Close
Enter your
text here

Production

eDiscovery Best Practices: When Preparing Production Sets, Quality is Job 1
 

OK, I admit I stole that line from an old Ford commercial… 😉

Yesterday, we talked about addressing parameters of production up front to ensure that those requirements make sense and avoid foreseeable production problems well before the production step.  Today, we will talk about quality control (QC) mechanisms to make sure that the production is complete and accurate.

Quality Control Checks

There are a number of checks that can and should be performed on the production set, prior to producing it to the requesting party.  Here are some examples:

  • File Counts: The most obvious check you can perform is to ensure that the count of files matches the count of documents or pages you have identified to be produced.  However, depending on the production, there may be multiple file counts to check:
    • Image Files: If you have agreed with opposing counsel to produce images for all documents, then there will be a count of images to confirm.  If you’re producing multi-page image files (typically, PDF or TIFF), the count of images should match the count of documents being produced.  If you’re producing single-page image files (usually TIFF), then the count should match the number of pages being produced.
    • Text Files: When producing image files, you may also be producing searchable text files.  Again, the count should match either the documents (multi-page text files) or pages (single-page text files) with one possible exception.  If a document or page has no searchable text, are you still producing an empty file for those?  If not, you will need to be aware of how many of those instances there are and adjust the count accordingly to verify for QC purposes.
    • Native Files: Native files (if produced) are typically at the document level, so you would want to confirm that one exists for each document being produced.
    • Subset Counts: If the documents are being produced in a certain organized manner (e.g., a folder for each custodian), it’s a good idea to identify subset counts at those levels and verify those counts as well.  Not only does this provide an extra level of count verification, but it helps to find the problem more quickly if the overall count is off.
    • Verify Counts on Final Production Media: If you’re verifying counts of the production set before copying it to the media (which is common when burning files to CD or DVD), you will need to verify those counts again after copying to ensure that all files made it to the final media.
  • Sampling of Results: Unless the production is relatively small, it may be impractical to open every last file to be produced to confirm that it is correct.  If so, employ accepted statistical sampling procedures (such as those described here and here for searching) to identify an appropriate sample size and randomly select that sample to open and confirm that the correct files were selected, HASH values of produced native files match the original source versions of those files, images are clear and text files contain the correct text.
  • Redacted Files: If any redacted files are being produced, each of these (not just a sample subset) should be reviewed to confirm that redactions of privileged or confidential information made it to the produced file.  Many review platforms overlay redactions which have to be burned into the images at production time, so it’s easy for mistakes in the process to cause those redactions to be left out or burned in at the wrong location.
  • Inclusion of Logs: Depending on agreed upon parameters, the production may include log files such as:
    • Production Log: Listing of all files being produced, with an agreed upon list of metadata fields to identify those files.
    • Privilege Log: Listing of responsive files not being produced because of privilege (and possibly confidentiality as well).  This listing often identifies the privilege being asserted for each file in the privilege log.
    • Exception Log: Listing of files that could not be produced because of a problem with the file.  Examples of types of exception files are included here.

Each production will have different parameters, so the QC requirements will differ, so there are examples, but not necessarily a comprehensive list of all potential QC checks to perform.

So, what do you think?  Can you think of other appropriate QC checks to perform on production sets?  If so, please share them!  As well as any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Production is the “Ringo” of the eDiscovery Phases
 

Since eDiscovery Daily debuted over 14 months ago, we’ve covered a lot of case law decisions related to eDiscovery.  65 posts related to case law to date, in fact.  We’ve covered cases associated with sanctions related to failure to preserve data, issues associated with incomplete collections, inadequate searching methodologies, and inadvertent disclosures of privileged documents, among other things.  We’ve noted that 80% of the costs associated with eDiscovery are in the Review phase and that volume of data and sources from which to retrieve it (including social media and “cloud” repositories) are growing exponentially.  Most of the “press” associated with eDiscovery ranges from the “left side of the EDRM model” (i.e., Information Management, Identification, Preservation, Collection) through the stages to prepare materials for production (i.e., Processing, Review and Analysis).

