Close
Enter your
text here

Searching

Information Governance vs. Search Doesn’t Have to Be a Battle After All: eDiscovery Trends

As will soon be reinforced in our upcoming thought leader interviews, one of the major focus areas at this year’s LegalTech® New York 2015 (LTNY) was a continued emphasis on Information Governance (IG). One of our perennial interviewees, Ralph Losey, has some thoughts about the battle in the legal tech world between IG and Search and reveals that it doesn’t have to be a battle after all.

In the post Information Governance v Search: The Battle Lines Are Redrawn on his excellent e-Discovery Team® blog, Ralph states that last year, he “came to believe that Information Governance’s preoccupation with classification, retention, and destruction of information was a futile pursuit”, termed IG activities as “inefficient and doomed to failure” and instead “embraced the googlesque approach of save and search”.

When Ralph expressed those viewpoints, he (not surprisingly) “created a controversy” and received quite a backlash, including “a distinguished leader of IG who bristled at my challenges” who “insisted that everyone in her very large corporation could easily comply with her lengthy retention schedules”. However, other members of the IG leadership “responded to the opposition with dialogue”, which enabled Ralph to learn that “IG, like Search, is not a monolith, that there are various factions and groups within IG”. Ultimately, Ralph determined that his “quarrel is, instead, with the old-liners, the Records Manager strata of IG who are obsessed with ESI classification and killing” (that Ralph categorizes as “caterpillars”). “To those” (a.k.a., the “butterflies”) “who have let go of that traditional role, and already been reborn as multimodal, AI-enhanced Information experts, I have no quarrel.”

Ralph has a lot more to say in the post, noting that ESI “grows and changes too fast for traditional governance” and concludes that “Information Governance is actually a sub-set of Search, not visa versa”. He also provides a nice graphic to illustrate just how much data is created in the digital universe every 60 seconds (see the top of this post). Remember a little over a year ago, when we noted that 3.4 sextillion bytes of information had been created in close to ten months in 2013? Well, according to EMC’s latest ticker, 6.1 sextillion bytes have been created since January 1, 2014. Yikes! We’ve provided a link to another infographic at the bottom of this post, courtesy of Domo.com, that provides even more info about the amount of data created every 60 seconds. Enjoy!

By the way, Ralph just posted his 500th blog post, which is a tremendous milestone. Congrats, Ralph! Up to now, Ralph noted that he has been posting weekly (since November 2006) and his posts have “morphed into several thousand word essays”. At eDiscoveryDaily, we probably write 2,500 to 4,000 words per week over five posts; Ralph writes that much (and often more) in his one post a week.

Now, Ralph has indicated that his e-Discovery Team® blog will be changing to a monthly format and that he will begin writing the blog “for advanced readers only”. I look forward to see how the future posts will look, but will miss my Monday morning routine of sitting down with a cup of coffee and reading Ralph’s latest post (at least for the weeks without a new post). Keeping a blog going day after day (or even week after week) is not easy. Kudos to Ralph for keeping it going for over eight years (so far).

So, what do you think? Do you think the old way of information governance is “inefficient and doomed to failure”? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

P.S. — Happy Birthday to my wonderful and beautiful wife, Paige Austin!  We got engaged one year ago today.  Best thing that’s ever happened to me!  🙂

infographic

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine 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.

DESI Wants Your Input! – eDiscovery Trends

It’s not Desi Arnaz who wants it, but the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (DESI) VI workshop, which is being held at the University of San Diego on June 8 as part of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence & Law (ICAIL 2015).

The DESI VI workshop aims to bring together researchers and practitioners to explore innovation and the development of best practices for application of search, classification, language processing, data management, visualization, and related techniques to institutional and organizational records in eDiscovery, information governance, public records access, and other legal settings. Ideally, the aim of the DESI workshop series has been to foster a continuing dialogue leading to the adoption of further best practice guidelines or standards in using machine learning, most notably in the eDiscovery space. Organizing committee members include Jason R. Baron of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP and Douglas W. Oard of the University of Maryland.

Previous DESI workshops were held in places like Palo Alto, London, Barcelona, Rome and Pittsburgh (maybe not as exciting as the other locales, but they don’t have six Super Bowl championships 🙂 ).

DESI VI invites “refereed” papers (due by April 10 and limited to 4-10 pages) describing research or practice. After peer review, accepted papers will be posted on the DESI VI website and distributed to workshop participants. Authors of accepted refereed papers will be invited to present their work either as an oral or a poster presentation. They also invite “unrefereed” position papers (due by May 1and typically 2-3 pages) describing individual interests for inclusion (without review) on the DESI VI Web site and distribution to workshop participants.  Submissions should be sent by email to Doug Oard (oard@umd.edu) with the subject line DESI VI POSITION PAPER or DESI VI RESEARCH PAPER. All submissions received will be acknowledged within 3 days.

Participation in the DESI VI workshop is open. Submission of papers is encouraged, but not required.

For more information about the workshop, click the Call for Submissions here (or here for the PDF version). The Call for Submissions also includes a References section which includes papers and cases useful as background reading for the focus of the workshop – even if you don’t plan to go, it’s a good list to check out. I’m happy to say that most of the cases on the list have been covered by this blog (including Da Silva Moore, EORHB v. HOA Holdings, Global Aerospace Inc., et al. v. Landow Aviation, L.P. and others.

