Close
Enter your
text here

Searching

Our 1,000th Post! – eDiscovery Milestones

When we launched nearly four years ago on September 20, 2010, our goal was to be a daily resource for eDiscovery news and analysis.  Now, after doing so each business day (except for one), I’m happy to announce that today is our 1,000th post on eDiscovery Daily!

We’ve covered the gamut in eDiscovery, from case law to industry trends to best practices.  Here are some of the categories that we’ve covered and the number of posts (to date) for each:

We’ve also covered every phase of the EDRM (177) life cycle, including:

Every post we have published is still available on the site for your reference, which has made eDiscovery Daily into quite a knowledgebase!  We’re quite proud of that.

Comparing our first three months of existence to now, we have seen traffic on our site grow an amazing 474%!  Our subscriber base has more than tripled in the last three years!  We want to take this time to thank you, our readers and subcribers, for making that happen.  Thanks for making the eDiscoveryDaily blog a regular resource for your eDiscovery news and analysis!  We really appreciate the support!

We also want to thank the blogs and publications that have linked to our posts and raised our public awareness, including Pinhawk, Ride the Lightning, Litigation Support Guru, Complex Discovery, Bryan University, The Electronic Discovery Reading Room, Litigation Support Today, Alltop, ABA Journal, Litigation Support Blog.com, InfoGovernance Engagement Area, EDD Blog Online, eDiscovery Journal, e-Discovery Team ® and any other publication that has picked up at least one of our posts for reference (sorry if I missed any!).  We really appreciate it!

I also want to extend a special thanks to Jane Gennarelli, who has provided some serial topics, ranging from project management to coordinating review teams to what litigation support and discovery used to be like back in the 80’s (to which some of us “old timers” can relate).  Her contributions are always well received and appreciated by the readers – and also especially by me, since I get a day off!

We always end each post with a request: “Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.”  And, we mean it.  We want to cover the topics you want to hear about, so please let us know.

Tomorrow, we’ll be back with a new, original post.  In the meantime, feel free to click on any of the links above and peruse some of our 999 previous posts.  Now is your chance to catch up!  😉

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 Sides with Defendant in Dispute over Predictive Coding that Plaintiff Requested – eDiscovery Case Law

In the case In re Bridgepoint Educ., Inc., Securities Litigation, 12cv1737 JM (JLB) (S.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2014), 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.

In this case involving several discovery disputes, a telephonic discovery conference was held in the instant action on June 27, during which, the Court issued oral orders on three of four discovery disputes.  As to the remaining dispute, the Court requested supplemental briefings from both parties and issued a ruling in this order, along with formalizing the remaining orders.

The unresolved discovery dispute concerned the plaintiffs’ “request for discovery extending beyond the time frame that Defendants have agreed to” for an additional nine months.  In their briefing, the defendants (based on the production efforts to date) claimed that expanding the scope of discovery by nine months would increase their review costs by 26% or $390,000.  The plaintiffs’ reply brief argued that the defendants’ estimate reflected the cost of manual review rather than the predictive coding system that the defendants would use – according to the plaintiffs, the cost of predictive coding was the only cost relevant to the defendants’ burden, estimating the additional burden to be roughly $11,279.

Per the Court’s request, the defendants submitted a reply brief addressing the arguments raised by the plaintiffs, arguing that predictive coding software “does not make manual review for relevance merely elective”.  The defendants argued that the software only assigns a percentage estimate to each document that reflects the assessment of the probability that the document is relevant, but the software is not foolproof and that attorney review is still required to ensure that the documents produced are both relevant and not privileged.

Judge Burkhardt, citing the “proportionality” rule of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(b)(2)(C), denied expanding the scope of discovery by nine months, finding that “Defendants have set forth sufficient evidence to conclude that the additional production would be unduly burdensome”.

The plaintiffs, claiming that the defendants “unilaterally-selected search terms” to identify the original production, also argued discovery produced from three Individual Defendants should be added to the Defendants’ predictive coding software.  But, Judge Burkhardt, formalizing the oral order, stated “[t]he Court approved Defendants’ method of using linear screening with the aid of search terms to identify responsive documents with regard to the emails already reviewed for the three Individual Defendants. The parties were directed to meet and confer regarding the additional search terms Plaintiffs would like Defendants to use.”

So, what do you think?  Was the additional discovery scope unduly burdensome or did the plaintiff have a point about reduced discovery costs?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Daily will resume posts on Tuesday.  Happy Labor Day!

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.