All of those phases lead to one inevitable stage in eDiscovery: Production.  Yet, few people talk about the actual production step.  If Preservation, Collection and Review are the “John”, “Paul” and “George” of the eDiscovery process, Production is “Ringo”.

It’s the final crucial step in the process, and if it’s not handled correctly, all of the due diligence spent in the earlier phases could mean nothing.  So, it’s important to plan for production up front and to apply a number of quality control (QC) checks to the actual production set to ensure that the production process goes as smooth as possible.

Planning for Production Up Front

When discussing the production requirements with opposing counsel, it’s important to ensure that those requirements make sense, not only from a legal standpoint, but a technical standpoint as well.  Involve support and IT personnel in the process of deciding those parameters as they will be the people who have to meet them.  Issues to be addressed include, but not limited to:

  • Format of production (e.g., paper, images or native files);
  • Organization of files (e.g., organized by custodian, legal issue, etc.);
  • Numbering scheme (e.g., Bates labels for images, sequential file names for native files);
  • Handling of confidential and privileged documents, including log requirements and stamps to be applied;
  • Handling of redactions;
  • Format and content of production log;
  • Production media (e.g., CD, DVD, portable hard drive, FTP, etc.).

I was involved in a case recently where opposing counsel was requesting an unusual production format where the names of the files would be the subject line of the emails being produced (for example, “Re: Completed Contract, dated 12/01/2011”).  Two issues with that approach: 1) The proposed format only addressed emails, and 2) Windows file names don’t support certain characters, such as colons (:) or slashes (/).  I provided that feedback to the attorneys so that they could address with opposing counsel and hopefully agree on a revised format that made more sense.  So, let the tech folks confirm the feasibility of the production parameters.

The workflow throughout the eDiscovery process should also keep in mind the end goal of meeting the agreed upon production requirements.  For example, if you’re producing native files with metadata, you may need to take appropriate steps to keep the metadata intact during the collection and review process so that the metadata is not inadvertently changed. For some file types, metadata is changed merely by opening the file, so it may be necessary to collect the files in a forensically sound manner and conduct review using copies of the files to keep the originals intact.

Tomorrow, we will talk about preparing the production set and performing QC checks to ensure that the ESI being produced to the requesting party is complete and accurate.

So, what do you think?  Have you had issues with production planning in your cases?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Produced ESI Doesn’t Need to be Categorized, Even When Voluminous

In United States v. Rubin/Chambers, Dunhill Ins. Servs., No. 09 Cr. 1058, (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2011), defendants’ motion to have the Government in a criminal antitrust conspiracy case organize and format its discovery production to indicate which of four categories of collusion each document or electronic file related to was denied. The Government was “under no general obligation to identify or sort Brady material within even an extremely voluminous disclosure.”

Defendants were charged with conspiring to rig bids and fix prices on municipal derivatives. They asked for an order requiring the Government “to produce discrete collections of documents and electronic files that relate to four categories of transactions, and that such production be organized and formatted so as to indicate to which of those four categories each document or electronic file relates.” Defendants contended that the categories correlated to different aspects of the Government’s theory of collusion and that the categorization of overt acts that the Government was expected to prove at trial “would be useful to impeach the testimony of cooperating witnesses who will testify as to Defendants’ intent in entering into the Featured Transactions.”

The court denied defendants’ motion. Brady materials already produced to defendants in mostly searchable format did not have to be produced again “in categorized batches” relating “to transactions with certain characteristics.” The court stated: “Absent prosecutorial misconduct — bad faith or deliberate efforts to knowingly hide Brady material — the Government’s use of ‘open file’ disclosures, even when the material disclosed is voluminous, does not run afoul of Brady.” While the court acknowledged its discretion regarding defendants’ motion, the Government had provided searchable electronic documents, defendants had corporate assistance and could assist in their own defense since they were not being incarcerated before trial, and each defendant was represented by “prominent, sophisticated counsel.” The collapse of the law firm serving as the technical coordinator for the defendants’ discovery review platform “while unfortunate, does not alter the inescapable conclusion here: Defendants are anything but impoverished and certainly not so incapacitated as to warrant shifting such a substantial portion of the burden of preparing their defense to the Government.”