So, what do you think? Are you going to attend? Submit a paper? 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. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine 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.

Three “C”s, Cowboys, Cannibals and Craig (Ball) – eDiscovery Best Practices

They say that a joke is only old if you haven’t heard it before. In that vein, an article about eDiscovery is only old if you haven’t read it before. Craig Ball is currently revisiting some topics that he covered ten years ago with an updated look, making them appropriate for 1) people who weren’t working in eDiscovery ten years ago (which is probably a lot of you), 2) people who haven’t read the articles previously and 3) people who have read the articles previously, but haven’t seen his updated takes.  In other words, everybody.

So far, Craig has published three revisited articles to his terrific Ball in your court blog. They are:

Starting Over, which sets the stage for the series, and covers The DNA of Data, which was the very first Ball in your court (when it was still in print form). This article discusses how electronic evidence isn’t going away and claims of inaccessible data and how technological advances have rendered claims of inaccessibility mostly moot.

Unclear on the Concept (originally published in Law Technology News in May of 2005), which discusses some of the challenges of early concept searching and related tools (when terms like “predictive coding” and “technology assisted review” hadn’t even entered our lexicon yet). Craig also pokes fun at himself for noting back then how he read Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Joyce Carol Oates in grade school. 🙂

Cowboys and Cannibals (originally published in Law Technology News in June of 2005), which discusses the need for a new email “sheriff” in town (not to be confused with U.S. Magistrate Judge John Facciola in this case) to classify emails for easier retrieval. Back then, we didn’t know just how big the challenge of Information Governance would become. His updated take concludes as follows:

“What optimism exists springs from the hope that we will move from the Wild West to Westworld, that Michael Crichton-conceived utopia where robots are gunslingers. The technology behind predictive coding will one day be baked into our IT apps, and much as it serves to protect us from spam today, it will organize our ESI in the future.”

That day is coming, hopefully sooner rather than later. And, you have to love a blog post that references Westworld, which was a terrific story and movie back in the 70s (wonder why nobody has remade that one yet?).

eDiscovery Daily has revisited topics several times as well, especially some of the topics we covered in the early days of the blog, when we didn’t have near as many followers yet. It’s new if you haven’t read it, right? I look forward to future posts in Craig’s series.

So, what do you think? How long have you been reading articles about eDiscovery? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Image © Metro Goldwyn Mayer

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine 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.

2014 eDiscovery Case Law Year in Review, Part 4

As we noted yesterday, Wednesday and Tuesday, eDiscoveryDaily published 93 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 68 unique cases! Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to privilege and inadvertent disclosures, requests for social media, cases involving technology assisted review and the case of the year – the ubiquitous Apple v. Samsung dispute. Today, let’s take a look back at cases related to sanctions and spoliation.

We grouped those cases into common subject themes and will review them over the next few posts. Perhaps you missed some of these? Now is your chance to catch up!

SPOLIATION / SANCTIONS

I’ll bet that you won’t be surprised that, once again, the topic with the largest number of case law decisions related to eDiscovery are those related to sanctions and spoliation issues. Of the 68 cases we covered this past year, 28 percent of them (19 total cases) related to sanctions and spoliation issues. Sometimes requests for sanctions are granted, sometimes they’re not. Here they are.

Plaintiff Sanctioned After its “Failure to Take the Most Basic Document Preservation Steps”: In SJS Distribution Systems, Inc. v. Sam’s East, Inc., New York Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy found the plaintiff’s failure to take “the most basic document preservation steps,” including issuing a litigation hold – “even after it discovered the packaging nonconformities and filed this action” – constituted gross negligence. As a result, an adverse inference instruction sanction was issued against the plaintiff and the defendant was awarded its costs and attorney’s fees associated with its motion to compel.

Sanctions Awarded when Defendant Failed to Preserve Relevant Evidence: In Zest IP Holdings, LLC v. Implant Direct Manufacturing, LLC., California Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo granted the Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions because parties are “required to preserve evidence relevant to litigation and to prevent spoliation.” Judge Gallo found that the Defendant “failed to preserve multiple documents that are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims with the requisite culpable state of mind to support a finding of spoliation of evidence”.

Search Process for ESI Called into Question, but Court Denies Sanctions for Plaintiff: In Brown v. West Corp., the plaintiff filed a motion to compel, claiming the defendant had been insufficient in its handling of searching for Electronically Stored Information (ESI) relevant to discovery. The plaintiff additionally contested a prior order from a magistrate judge, requiring the defendant to explain its search processes to the defendant. Ultimately, Nebraska Senior District Judge Lyle E. Strom denied the requested sanctions and rejected the challenge to the prior order.

Bad Faith Violations in Discovery Lead to Sanctions for Defendant: Regarding the case In re Pradaxa (Dabigatran Etexilate) Products Liability Litigation, the defendants’ repeated failure to preserve and produce documents during discovery was found to be in bad faith. The defendants were ordered to produce the documents, or to explain why they couldn’t be produced, and to pay a hefty fine plus the plaintiff’s costs and fees for pursuing discovery motions. The order left room for additional future sanctions, should the bad faith behavior continue.

