Lasnik ordered several sanctions against the defendant in this sexual harassment case (including ordering the defendant to pay $100,000 in monetary sanctions and ordering that certain evidence be considered presumptively admissible at trial), but stopped short of entering a default judgment against the defendant.  This ruling came after having previously ordered sanctions against the defendant less than two months earlier.

Prior Sanctions

On May 10, Judge Lasnik granted in part plaintiffs' motion for sanctions in this case, finding that the defendant had spoliated evidence, including data and computer hard drives. In that ruling, Judge Lasnik believed that the prejudicial effect of the spoliation could be counteracted by “(a) instructing the jury that one of the justifications for firing [one of the plaintiffs] was pretextual and (b) allowing plaintiff considerable leeway in arguing what information might have been gleaned from the computer hard drives had they not been destroyed by defendant”. At the time, Judge Lasnik also indicated “some concern regarding the efficacy and thoroughness of defendant's searches” which led to more information being discovered after he ordered a second search.

Additional Spoliation and Misconduct

During a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition held on May 30, the plaintiffs learned for the first time that the accused individual had previously been accused of sexual harassment in 2001 and that an investigation had been conducted. According to Judge Lasnik, the defendant “intentionally withheld this information and the related documents from discovery by raising unfounded objections and ‘negotiating’ a narrowing of the discovery requests” and found the defendant's conduct to be “unfair, unwarranted, unprincipled, and unacceptable”.

Misconduct by the defendants noted by Judge Lasnik also included the redaction of responsive information, “[e]ven after defendant's objections to certain discovery requests were overruled”, as well as production of hundreds of pages of information with the “fallacious argument” that they were relevant to the claims.

Consideration of Default Judgment Sanction

Judge Lasnik noted that it is “once again left to determine whether to strike defendant's answer and enter default judgment against it”, but noted that dismissal is a “harsh sanction” and the following factors must be considered when determining “whether a dispositive sanction is appropriate under either its inherent powers or Rule 37(b): (1) the public's interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court's need to manage its docket efficiently and effectively; (3) the risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions; (4) the public policy in favor of considering cases on the merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.”  While finding that the first three factors supported a dispositive sanction, Judge Lasnik ruled against a dispositive sanction in factor 4, indicating that “[t]he public has an interest in a determination of those issues based on the facts, rather than by judicial fiat”.

Lesser Sanctions Ordered

Instead, Judge Lasnik ordered lesser sanctions, indicating that “Defendant's affirmative defenses related to (i) its efforts to prevent and correct harassment in the workplace, (ii) plaintiffs' failure to utilize protective and corrective opportunities provided by defendant, (iii) its good faith and/or privilege to act as it did in this case are STRICKEN.” He also stated that certain documents and testimony related to “other complaints or reports of sexual harassment” at the company were “presumptively admissible at trial”. He also ordered sanctions of $100,000 “to offset the excess costs caused by defendant’s discovery violations, to punish unacceptable behavior, and as a deterrent to future bad conduct” to be split evenly between the two individual plaintiffs, the EEOC and the Court Clerk.

So, what do you think?  Are you surprised that the defendant didn’t receive a default judgment 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.

eDiscovery Case Law: No Sanctions When You Can’t Prove Evidence Was Destroyed
 

In Omogbehin v. Cino, No. 11-2223, 2012 U.S. App. (3d Cir. June 20, 2012), the plaintiff claimed that the District Court erred in denying his motion for spoliation sanctions and appealed to the US Third Circuit Court of Appeals, but lost as the appellate court upheld the rulings by the district judge and magistrate judge.

In this employment discrimination case, the plaintiff (Stephen Omogbehin) filed a motion for adverse inference jury instructions with the belief that the defendants destroyed or suppressed certain eMails during discovery. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, he not only failed to demonstrate evidence of spoliation, he also could not even prove that the alleged eMails existed. Two of the defendants claimed no such eMails existed, with support from their IT experts, who explained that all eMails from the relevant time frame had been produced.

Four-Prong Test

The appellate court upheld the rulings by the district judge and magistrate judge, who had used the four-prong test to determine whether spoliation occurred, requiring the plaintiff to demonstrate that “[1] the evidence was in the party’s control; [2] the evidence is relevant to the claims or defenses in the case; [3] there has been actual suppression or withholding of evidence; and, [4] the duty to preserve the evidence was reasonably foreseeable to the party.” Only after establishing that spoliation occurred, would a separate analysis be conducted to determine whether sanctions are appropriate. To obtain an adverse inference instruction, a party must show “there has been an actual suppression or withholding of the evidence.”

The Magistrate Judge denied Omogbehin's motion because he had failed to show that the emails were actually sent or received, let alone that that any spoliation occurred, much less that it was done intentionally.  The District Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge, concluding that Omogbehin had not satisfied his burden of establishing facts from which the court could "at least infer that the evidence existed in the first place."

The appellate court noted that the defendants “produced the information and documents that Omogbehin requested; that they did not contain what he had hoped or expected is not sufficient to satisfy his burden. He must provide some proof that what he seeks actually existed, but failed to do so.”

Compare to Zubulake

This is an interesting contrast to the Zubulake case, which was also an employment discrimination case.  In that case, Laura Zubulake preserved and produced her own copies of emails that the defendants failed to produce (at least initially) which led to the court’s decision to order discovery from backup tapes that led to additional productions of relevant emails.  Due to the fact that tapes from some key individuals were missing and that the other tapes had led to discovery of additional relevant emails, the court ultimately concluded that the destruction of those tapes resulted in spoliation of relevant evidence.  Zubulake was able to prove a pattern of spoliation that Omogbehin was unable to prove.

So, what do you think?  Have you ever pursued, or been forced to defendant against, spoliation sanctions?  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.