So, what do you think?  Was that an appropriate ruling, given the volume of ESI?  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.

eDiscovery Case Law: Facebook Content Discoverable Yet Again

It seems most, if not all, of the cases these days where discoverability of social media is at issue are being decided by courts in favor of the parties seeking to discover this information.  Here’s another example.

In Largent v. Reed, 2011 WL 5632688, (Pa. C.P. Franklin Co. Nov. 8, 2011) the court ruled that the plaintiff’s Facebook information was discoverable as being relevant and not privileged and ordered the plaintiff to turn over her Facebook login information to the defendant within 14 days, giving the defendant a 21-day window to inspect the plaintiff’s Facebook profile (after which she was allowed to change her password).

In this case, one of the plaintiffs claimed that a motorcycle accident caused by the defendant left her with chronic physical and mental pain. During a deposition of one of the plaintiffs, the defendant learned that she had a Facebook account and had accessed it as recently as the night before the deposition.  The defendant had reason to believe that the plaintiff had posted pictures of herself on Facebook enjoying life with her family as well as a status update about going to the gym. Accordingly, the defendant filed a Motion to Compel, demanding that the plaintiff provide her Facebook username and password to enable the defendant to demonstrate that the plaintiff’s injuries aren’t as bad as she claimed.

The defendant cited two cases where discovery of social network content was granted: Zimmerman v. Weis Markets, Inc., No. CV-09-1535, 2011 WL 2065410 (Pa. Comm. Pl. May 19, 2011) and McMillen v. Hummingbird Speedway, Inc., No. 113-2010 CD (C.P. Jefferson, Sept. 9, 2010).  The plaintiffs responded with two cases where courts denied discovery of Facebook material: Piccolo v. Paterson, No. 2009-4979 (Pa. C.P. Bucks May 6, 2011) and Kennedy v. Norfolk S. Corp., No. 100201437 (Pa. C.P. Phila. Jan 15, 2011).

The court considered the following factors in ruling for the defendant:

  • Relevancy: Since the plaintiff claimed that “she suffers from, among other things, chronic physical and mental pain” and that the defendant claimed that the plaintiff’s “formerly public Facebook account included status updates about exercising at a gym and photographs depicting her with her family that undermine her claim for damages” the court ruled that the information sought by the defendant is “clearly relevant”.
  • Privilege and Privacy: The court noted that there “is no confidential social networking privilege under existing Pennsylvania law” and that there is “no reasonable expectation of privacy in material posted on Facebook”.
  • Stored Communications Act of 1986 (SCA): While the SCA places limits on the government’s ability to compel Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to disclose information about their users, only one court has addressed whether Facebook is an entity covered by the SCA: Crispin v. Christian Audigier Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 52832 (C.D. Calif. May 26, 2010).  In that case, it was ruled that the information being sought directly from Facebook (and other social networking sites) was protected under the SCA, but this court ruled that the SCA does not apply in this case because the plaintiff “is not an entity regulated by the SCA.”
  • Breadth of Discovery Request: The court noted that the plaintiff’s contention that the defendant’s motion is “akin to asking her to turn over all of her private photo albums and requesting to view her personal mail” is “mistaken” as content posted on Facebook is not private.  So, such a request would not “cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense” as the cost to investigate the plaintiff’s Facebook information would be borne by the defendant.

As a result, the court ruled in favor of the defendant and ordered the plaintiff to turn over her Facebook login information to the defendant within 14 days.  Hopefully, the plaintiff doesn’t resort to tampering with the content on their Facebook page.

So, what do you think?  Assuming relevance, should all parties be required to produce social media information? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Happy Thanksgiving from all of us at eDiscovery Daily and CloudNine Discovery!

eDiscovery Case Law: Facebook Spoliation Significantly Mitigates Plaintiff’s Win

“Spoliation of evidence” refers to the deliberate destruction of evidence prior to a trial.  It is a rare event in civil litgation.  But, spoliation of evidence was found in a case involving a personal injury lawyer in Virginia.  Lawyer Matthew Murray was ordered to pay $522,000 for instructing his client to remove photos from his Facebook age.  His client was ordered to pay $180,000 for obeying his instructions.  A state district judge issued these sanctions in the case of Lester v. Allied Concrete Co., Nos. CL08-150, CL09-223 (Va. Cir. Ct. Oct. 21, 2011).