Clawback Rights Upheld and Plaintiff Sanctioned for Refusal to Comply Concerning Inadvertently Produced Privileged Documents: In RIPL Corp. v. Google Inc., 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.

Sanctions Denied over Destruction of Audio Evidence in Discrimination Lawsuit: In Sokn v. Fieldcrest Cmty. Unit School Dist. No. 8, the plaintiff filed a motion for default and sanctions relating to spoliation of evidence with a federal court, after a district court issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) to deny the motion. Illinois Senior District Judge Joe Billy McDade ultimately declined to impose sanctions, due to a lack of evidence regarding the timing of alleged spoliation, and the plaintiff’s inability to establish bad faith on the part of the defendants.

Plaintiff Sanctioned for Spoliation of Digital Evidence in Sexual Harassment Lawsuit: In Calderon v. Corporacion Puertorrique a de Salud, the plaintiff was found to have violated his duty to preserve evidence during the discovery phase of this sexual harassment lawsuit. Sanctions were imposed, though not to the extent requested by the defendants.

Use of a Bulk File Changer to Manipulate Metadata Leads to Sanctions for Defendant: In T&E Investment Group, LLC v. Faulkner, Texas District Judge Jorge A. Solis upheld the earlier recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to order an adverse inference sanction, along with monetary sanctions, against the defendant for manipulation of metadata.

Defendants – and Defendants’ Counsel – Sanctioned for Delays in Producing ESI: In Knickerbocker v Corinthian Colleges, Washington District Judge James L. Robart imposed sanctions against the defendants and the defendants’ counsel for their delays in producing Electronically Stored Information (ESI) during discovery, despite the fact that spoliation of evidence was ultimately avoided.

Court Refuses to Dismiss Spoliation Claim Due to Defendant’s Failure to Produce Key Native File with Metadata: In Raines v. College Now Greater Cleveland, Inc., Ohio District Judge James S. Gwin refused to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim of tortious spoliation of evidence due to the defendant’s failure to produce the metadata associated with a key report authored by the plaintiff.

Court Denies Sanctions for Deletion of “Smoking Gun” Email, Grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment: In the case In re Text Messaging Antitrust Litig., Illinois District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly not only denied the plaintiffs’ request for an adverse inference sanction against the defendants for destroying emails, but also granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, as the plaintiffs failed to provide any supporting circumstantial evidence to meet their burden of proof.

Failure to Preserve Cloud-Based Data Results in Severe Sanction for Defendant: In Brown v. Tellermate Holdings, Magistrate Judge Terence Kemp granted plaintiffs’ motion for judgment and motion to strike, ruling that the defendant could not “present or rely upon evidence that it terminated the Browns’ employment for performance-related reasons” and enabling the plaintiffs to use documents produced by the defendant “designated as attorneys’-eyes-only” to be used by the plaintiffs “without restriction”, due to the defendant’s failure to preserve or produce data from their Salesforce.com database.

Texas Supreme Court Reverses Spoliation Ruling, Remands Case for New Trial: In Brookshire Bros., Ltd. v. Aldridge, the Supreme Court of Texas determined “that imposition of the severe sanction of a spoliation instruction was an abuse of discretion” in the trial court, reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Circuit Court Affirms Denial of Sanctions Over Spoliation by Defendant: In Automated Solutions Corp. v. Paragon Data Sys., Inc., the Sixth Circuit court affirmed the holdings of the district court, rejecting the plaintiff’s arguments that the district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions due to defendant’s failure to preserve information on a hard drive and server. The circuit court also affirmed the ruling by both the magistrate and district judge that the defendant’s back-up tapes were not subject to the duty to preserve.

Court Grants Motion for Spoliation Sanctions Due to Data that is “Less Accessible”: In Mazzei v. Money Store, New York Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis granted the plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions against the defendant, ordering the defendant to bear the cost of obtaining all the relevant data in question from a third party as well as paying for plaintiff attorney fees in filing the motion.

Failure to Preserve Data on Various Devices Causes Special Master to Recommend Default Judgment: In Small v. University Medical Center of Southern Nevada, Special Master Daniel B. Garrie, calling the defendant’s widespread failure to preserve data a “mockery of the orderly administration of justice”, recommended that the court enter an order of default judgment, along with further sanctions, in favor of the plaintiffs.

Plaintiff Slips, But Defendant Takes the Fall: In Riley v. Marriott Int’l, New York Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson agreed with the plaintiffs that spoliation of data had occurred when the defendant failed to preserve video surveillance and “sweep logs” after one of the plaintiffs slipped and fell in the defendant’s hotel garage and that the defendant was at least grossly negligent for not preserving the information. However, the judge denied the plaintiffs request for summary judgment, granting an adverse inference instruction instead.

The Watergate 18 Minute Gap in Audio Recordings Has Nothing on This Case: In Novick v. AXA Network, LLC, New York Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox granted the plaintiff’s request for sanctions against the defendant, awarding an adverse inference jury instruction for several weeks of spoliated audio recordings and also awarding “reasonable attorney’s fees and costs” associated with the motion as well as retaking several depositions.