When Reviewing and Producing Documents, Don’t Forget the “Mother and Child Reunion” – eDiscovery Best Practices

I love Paul Simon’s music.  One of my favorite songs of his is Mother and Child Reunion.  Of course, I’m such an eDiscovery nerd that every time I think of that song, I think of keeping email and attachment families together.  If you don’t remember the Mother and Child Reunion, you might provide an incomplete production to opposing counsel.

BTW, here’s a little known fact: Paul Simon took the title of the song Mother and Child Reunion from the name of a chicken-and-egg dish he noticed on a Chinese restaurant’s menu.

Like the rest of us, attorneys don’t like to feel shortchanged, especially in discovery.  While there are exceptions, in most cases these days when an email or attachment is deemed to be responsive, the receiving party expects to also receive any “family” members of the responsive file.  Attorneys like to have the complete family when reviewing the production from the other side, even if some of the individual files aren’t responsive themselves.  Receiving an email without its corresponding attachments or receiving some, but not all, of the attachments to an email tends to raise suspicions.  Most attorneys don’t want to give opposing counsel a reason to be suspicious of their production, so parties typically agree to produce the entire email “family” in these cases.  Here’s a scenario:

The case involves a dispute over negotiated gas rate agreements between energy companies and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approval of those rate agreements.  A supervisor at the company verbally requests a copy of a key contract from one of his employees, along with the latest FERC filings and the employee emails a copy of the contract and FERC filing summary attached to an email with the subject “Requested files” and the body stating “Here you go…” (or something to that effect).  A search for “negotiated w/2 (gas or rate or agreement)” retrieves the contract attachment, but not the email, which doesn’t really have any pertinent information on it, or the FERC filing summary.  Only part of the email “family” is responsive to the search.

If it’s important to produce all communications between parties at the company regarding negotiated gas agreements, this communication could be missed – unless your review protocol includes capturing the family members of responsive files and your review software provides an option to view the family members of responsive files and include them in search results.  I underlined “option” because there are still a few cases where parties agree to limit production to actual responsive files and not produce the families (though, in my recent experience, those cases are exceptions).

If your case isn’t one of the exceptions, make sure you have a well thought out protocol and robust software for including family members in your search results and in your document reviews for responsiveness, as well as automated and manual Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) checks to ensure your production contains complete family groups.

So, what came first, the chicken or the egg?  It doesn’t matter, as long as the family group is intact.  🙂

So, what do you think?  How do you handle family groups in discovery?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Rules in Dispute Between Parties Regarding ESI Protocol, Suggests Predictive Coding – eDiscovery Case Law

In a dispute over ESI protocols in FDIC v. Bowden, CV413-245 (S.D. Ga. June 6, 2014), Georgia Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith approved the ESI protocol from the FDIC and suggested the parties consider the use of predictive coding.

After FDIC-insured Darby Bank & Trust Co. failed in November 2010, the FDIC took over as receiver (as FDIC-R) and brought a bank mismanagement case against sixteen of Darby’s former directors and officers.  Thus far, the parties had been unable to agree on a Joint Protocol for Electronically Stored Information (ESI) and the dispute ultimately reached the court.  The FDIC-R had already spent $614,000 to digitally scan about “2.01 terabytes of data or 153.6 million pages” of data at the bank, but the defendants insisted that the FDIC-R shoulder the burden and expense of reviewing the documents and determining their responsiveness to the claims “”[e]ven though the Bank’s documents were created under Defendants’ custody and control”.

The defendants also argued for a protocol which involved the FDIC-R to “repeatedly search, review, and re-review myriad ‘second-run’ (Phase II) documents, then turn over to them the documents relevant to both claims and defenses that arise in this litigation. The FDIC-R argued for a protocol in which it would produce “categories of documents most likely to contain relevant information” which the defendants could then search, claiming that protocol would be the more “correct allocation of discovery burdens between the parties.” The defendants contended that “search terms alone won’t suffice” and the FDIC-R’s proposed protocol does not relieve the receiver of its Rule 34 burden to “locate and produce responsive documents.”

After reviewing the two proposed protocols, Judge Smith ruled that “given the common ground between the dueling protocols here, the FDIC-R’s ESI protocol will be implemented, as modified by the FDIC-R’s ‘briefing concessions’…as well as by the additional guidance set forth in this Order.”  Those briefing concessions included “offering to open ‘all of the Bank’s former documents . . . [so defendants can retrieve them] to the same extent that the FDIC-R can’” and “offering, in ‘Phase II’ of the disclosure process, to ‘meet and confer with Defendants to reach agreement upon a set of reasonable search terms to run across the database of sources of the ESI to identify documents for production’”.  In approving the FDIC-R’s protocol, Judge Smith stated that “the FDIC-R may meaningfully deploy suitable search terms to satisfy its initial disclosure requirements and respond to forthcoming Rule 34 document requests”.