Murray was found to have told his client to remove pictures, such as the one of him holding a beer and wearing a t-shirt that said “I ♥ hot moms.”  The client was a recent widower suing about the death of his wife.

In this case, the defendant was able to show via expert testimony that the widower deleted 15 photos from his Facebook account and perhaps a 16th.  The photos were provided to the defendant later, before the trial.  The jury found in favor of Mr. Lester and awarded $10 million.  Subsequent to the trial, the judge ordered that Plaintiff’s counsel provide copies of emails between the lawyer and his client to the court for in camera inspection (i.e., for the judge’s eyes only).  When the district judge ordered production of these emails, he ruled that emails related to Defendant’s request for production were not attorney-client privileged.

This all started when one of the defense lawyers apparently “hacked” into Mr. Lester’s Facebook page via a mutual friend and observed the photos showing Mr. Lester as apparently non too distraught over his wife’s death.

The court found that the plaintiff, Isaiah Lester, lied about his depression and treatment.  The court found that Murray told Lester via email “to clean up” his Facebook page and told the client that “blow-ups” of pictures like the “I [heart] hot moms” photo would cause problems at trial.  Lester deactivated his Facebook page.  A few days later, in responding to discovery requests, the plaintiff said he did not have a Facebook account.  The defendants complained – at this point they knew Lester had or should have a Facebook account.  Murray then asked Lester to reactivate his account.  The plaintiff’s lawyer also provided hard copies of the 16 photos to the defense.

At his subsequent deposition, Mr. Lester lied about what he had done and denied he had deactivated his Facebook account.

Defendants then issued a subpoena duces tecum for emails between Lester and his lawyer for the time period when the request for production was issued.  Plaintiff resisted.  The defense then filed a motion to compel.  The court required a privilege log of the disputed emails.  The judge found the initial privilege log deficient.  When Murray finally produced the incriminating email, he claimed its prior omission was error and blamed the omission on a paralegal, ultimately leading to the sanctions.

So, what do you think?  Were those sanctions fair or were they excessive? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: San Antonio Employment Law Blog.

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: Could This Be the Most Expensive eDiscovery Mistake Ever?
 

Many of you have Android phones.  I do, as well.  As you may know, Android is Google’s operating system for phones and Android phones have become extraordinarily popular.

However, as noted in this Computerworld UK article, it may be a failure in searching that ironically may cost Google big time in its litigation with Oracle over the Android operating system.

Google is currently involved in a lawsuit with Oracle over license fees associated with Java.  Oracle acquired Java when it purchased Sun Microsystems and many companies license Java.  Java forms a critical part of Google’s Android operating system and Google has leveraged free Android to drive mobile phone users to their ecosystem and extremely profitable searches and advertising.  Android has been so successful for Google that a loss to Oracle could result in billions of dollars in damages.

To cull down a typically large ESI population, Google turned to search technology to help identify potentially responsive and potentially privileged files.  Unfortunately for Google, a key email was produced that could prove damaging to their case.  The email was written by Google engineer Tim Lindholm a few weeks before Oracle filed suit against Google. With Oracle having threatened to sue Google for billions of dollars, Lindholm was instructed by Google executives to identify alternatives to Java for use in Android, presumably to strengthen their negotiating position.

"What we've actually been asked to do (by Larry and Sergey) is to investigate what technical alternatives exist to Java for Android and Chrome," the email reads in part, referring to Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin. "We've been over a bunch of these, and think they all suck. We conclude that we need to negotiate a license for Java under the terms we need."

Lindholm added the words “Attorney Work Product” and sent the email to Andy Rubin (Google’s top Android executive) and Google in-house attorney Ben Lee.  Unfortunately, Lindholm’s computer saved nine drafts of the email while he was writing it – before he added the words and addressed the email to Lee.  Because Lee's name and the words "attorney work product" weren't on the earlier drafts, they weren't picked up by the eDiscovery software as privileged documents, and they were sent off to Oracle's lawyers.