Finding Defendant’s Destruction of Documents to be “Planned, Repeated and Comprehensive”, Court Awards Judgment to Plaintiff: In Regulatory Fundamentals Group v. Governance Risk Management Compliance, New York District Judge Katherine B. Forrest granted the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and ordered that judgment be entered for the defendant’s “planned, repeated, and comprehensive” destruction of highly-relevant documents.

That concludes our look back at 68 cases from last year – the most we’ve ever covered! Do you think discovery issues are being disputed more than ever before? If so, do you think the new Federal rules changes (once they’re implemented) will reverse that trend? 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. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine 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.

2014 eDiscovery Case Law Yhttps://cloudnine.com/ediscoverydaily/case-law/2014-ediscovery-case-law-year-in-review-part-3/ear in Review, Part 3

As we noted yesterday and the day before, eDiscoveryDaily published 93 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 68 unique cases! Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to eDiscovery cost sharing and reimbursement, fee disputes and production format disputes. Today, let’s take a look back at cases related to privilege and inadvertent disclosures, requests for social media, cases involving technology assisted review and the case of the year – the ubiquitous Apple v. Samsung dispute.

We grouped those cases into common subject themes and will review them over the next few posts. Perhaps you missed some of these? Now is your chance to catch up!

PRIVILEGE / INADVERTENT DISCLOSURES

There were a couple of cases related to privilege issues, including one where privilege was upheld when the plaintiff purchased the defendant’s seized computer at auction! Here are two cases where disclosure of privileged documents was addressed:

Privilege Not Waived on Defendant’s Seized Computer that was Purchased by Plaintiff at Auction: In Kyko Global Inc. v. Prithvi Info. Solutions Ltd., Washington Chief District Judge Marsha J. Pechman ruled that the defendants’ did not waive their attorney-client privilege on the computer of one of the defendants purchased by plaintiffs at public auction, denied the defendants’ motion to disqualify the plaintiff’s counsel for purchasing the computer and ordered the plaintiffs to provide defendants with a copy of the hard drive within three days for the defendants to review it for privilege and provide defendants with a privilege log within seven days of the transfer.

Plaintiff Can’t “Pick” and Choose When it Comes to Privilege of Inadvertent Disclosures: In Pick v. City of Remsen, Iowa District Judge Mark W. Bennett upheld the magistrate judge’s order directing the destruction of an inadvertently-produced privileged document, an email from defense counsel to some of the defendants, after affirming the magistrate judge’s analysis of the five-step analysis to determine whether privilege was waived.

SOCIAL MEDIA

Requests for social media data in litigation continue, though there were not as many disputes over it as in years past (at least, not with cases we covered). Here are three cases related to social media data:

Plaintiff Ordered to Produce Facebook Photos and Messages as Discovery in Personal Injury Lawsuit: In Forman v. Henkin, a Motion to Compel was granted in part for a defendant who requested authorization to obtain records of the plaintiff’s private postings to Facebook.

Plaintiff Ordered to Re-Open Social Media Account for Discovery: In Chapman v. Hiland Operating, LLC, while noting that he was “skeptical” that reactivating the plaintiff’s Facebook account would produce any relevant, noncumulative information, North Dakota Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller ordered the plaintiff to “make a reasonable, good faith attempt” to reactivate her Facebook account.

Order for Financial Records and Facebook Conversations Modified Due to Privacy Rights: In Stallings v. City of Johnston City, Illinois Chief District Judge David R. Herndon modified an earlier order by a magistrate judge in response to the plaintiff’s appeal, claiming that the order violated the privacy rights of the plaintiff, and of minor children with whom the plaintiff had held conversations on Facebook.

TECHNOLOGY ASSISTED REVIEW

Technology assisted review continued to be discussed and debated between parties in 2014, with some disputes involving how technology assisted review would be conducted as opposed to whether it would be conducted at all. Courts continued to endorse technology assisted review and predictive coding, even going so far as to suggest the use of it in one case. Here are six cases involving the use of technology assisted review in 2014:

Court Rules that Unilateral Predictive Coding is Not Progressive: In In Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Delaney, Nevada Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen determined that the plaintiff’s unannounced shift from the agreed upon discovery methodology, to a predictive coding methodology for privilege review was not cooperative. Therefore, the plaintiff was ordered to produce documents that met agreed-upon search terms without conducting a privilege review first.

Court Rules in Dispute Between Parties Regarding ESI Protocol, Suggests Predictive Coding: In a dispute over ESI protocols in FDIC v. Bowden, Georgia Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith approved the ESI protocol from the FDIC and suggested the parties consider the use of predictive coding.

Court Sides with Defendant in Dispute over Predictive Coding that Plaintiff Requested: In the case In re Bridgepoint Educ., Inc., Securities Litigation, California Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt ruled that expanding the scope of discovery by nine months was unduly burdensome, despite the plaintiff’s request for the defendant to use predictive coding to fulfill its discovery obligation and also approved the defendants’ method of using search terms to identify responsive documents for the already reviewed three individual defendants, directing the parties to meet and confer regarding the additional search terms the plaintiffs requested.

Though it was “Switching Horses in Midstream”, Court Approves Plaintiff’s Predictive Coding Plan: In Bridgestone Americas Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp., Tennessee Magistrate Judge Joe B. Brown, acknowledging that he was “allowing Plaintiff to switch horses in midstream”, nonetheless ruled that that the plaintiff could use predictive coding to search documents for discovery, even though keyword search had already been performed.