Also, referencing the DaSilva Moore decision of 2012, Judge Smith stated that “the parties shall consider the use of predictive coding” if ESI protocol disagreements persisted noting that it “has emerged as a far more accurate means of producing responsive ESI in discovery”.

So, what do you think? Should organizations bear the bulk of the discovery burden in cases against individual defendants? Or should the burden be balanced between both parties?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Daily will resume posts on Monday, July 7.  Happy Birthday America!

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

EDRM Introduces Search Intent Framework – eDiscovery Trends
 

It seems that just about every month EDRM publishes a new standard or guideline for eDiscovery best practices.  On Monday, they announced the release of a new Search Intent Framework.

As their press release states: “The new framework was developed to define and document various types of search intent that are part of the EDRM.  Within the EDRM, ‘search” is used broadly in many contexts: to assess or scope a matter, acquire specific documents or discrete information or classify preselected documents; these have minimal legal impact. For other EDRM searches, the legal impact is high, such as in asserting comprehensiveness and accuracy. Enterprise search, early data assessment, e-discovery processing search functions, review system search functions and even concept analysis or document clustering tools are all described as ‘search’ in the context of the EDRM, with little recognition that poor accuracy in one context is more consequential than in others.”

So, why the need for a search intent framework?  “The intent of any search is what determines the appropriate technology, process or workflow that should be implemented and the level of scrutiny to be applied in determining “reasonable” success. The EDRM Search Intent Framework was developed to define and document the different classes and subclasses of search intent that comprise the EDRM.”

With regard to classes of search intent, the EDRM Search Intent Framework (available here) describes three classes:

  • Exploratory Class: Used to confirm whether or not a specific document, reference, or discrete piece of information exists, as well as to gain general knowledge about a document set in order to understand how to handle the data set.
  • Classification Class: Used to categorize individual documents or a set of documents as to their responsiveness, non-responsiveness, whether or not they flag a policy, and so forth.
  • Quality Control: Used to identify inconsistencies in a document set. Quality control testing is typically done during review and production to test that documents are properly coded and are appropriate to either be produced or not produced.

Each Class includes the Sub-Class, Intent, Implementation and Measure of Success associated with each Sub-Class within the Class.  The Framework provides a color coded legend to identify each phase of the EDRM, from Information Governance to Presentation and uses those color codes to identify which phases apply to each Sub-Class (for example, in the Exploratory Class, Identification, Preservation and Collection apply to the Assessment Sub-Class).  Each Sub-Class is flowcharted from the Sub-Class down to the Measure of Success resulting from the Sub-Class of search intent.  Detailed descriptions are also provided for each Sub-Class.

As the Framework states, “It is the intent of the search that should determine the appropriate technology, process, or workflow, that should be implemented, and the level of scrutiny to be applied in determining “reasonable” success.”  Apparently, all searches aren’t created the same!

From the link above, the Framework can be downloaded as a single page PDF – unfortunately, the page dimensions are 23.95 x 13.30 inches (a three page Framework might be easier to read, just sayin’).  But, the Framework does provide a clear depiction of the intent of each type of search from intent to implementation and measure of success.

So, what do you think? Could this new Framework help your search strategy?  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.

Want to Craft Better Searches? Use a Dictionary – eDiscovery Best Practices

On the very first day we launched this blog nearly four years ago, one of our first blog posts was called “Don’t Get ‘Wild’ with Wildcards” where we showed how a poorly constructed wildcard of “min*” to retrieve variations like “mine”, “mines” and “mining” actually retrieved over 300,000 files with hits because there are 269 words in the English language that begin with the letters “min” (such as words like “mink”, “mind”, “mint” and “minion”).  So, how do you find the actual variations of the word you want?  Use a dictionary.

In that blog post back on September 20, 2010, we discussed that one way to capture the variations is with stem searching.  eDiscovery applications that support stem searching give you an ability to enter the root word (e.g., mine) and it will locate that word and its variations.  Stem searching provides the ability to find all variations of a word without having to use wildcards.

But, what if your application doesn’t support stem searching?  As we noted back then, Morewords.com shows list of words that begin with your search string.  So, to get all 269 words beginning with “min”, go here – simply substitute any characters for “min” to see the words that start with those characters.  You can choose the variations you want and incorporate them into the search instead of the wildcard – i.e., use “(mine or “mines or mining)” instead of “min*” to retrieve a more relevant result set.