Oracle's lawyers read from the email at two hearings over the summer and Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court in Oakland, California, indicated to Google's lawyers that it might suggest willful infringement of Oracle's patents.  Google filed a motion to "clawback" the email on the grounds it was "unintentionally produced privileged material." Naturally, Oracle objected, and after a three-month legal battle, Alsup refused last month to exclude the document at trial.

How did Google let such a crucial email slip through production?  It’s difficult to say without fully knowing their methodology.  Did they rely too much on technology to identify files for production without providing a full manual review of all files being produced?  Or, did manual review (which can be far from perfect) let the email slip through as well?  Conceivably, organizing the documents into clusters, based on similar content, might have grouped the unsent drafts with the identified “attorney work product” final version and helped to ensure that the drafts were classified as intended.

So, what do you think?  Could this mistake cost Google billions?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

 

eDiscovery Rewind: Eleven for 11-11-11
 

Since today is one of only 12 days this century where the month, day and year are the same two-digit numbers (not to mention the biggest day for “craps” players to hit Las Vegas since July 7, 2007!), it seems an appropriate time to look back at some of our recent topics.  So, in case you missed them, here are eleven of our recent posts that cover topics that hopefully make eDiscovery less of a “gamble” for you!

eDiscovery Best Practices: Testing Your Search Using Sampling: On April 1, we talked about how to determine an appropriate sample size to test your search results as well as the items NOT retrieved by the search, using a site that provides a sample size calculator. On April 4, we talked about how to make sure the sample set is randomly selected. In this post, we’ll walk through an example of how you can test and refine a search using sampling.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Your ESI Collection May Be Larger Than You Think: Here’s a sample scenario: You identify custodians relevant to the case and collect files from each. Roughly 100 gigabytes (GB) of Microsoft Outlook email PST files and loose “efiles” is collected in total from the custodians. You identify a vendor to process the files to load into a review tool, so that you can perform first pass review and, eventually, linear review and produce the files to opposing counsel. After processing, the vendor sends you a bill – and they’ve charged you to process over 200 GB!! What happened?!?

eDiscovery Trends: Why Predictive Coding is a Hot Topic: Last month, we considered a recent article about the use of predictive coding in litigation by Judge Andrew Peck, United States magistrate judge for the Southern District of New York. The piece has prompted a lot of discussion in the profession. While most of the analysis centered on how much lawyers can rely on predictive coding technology in litigation, there were some deeper musings as well.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?: Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care? OK, it’s an old song by Chicago (back then, they were known as the Chicago Transit Authority). But, the question of what time it really is has a significant effect on how eDiscovery is handled.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Message Thread Review Saves Costs and Improves Consistency: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. But, in ESI review, it can be even worse when you get a different result. Most email messages are part of a larger discussion, which could be just between two parties, or include a number of parties in the discussion. To review each email in the discussion thread would result in much of the same information being reviewed over and over again. Instead, message thread analysis pulls those messages together and enables them to be reviewed as an entire discussion.

eDiscovery Best Practices: When Collecting, Image is Not Always Everything: There was a commercial in the early 1990s for Canon cameras in which tennis player Andre Agassi uttered the quote that would haunt him for most of his early career – “Image is everything.” When it comes to eDiscovery preservation and collection, there are times when “Image is everything”, as in a forensic “image” of the media is necessary to preserve all potentially responsive ESI. However, forensic imaging of media is usually not necessary for Discovery purposes.