Court Approves Use of Predictive Coding, Disagrees that it is an “Unproven Technology”: In Dynamo Holdings v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Texas Tax Court Judge Ronald Buch ruled that the petitioners “may use predictive coding in responding to respondent’s discovery request” and if “after reviewing the results, respondent believes that the response to the discovery request is incomplete, he may file a motion to compel at that time”.

Court Opts for Defendant’s Plan of Review including TAR and Manual Review over Plaintiff’s TAR Only Approach: In Good v. American Water Works, West Virginia District Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. granted the defendants’ motion for a Rule 502(d) order that merely encouraged the incorporation and employment of time-saving computer-assisted privilege review over the plaintiffs’ proposal disallowing linear privilege review altogether.

APPLE V. SAMSUNG

Every now and then, there is a case that just has to be covered. Whether it be for the eDiscovery related issues (e.g., adverse inference sanction, inadvertent disclosures, eDiscovery cost reiumbursement) or the fact that billions of dollars were at stake or the fact that the case earned its own “gate” moniker, the Apple v. Samsung case demanded attention. Here are the six posts (just from 2014, we have more in previous years) about this case:

Quinn Emanuel Sanctioned for Inadvertent Disclosure, Samsung Escapes Sanction: 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”.

Apple Can’t Mention Inadvertent Disclosure in Samsung Case: 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.

Apple Wins Another $119.6 Million from Samsung, But It’s Only 6% of What They Requested: Those of you who have been waiting for significant news to report from the Apple v. Samsung litigation, your wait is over! As reported last week in The Recorder, a California Federal jury ordered Samsung on Friday to pay Apple $119.6 million for infringing three of Apple’s iPhone patents. However, the award was a fraction of the nearly $2.2 billion Apple was requesting.

Samsung and Quinn Emanuel Ordered to Pay Over $2 Million for “Patentgate” Disclosure: Remember the “patentgate” disclosure last year (by Samsung and their outside counsel firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) of confidential agreements that Apple had with Nokia? Did you think they were going to avoid having to pay for that disclosure? The answer is no.

Court Refuses to Ban Samsung from Selling Products Found to Have Infringed on Apple Products: Apple may have won several battles with Samsung, including ultimately being awarded over $1 billion in verdicts, as well as a $2 million sanction for the inadvertent disclosure of its outside counsel firm (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) commonly known as “patentgate”. But, Samsung has may have won the war with the court’s refusal to ban Samsung from selling products that were found to have infringed on Apple products.

Apple Recovers Part, But Not All, of its Requested eDiscovery Costs from Samsung: Apple won several battles with Samsung, including ultimately being awarded over $1 billion in verdicts, as well as a $2 million sanction for the inadvertent disclosure of its outside counsel firm (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) commonly known as “patentgate”, but ultimately may have lost the war when the court refused to ban Samsung from selling products that were found to have infringed on Apple products. Now, they’re fighting over relative chicken-feed in terms of a few million that Apple sought to recover in eDiscovery costs.

Tomorrow, we will cover cases related to the most common theme of the year (three guesses and the first two don’t count). Stay tuned!

So, what do you think? Did you miss any of these? 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. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine 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.

2014 eDiscovery Case Law Year in Review, Part 1

It’s time for our annual review of eDiscovery case law!  We had more than our share of sanctions granted and denied, as well as disputes over admissibility of electronically stored information (ESI), eDiscovery cost reimbursement, and production formats, even disputes regarding eDiscovery fees.  So, as we did last year and the year before that and also the year before that, let’s take a look back at 2014!

Last year, eDiscoveryDaily published 93 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 68 unique cases! And, believe it or not, we still didn’t cover every case that had eDiscovery impact. Sometimes, you want to cover other topics too.

Nonetheless, for the cases we did cover, we grouped them into common subject themes and will review them over the next few posts (a few of them could be categorized in more than one category, so we took our best shot). Perhaps you missed some of these? Now is your chance to catch up!

ADMISSIBILITY AND PROPORTIONALITY

As always, there are numerous disputes about data being produced and not being produced and whether the costs to do so are overly burdensome. Here are twelve cases related to admissibility, the duty to preserve and produce ESI and the proportionality for preserving and producing that ESI:

Split Decision between Plaintiff and Defendant Regarding Search Terms: In Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Giannoulias, Illinois District Judge John F. Grady resolved several motions regarding discovery proceedings in a $114 million lawsuit. Two of the motions concerned search terms for documents and electronically stored information (ESI), in which the plaintiff opposed the defendants’ request for six additional terms to be included in retrieving discovery documents. The court ruled that four additional search terms would be added, while two would be excluded.

Court Grants Motion to Compel Defendant to Produce Documents as Requested and Chronicle Approach: In Home Instead, Inc. v. Florance, following a motion to compel discovery on behalf of the plaintiff, Nebraska Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart ordered the defendant to produce documents requested during discovery and required the defendant to produce a sworn affidavit chronicling the methods used in their search for production of the discovery documents.

Electronic Discovery Dispute Sees Court Requesting Cooperation from Both Parties to Avoid “Court-Ordered Middle Ground”: In Fort Worth Employees’ Retirement Fund v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., a complex discovery dispute arose during the process of this securities action lawsuit revolving around the defendants’ loan products and offerings with regards to a specific consumer class, in which the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel an expanded discovery.