However, do you really want to search through 269 words to get the ones you want?  Or, what if you put your wildcard in the wrong place?  You can miss relevant variations as easily as you can over-include non-relevant ones.  How do you get to the right variations of the word you want?  Use a dictionary.

Dictionary.com, that is.  Type in the word that you want at the top of the form and find all of the uses of it (e.g., the yellow sweater is mine) and also variations of it (mined, mining).  You can even find synonyms of the word (e.g., reserve, excavate) on the left hand side of the form (via Thesaurus.com) that might lead to additional terms you may want to include in your search.

A recent client proposed a wildcard of depreciate* to reflect assets that depreciate.  That wildcard would have picked up variations such as depreciates and depreciated, but would have missed other obvious variations like depreciating and, of course, depreciation.  So, believe it or not, a poorly placed wildcard may not be “wild” enough.  How do you make sure you cover all of the variations you need?  Use a dictionary.

So, what do you think? Do you use wildcards in your eDiscovery searches? If so, how do you check them to ensure that they are neither over-inclusive nor under-inclusive?  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 Denies Defendant’s Request for Deposition Regarding Plaintiff’s Discovery Search Tools – eDiscovery Case Law

In Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Hunt Control Sys., Inc., 11-3684 (DMC) (D.N.J. Apr. 16, 2014), 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.

This instant action on an intellectual property dispute concerned the defendant’s reissuance of a Notice of Deposition pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) for the plaintiff’s IT representative, who had already given a deposition that had been stayed by a previous court when the defendant sought to request responses from the plaintiff to eight questions “that [defendant] alleges were not adequately answered” by the IT representative. The plaintiff objected to the reissued notice during a conference, and was granted leave to file for a protective order.

The defendant claimed that the plaintiff’s discovery production was materially deficient, and outlined seven categories of documents which it alleged were missing documents, returning low portions of requested documents, or not produced at all. In support of the 30(b)(6) deposition request, the defendant submitted declarations from its IT expert which stated in part that “due to its cloud-based IT structure, [plaintiff] has available to it some of most (sic) sophisticated and comprehensive state-of-the-art document search and location tools” and yet the plaintiff “refuses to use these tools to satisfy its obligations.”  The defendant claimed that it was “entitled to the deposition to understand why and how these sophisticated tools are somehow inappropriate in spite of their clear design to accommodate eDiscovery.”

In response, the plaintiff contended that the deposition was initially stayed pending the plaintiff’s response to the eight questions the defendant claimed were not adequately answered, and not pending the defendant’s review of the plaintiff’s discovery production. It was noted that the previous court invited the defendant to “reapply” for a deposition once both parties had “met and conferred in good faith” regarding discovery, yet the defendant had simply re-noticed the deposition. The plaintiff also submitted a declaration from its IT expert, confirming that the plaintiff had answered the eight questions adequately, and that “a custodian-based approach to collecting ESI” was its usual method of discovery production.

The plaintiff requested the protective order blocking the deposition because the ESI production approach described by the defendant would be unduly burdensome, noting that its current contract with its outsourced IT provider “neither includes, contemplates, nor currently permits the type of searching and collection that [defendant] suggest[s].” Further declarations submitted by the plaintiff attested to the reasonableness of its approach to ESI production.

Judge Clark based the ultimate ruling on this motion on legal standards set forth by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, which governs the scope of discovery in federal litigation and requires in part that discovery scope be limited where “the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive” and where “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.”

In reviewing the arguments from both sides, Judge Clark found that the plaintiff had adequately represented the reasonableness of its approach to ESI discovery and production, that it had demonstrated that several categories of the defendant’s claims of deficient production were “speculative and suggestive in nature,” and that the defendant had failed to demonstrate that “the benefits of the deposition would likely outweigh the burden associated with it.” In fact, the proposed deposition had “the potential to cause tremendous burden” to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff’s motion for a protective order was granted.

So, what do you think? Was the defendant’s request unduly burdensome or should they have been granted the second deposition? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

The Pitfalls of Self-Culling and Image Files – eDiscovery Best Practices

This topic came up with a recent client, so I thought I would revisit it here on this blog.

There’s a common mistake that organizations make when collecting their own files to turn over for discovery purposes.  Many attorneys turn over the collection of potentially responsive files to the individual custodians of those files, or to someone in the organization responsible for collecting those files (typically, an IT person) and the self-collection involves “self-culling” through the use of search terms.  When this happens, important files can be missed.