eDiscovery Trends: If You Use Auto-Delete, Know When to Turn It Off: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(f), adopted in 2006, is known as the “safe harbor” rule. While it’s not always clear to what extent “safe harbor” protection extends, one case from a few years ago, Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington v. Washington Metrop. Trans. Auth., D.D.C. June 2007, seemed to indicate where it does NOT extend – auto-deletion of emails.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Checking for Malware is the First Step to eDiscovery Processing: A little over a month ago, I noted that we hadn’t missed a (business) day yet in publishing a post for the blog. That streak almost came to an end back in May. As I often do in the early mornings before getting ready for work, I spent some time searching for articles to read and identifying potential blog topics and found a link on a site related to “New Federal Rules”. Curious, I clicked on it and…up popped a pop-up window from our virus checking software (AVG Anti-Virus, or so I thought) that the site had found a file containing a “trojan horse” program. The odd thing about the pop-up window is that there was no “Fix” button to fix the trojan horse. So, I chose the best available option to move it to the vault. Then, all hell broke loose.

eDiscovery Trends: An Insufficient Password Will Thwart Even The Most Secure Site: Several months ago, we talked about how most litigators have come to accept that Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) systems are secure. However, according to a recent study by the Ponemon Institute, the chance of any business being hacked in the next 12 months is a “statistical certainty”. No matter how secure a system is, whether it’s local to your office or stored in the “cloud”, an insufficient password that can be easily guessed can allow hackers to get in and steal your data.

eDiscovery Trends: Social Media Lessons Learned Through Football: The NFL Football season began back in September with the kick-off game pitting the last two Super Bowl winners – the New Orleans Saints and the Green Bay Packers – against each other to start the season. An incident associated with my team – the Houston Texans – recently illustrated the issues associated with employees’ use of social media sites, which are being faced by every organization these days and can have eDiscovery impact as social media content has been ruled discoverable in many cases across the country.

eDiscovery Strategy: "Command" Model of eDiscovery Must Make Way for Collaboration: In her article "E-Discovery 'Command' Culture Must Collapse" (via Law Technology News), Monica Bay discusses the old “command” style of eDiscovery, with a senior partner leading his “troops” like General George Patton – a model that summit speakers agree is "doomed to failure" – and reports on the findings put forward by judges and litigators that the time has come for true collaboration.

So, what do you think?  Did you learn something from one of these topics?  If so, which one?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscoveryDaily would like to thank all veterans and the men and women serving in our armed forces for the sacrifices you make for our country.  Thanks to all of you and your families and have a happy and safe Veterans Day!

eDiscovery Trends: Madoff Ponzi Scheme Case Documents May Be Turned Over to eData Rooms and Special Masters
 

The trustee responsible for coordinating the recovery of assets and data involved in Bernard L. (“Bernie”) Madoff's $65 billion Ponzi fraud investigation is presently seeking to secure special masters and create an "eData room" to ensure that the enormous volume of data accumulated during this worldwide investigation is collected and retained.  For more on the increasing use of special masters to facilitate eDiscovery cases, click here).

Almost three years after Madoff's arrest in December 2008, the massive fraud investigation has now spawned roughly 900 lawsuits worldwide involving 16,000 parties in 30 countries. The number of files and documents related to Madoff's Ponzi scheme is equally astronomical – and as perhaps the most significant fraud case of the decade – or even the century – these documents and lawsuits contain information vital as precedent for future criminal cases.

As a result, trustee Irving Picard has determined to collect all of the ESI related to these cases in a single eData room with the help of special masters that would be appointed by US bankruptcy Judge Burton Lifland.  eData rooms are web-based review platforms that can support centralized access of the ESI in question for all approved parties.

As the use of technology becomes more of a key issue in fraud cases, discovery of ESI associated with that technology is becoming ever more important in the practice of law, making a historic case like Madoff's vital as precedent. In November 2010, Picard created the first "e-discovery room", but the new "eData room" would be a much bigger project, containing all the ESI related in any way to Madoff's Ponzi scheme and making it available through a web-based platform for access and review. This new eData room, proposed in January 2011, would be limited to roughly 100,000 potentially responsive documents from 77 parties associated with a related case in which the defendant (J. Ezra Merkin) demanded production of every subpoenaed document in the initial bankruptcy proceeding as well as depositions in other proceedings.