Definition of “Electronic Storage” Considered in Invasion of Privacy Lawsuit: In Cheng v. Romo, the interpretation of laws enacted prior to the modern Internet age served as a deciding factor in the outcome of this invasion of privacy lawsuit, which alleged a violation of the Stored Communications Act (SCA).

Government Ordered to Maintain Expensive Custom Database Shared with Criminal Defendant: In the criminal case of United States v. Shabudin, California Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas ordered the Government to continue to provide access to a Relativity Database used by the parties to review documents produced by the Government, instead of discontinuing access for the defendants several weeks before trial was to begin due to budgetary issues.

Portions of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel eDiscovery Ruled as “Overbroad” and “Moot” Reaffirmed by District Court: In Elkharwily v. Mayo Holding Co., 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.

Court Denies Defendant’s Request to Image Plaintiff’s PCs Three Years after Termination: In Downs v. Virginia Health Systems, Virginia Magistrate Judge James G. Welsh, citing proportionality and privacy concerns, denied the defendant’s motion to compel the mirror imaging of the Plaintiff’s personal computers nearly three years after she had been terminated.

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Fallback Request for Meet and Confer after Quashing its Subpoena: In Boston Scientific Corporation v. Lee, California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal found time to preside over a case other than Apple v. Samsung and granted the motion to quash the plaintiff’s subpoena for the defendant’s laptops, refusing the plaintiff’s fallback position to meet and confer and referencing Leave it to Beaver in the process.

Court Rules to Limit Scope of Discovery, Noting that “Searching for ESI is only one discovery tool”: In United States v. Univ. of Neb. at Kearney, Nebraska Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart denied the government’s motion to compel discovery, finding that “ESI is neither the only nor the best and most economical discovery method for obtaining the information the government seeks” and stating that searching for ESI “should not be deemed a replacement for interrogatories, production requests, requests for admissions and depositions”.

Defendant Ordered to Produce Archived Emails Even Though Plaintiff Failed to Produce Theirs: In Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal granted the plaintiff’s motion ordering the defendant to produce relevant emails from its eight custodians, even though the plaintiff was unable to provide its own archival emails.

Court Determines that Software License Agreement Does Not Eliminate Production Obligation of Video: In Pero v. Norfolk Southern Railway, Co., Tennessee Magistrate Judge C. Clifford Shirley, Jr. granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery of a video declining to require the plaintiff to view the video at the defendant’s counsel’s office or obtain a license for the proprietary viewing software, ordering the defendant instead to either produce a laptop with the video loaded on it or to reimburse the plaintiff for the cost of a software license.

Image Isn’t Everything, Court Says, Denying Plaintiff’s Request for Imaging on Defendant’s Hard Drives: In Design Basics, LLC. v. Carhart Lumber Co., Nebraska Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart, after an extensive hearing on the plaintiff’s motion to compel “full disk imaging of Defendant’s hard drives, including Defendant’s POS server, secretaries’ computers, UBS devices. . .”, denied the motion after invoking the mandatory balancing test provided in FRCP Rule 26(b)(2)(C).

DISCOVERY ON DISCOVERY

Some cases are becoming so contentious that parties (or sometimes the courts themselves) are requesting for discovery on their opponent’s discovery process. Sometimes those requests were granted, sometimes not. Here were six cases in 2014 which involved requests for “discovery on discovery”:

‘Discovery About Discovery’ Motions Lead to Unusual Court Decision: In Ruiz-Bueno v. Scott, a discovery dispute in this wrongful death case arose, leading Ohio Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp to arrive at the unusual decision to direct a party to provide ‘discovery about discovery.’

Ruling on ESI Discovery Dispute Delayed as Court Requests Specific Information: In Worley v. Avanquest North America Inc., a putative class action involving PC security software, California Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler required the defendant to produce further information related to discovery disputes before a ruling would be issued.

Parties’ Failure to Cooperate Sparks Denial of Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider Court Ordered Discovery: In In Cactus Drilling Co. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., a largely contentious discovery phase was a major contributor to the decision of Oklahoma Chief District Judge Vicki Miles LaGrange regarding the defendant’s Motion to Reconsider, or Alternately, Motion for Clarification of the Court’s Order.

Plaintiffs Denied Motion to Depose Defendants Regarding ESI Processes Prior to Discovery Requests: In Miller v. York Risk Servs. Grp., Arizona Senior District Judge John W. Sedwick denied the plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, requesting permission to conduct depositions in order to determine the defendant’s manner and methods used for storing and maintaining Electronically Stored Information (ESI) prior to submitting their discovery requests.

Court Denies Defendant’s Request for Deposition Regarding Plaintiff’s Discovery Search Tools: In Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Hunt Control Sys., Inc., New Jersey Magistrate Judge James B. Clark III granted the plaintiff’s protective order to prevent the defendant from proceeding with a new deposition to review whether the plaintiff had used “appropriate search tools for ESI discovery,” after the requested discovery documents had already been produced.