The prospect of this eData room necessitates a complex series of discovery requests and confidentiality agreements, but Irving has already secured the tacit approval of all but 15 of the 16,000 parties, (large financial institutions, including UBS, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch International, Bank of New York Mellon and Sterling Equities, the investment group chaired by New York Mets owner Fred Wilpon) who objected to the prospect of pooling confidential documents where they could be accessed by thousands of parties including their business competitors. To address those concerns, Picard submitted a revised proposed order in September to exclude certain types of documents as confidential and give producing parties 60 days to object to the inclusion of “highly sensitive commercial information” in the eData room.  It will be interesting to see if the revisions pave the way for full acceptance to implement the eData room.

So, what do you think? Are eData rooms going to become commonplace in complex cases involving eDiscovery? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Horrors! Does This Scare You?
 

Today is Halloween.  While we could try to “scare” you with the traditional “frights”, we’re an eDiscovery blog, so it seems appropriate to try to “scare” you in a different way.  Does this scare you?

Although the court declined to re-open the case, it found that defendant had committed discovery abuses, including failing to disclose relevant evidence and failing to issue a litigation hold; therefore, the court ordered the defendant to pay plaintiff an additional $250,000 over the previously agreed settlement amount.  The court further ordered that defendant had thirty days to furnish a copy of the court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order “to every Plaintiff in every lawsuit it has had proceeding against it, or is currently proceeding against it, for the past two years” and issued an additional $500,000 sanction to be “extinguished” upon a showing of compliance.

What about this?

Even though many (but not all) of the documents were recovered (most from backup tape), the court rejected the defendant’s argument that “there can be no spoliation finding because many documents were recovered” and eventually produced, stating: "The fact that technology permits the undoing of spoliation does not change at all the fact that spoliation has occurred."

Or this?

Then, in January of this year, Judge Grimm entered an order awarding a total of $1,049,850.04 in “attorney’s fees and costs associated with all discovery that would not have been un[der]taken but for Defendants' spoliation, as well as the briefings and hearings regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions.”

How about this?

The court concluded based on case history that “emails and text messages are documents and subject to the same requirements for authenticity as non-electronic documents generally” and found that the evidence that the defendant had authored these text messages was absent.

Scary, huh?  If the possibility of sanctions and changing court requirements keep you awake at night, then the folks at eDiscovery Daily will do our best to provide useful information and best practices to enable you to relax and sleep soundly, even on Halloween!

Of course, if you really want to get into the spirit of Halloween, click here.  This will really terrify you!

What do you think?  Is there a particular eDiscovery issue that scares you?  Please share your comments and let us know if you’d like more information on a particular topic.

Happy Halloween!

eDiscovery Case Law: U.S. Court Rules on ECPA Protection of Emails in the Cloud
 

An October 3 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals offers new clarity in defining and protecting the eDiscovery rights of non-U.S. nationals using U.S. services online, by ruling that emails stored on servers located within the U.S. are protected by national laws on ESI.

In Suzlon Energy Ltd v. Microsoft Corporation, the court determined that holders of online accounts whose servers are located in the U.S., regardless of their location or nationality, are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, commonly known as the "ECPA." The ECPA ensures that the disclosure of emails by electronic communication service providers is limited and restricted to specific circumstances.

The Suzlon case originated out of an Australian case brought by an Indian company (Suzlon) against an Indian defendant, Rajagopalan Sridhar and put the Ninth Circuit Court's opinion on the reach of the ECPA to the test.

  • The plaintiff's legal counsel sought access to emails in the defendant's Hotmail account, stored on Microsoft servers located in the U.S.
  • The defendant did not provide consent for his emails to be used in discovery, nor did Microsoft consent to release the emails in question.
  • Microsoft's objection brought the case before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and later before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, both of which agreed that the emails were protected by the ECPA.
  • Despite the plaintiff's and defendant's Indian nationality, and the fact that the suit in question was Australian, the U.S. court ruled in a manner that creates a powerful precedent for future lawsuits related to electronic communication providers whose servers are located in the U.S. As a result of this case, it has become clear that any users with accounts in U.S.-held cloud services will be subject to the same protections under the ECPA as a U.S. citizen.

So, what do you think? Does this ruling offer fair and sensible protect to U.S.-based companies and the users of their cloud services, or does it unnecessarily complicate the field of international eDiscovery? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.