Despite 18 Missing Emails in Production, Court Denies Request for “Discovery on Discovery”: In Freedman v. Weatherford Int’l, New York Magistrate Judge James C. Francis, IV denied the plaintiff’s request to, among other things, require the defendant to produce “certain reports comparing the electronic search results from discovery in this action to the results from prior searches” – despite the fact that the plaintiff identified 18 emails that the defendant did not produce that were ultimately produced by a third party.

We’re just getting started! Tomorrow, we will cover cases related to eDiscovery cost reimbursement, fee disputes and production format disputes. Stay tuned!

So, what do you think? Did you miss any of these? 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’s “New and Simpler Approach to Discovery” Identifies Search Terms for Plaintiff to Use – eDiscovery Case Law

In Armstrong Pump, Inc. v. Hartman, No. 10-CV-446S (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2014), New York Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott granted in part the defendant’s motion to compel discovery responses and fashioned a “new and simpler approach” to discovery, identifying thirteen search terms/phrases for the plaintiff to use when searching its document collection.

In this breach of contract case, discovery was contentious and resulted in at least one prior motion to compel, which the court granted in favor of the defendant in 2012 and prompted the court to caution the plaintiff “not to engage in piecemeal production of materials it has located that are responsive to Optimum Energy’s unobjectionable requests”.  Nonetheless, the plaintiff subsequently produced documents nine different times.  As a result, the defendant filed a second motion to compel and sought sanctions for Plaintiff’s discovery behavior, including its delayed production of relevant information.

Judge Scott, noting that “[f]our and a half years later, discovery is far from complete”, expressed frustration with “the continual and growing animosity between the parties, an animosity that has slowed the progress of the case and that has required repeated judicial intervention.”  Stating that a “lawsuit is supposed to be a search for the truth”, Judge Scott said “the Court now will fashion a new and simpler approach to discovery” and identified thirteen phrases “that inevitably refer to or hint at the Hartman LOOP Technology”.  He then ordered:

“For a period starting from January 1, 2004 through the present time, Armstrong must search ALL corporate documents, files, communications, and recordings for EACH of the above phrases. Armstrong will maintain a list of every server, computer, file room, or other place searched, and a list of all positive search results. For each positive result, Armstrong will procure a full copy of the document in question. Armstrong also will furnish a complete and sworn description of its document retention policies, if any, from January 1, 2004 through the present time. In the specific instance of [REDACTED] reports, if for any reason a product did not have a written report for a certain stage or did not go through all five stages then someone at Armstrong with appropriate knowledge or expertise will provide a sworn statement explaining why. When the search is complete, a representative of Armstrong and all of Armstrong’s counsel of record will file a sworn statement confirming that Armstrong made a good-faith effort to identify sources of documents; that a complete search of those sources for each of the above phrases occurred; and that the search results have been furnished to Optimum. All of this must occur on or before April 1, 2015, with absolutely no exceptions or extensions. Failure to comply will lead to sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2)(A).”

Judge Scott also cautioned the defendant that “the Court will not hesitate to apply the same approach to its document production”, ordering the defendant to “either 1) file a joint sworn statement that Optimum has fulfilled ALL outstanding discovery requests from Armstrong; or 2) file a motion for a protective order to quash any outstanding discovery requests that Optimum opposes” by January 14, 2015.

So, what do you think?  Did the court go too far?  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 Opts for Defendant’s Plan of Review including TAR and Manual Review over Plaintiff’s TAR Only Approach – eDiscovery Case Law
 

In Good v. American Water Works, 2:14-01374 (S.D. W. Vir. Oct. 29, 2014), West Virginia District Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. granted the defendants' motion for a Rule 502(d) order that merely encouraged the incorporation and employment of time-saving computer-assisted privilege review over the plaintiffs’ proposal disallowing linear privilege review altogether.

Case Background

In this class action litigation involving the Freedom Industries chemical spill, the parties met and conferred, agreeing on all but one discovery issue: privilege review and 502(d) clawbacks.  The defendants proposed that the Rule 502(d) order merely encourage the incorporation and employment of computer-assisted privilege review, while the plaintiffs proposed that the order “limit privilege review to what a computer can accomplish, disallowing linear (aka ‘eyes on’) privilege review altogether”.

The plaintiffs would agree only to a pure quick peek/claw-back arrangement, which would place never-reviewed, never privilege-logged documents in their hands as quickly as physically possible at the expense of any opportunity for care on the part of a producing party to protect a client's privileged and work product protected information.  On the other hand, the defendants did not wish to forego completely the option to manually review documents for privilege and work product protection. 

The plaintiffs argued that if they were to proceed with a manual privilege review, then only 502(b) protection – the inadvertent waiver rule – should apply, and not 502(d) protection, which offers more expansive protection against privilege waivers.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Copenhaver noted that “[t]he defendants have chosen a course that would allow them the opportunity to conduct some level of human due diligence prior to disclosing vast amounts of information, some portion of which might be privileged. They also appear to desire a more predictable clawback approach without facing the uncertainty inherent in the Rule 502(b) factoring analysis. Nothing in Rule 502 prohibits that course. And the parties need not agree in order for that approach to be adopted”.

Therefore, despite the fact that the plaintiffs were “willing to agree to an order that provides that the privilege or protection will not be waived and that no other harm will come to the Defendants if Plaintiffs are permitted to see privileged or work product protected documents”, Judge Copenhaver ruled that “[i]nasmuch as defendants' cautious approach is not prohibited by the text of Rule 502, and they appear ready to move expeditiously in producing documents in the case, their desired approach is a reasonable one.”  As a result, he entered their proposed Rule 502(d) order, “with the expectation that the defendants will marshal the resources necessary to assure that the delay occasioned by manual review of portions of designated categories will uniformly be minimized so that disclosure of the entirety of even the most sensitive categories is accomplished quickly.”

So, what do you think?  Should the defendants have retained the right to manual review or should the plaintiffs’ proposed approach have been adopted?  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.

Defendant Ordered to Produce Archived Emails Even Though Plaintiff Failed to Produce Theirs – eDiscovery Case Law

In Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems., 5:13-cv-03999-BLF (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2014), California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal granted the plaintiff’s motion ordering the defendant to produce relevant emails from its eight custodians, even though the plaintiff was unable to provide its own archival emails.

Case Background

As Judge Grewal stated “[t]o cut to the chase in this dispute over the scope and pace of Defendant Bluecoat Systems, Inc.’s document production in this patent infringement case”, the plaintiff moved to compel the defendant to produce email from eight custodians related to both technical documents and damages documents as well as damages testimony.  The defendant did not object to producing any of the technical discovery requested and raised only limited issues concerning the documents on damages, mostly objecting to producing custodial email from archival systems when the plaintiff was not able to do the same in return.

Each party agreed to identify eight custodians and ten terms per custodian for the other to search. The defendant did not dispute the relevance of either the custodians or search terms the plaintiff selected. But when the defendant learned that the plaintiff did not have former employees’ emails — except as produced in other litigations — the defendant balked at the idea that its custodians should have to turn over any email other than from active systems.

Judge’s Ruling

“Reduced to its essence, Rule 26(b)(2)(iii) requires this court to decide: have Blue Coat’s discovery responses been fair? Blue Coat’s discovery responses so far have largely been fair, but not entirely”, stated Judge Grewal.

Judge Grewal found that, with the exception of one document repository recently discovered (as acknowledged by defendant’s counsel), the defendant had completed its obligation regarding the technical document production.  Judge Grewal also ruled that the plaintiff “has identified no legitimate reason why it should be provided discovery on Blue Coat’s foreign sales or valuation on the whole”.  He also stated that the defendant “might reasonably be required to at least tell Finjan what the [third party] agreements are and the status of its efforts to secure consent.”

However, with regard to the archival email, Judge Grewal ruled as follows:

“Where Blue Coat has been less than fair is with respect to archival email for its eight custodians. Blue Coat may largely be in the right that it should not have to dig through legacy systems when Finjan is unable to the same for its custodians. But one party’s discovery shortcomings are rarely enough to justify another’s. And here, at least with respect to documents mentioning Finjan — the one specific category of documents Finjan could identify that it needed from archived email — Finjan’s request is reasonable.”

As a result, the defendant was ordered to “identify all license agreements whose production is awaiting third-party consent and the status of its efforts to secure that consent” within seven days and “produce all archival email from its eight designated custodians that mention Finjan and supplemental Interrogatories 5 and 6” within 21 days.

So, what do you think?  Should the defendant have to produce email when the plaintiff can’t do the same?  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.

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid – eDiscovery Horrors!

Today is Halloween.  Every year at this time, because (after all) we’re an eDiscovery blog, we try to “scare” you with tales of eDiscovery horrors.  This is our fifth year of doing so, let’s see how we do this year.  Be afraid, be very afraid!

Did you know that overlaying Bates numbers on image-only Adobe PDF files causes the text of the image not to be captured by eDiscovery processing applications?

What about this?

Finding that the information was relevant and that the defendants “acted with a culpable state of mind” when they failed to preserve the data in its original form, New York Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis granted the plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions against the defendant, ordering the defendant to bear the cost of obtaining all the relevant data in question from a third party as well as paying for plaintiff attorney fees in filing the motion.

Or this?

It’s Friday at 5:00 and I need 15 gigabytes of data processed to review this weekend.

How about this?

Ultimately, it became clear that the defendant had not exported or preserved the data from salesforce.com and had re-used the plaintiffs’ accounts, spoliating the only information that could have addressed the defendant’s claim that the terminations were performance related (the defendant claimed did not conduct performance reviews of its sales representatives).  As a result, Judge Kemp stated that the “only realistic solution to this problem is to preclude Tellermate from using any evidence which would tend to show that the Browns were terminated for performance-related reasons”…

Or maybe this?

Could an “unconscionable” eDiscovery vendor actually charge nearly $190,000 to process 505 GB and host it for three months?  Could another vendor charge over $800,000 to re-process and host data (that it had previously hosted) for approximately two months?  Yes, in both cases (though, at least in the second case, the court disallowed over $700,000 of the billed costs).

Scary, huh?  If the possibility of additional processing charges for your PDF files, sanctions because you didn’t preserve data in its original format or preserve it in your cloud-based system or inflated eDiscovery vendor charges scares you, 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!

Then again, if it really is Friday at 5:00 and you need 15 gigabytes of data processed to review this weekend (inexpensively, no less), maybe you should check this out.

Of course, if you seriously want to get into the spirit of Halloween, click here.  This will really terrify you!  (Rest in Peace, Robin)

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!

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.