Self-culling by custodians, unless managed closely, can be a wildly inconsistent process (at best).  You’re expecting each custodian to apply the same search terms consistently and, even if IT performs the self-culling, the process may have to be repeated if additional search terms are identified later on.  Even worse, potentially responsive image-only files will be missed with self-culling.

It’s common to have a number of image-only files within any collection, especially if the custodians frequently scan executed documents or use fax software to receive documents from other parties.  In those cases, image-only PDF or TIFF files can often make up as much as 20% of the collection.  When custodians are asked to perform “self-culling” by performing their own searches of their data, these files, which could contain information responsive to the case, will certainly be missed.

With the possibility of inconsistent self-culling, the possibility of additional search terms identified later and the (almost certain) presence of image-only files, I usually advise against self-culling by custodians.  I also don’t recommend that IT perform culling on behalf of the custodians, unless they have the ability to process that data to identify image-only files and perform Optical Character Recognition (OCR) to capture text from them.  If your IT department has the capabilities and experience to do so (and the process and chain of custody is well documented), then that’s great.  However, most internal IT departments either don’t have the capabilities or expertise (or both), in which case it’s best to collect all potentially responsive files from the custodians and turn them over to a qualified eDiscovery provider to perform the culling (performing OCR as needed to include responsive image-only files in the resulting responsive document set).  Unless the case requires supplemental productions, there is also no need to go back to the custodians to collect additional data with the full data set available.

So, what do you think?  Do you self-collect data for discovery purposes?  If so, how do you account for image-only files?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Rules that Unilateral Predictive Coding is Not Progressive – eDiscovery Case Law

In Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Delaney, No. 2:11-cv-00678-LRH-PAL (D. Nev. May 19, 2014), 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.

This declaratory relief action had been plagued by delays in discovery production, which led to the defendants filing a Motion to Compel the plaintiffs to produce discovery in a timely fashion. Following a hearing, both sides were ordered to meet and confer, and hold meaningful discussions about resolving outstanding ESI issues pursuant to discovery. The plaintiff contended that the defendant’s discovery requests, as standing, would require them to produce approximately 1.8 million documents, which would be unduly burdensome. Both parties agreed to search terms that would reduce the number of potentially responsive documents to around 565,000, which the plaintiff would manually review for privileged documents before producing discovery to the defendant.

Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff determined that manual review would be too expensive and time-consuming, and therefore after consulting with a “nationally-recognized authority on eDiscovery,” elected to apply predictive coding to the identified 565,000 documents. Plaintiff selected a software program that they began using to identify relevant documents with the intention of applying a further predictive coding layer in order to determine which documents were “more likely privileged” and which were “less likely privileged.”

However, the plaintiff did not consult with either the court or the requesting party regarding their intentions to change review methodology. As a result, the defendant objected to the use of predictive coding in this case for several reasons, including the plaintiff’s lack of transparency surrounding its predictive coding methodology and its failure to cooperate, as well as the plaintiff’s failure to adhere to the best practices for the chosen software program which were recommended to them by the authority they chose. Finally, the defendants cited a likelihood of satellite disputes revolving around discovery, should the plaintiff proceed with the current predictive coding, which would further delay production discovery that had already been “stalled for many months.”

The defendant requested that either the plaintiff be required to proceed with predictive coding according to the defendant’s suggested protocol, which would include applying the predictive methodology to all of the originally collected 1.8 million documents, or that the plaintiff produce the non-privileged keyword hits without any review, but allowing them to be subject to a clawback order—which was a second option included in the originally stipulated ESI protocol that both parties had agreed to. Although this option would shift the burden of discovery to the defendant, it was noted that the defendant was “committed to devot[ing] the resources required to review the documents as expeditiously as possible” in order to allow discovery to move forward.

Judge Leen acknowledged potential support for the general methodology of predictive coding in eDiscovery, and stated that a “transparent mutually agreed upon” protocol for such a method would likely have been approved. However, Judge Leen took issue that the plaintiff had refused to “engage in the type of cooperation and transparency that its own eDiscovery consultant has so comprehensibly and persuasively explained is needed for a predictive coding protocol to be accepted by the court or opposing counsel” and instead had “elected and then abandoned the second option—to manually review and produce responsive ESI documents. It abandoned the option it selected unilaterally, without the [defendant’s] acquiescence or the court’s approval and modification of the parties’ stipulated ESI protocol.”

Therefore, Judge Leen elected to enforce the second option described in the agreed-upon ESI protocol, and required the plaintiff to produce all 565,000 documents that matched the stipulated search terms without review, with a clawback option in place for privileged documents as well as permission to apply privilege filters to the documents at issue, and withhold those documents that returned as “most likely privileged.”

So, what do you think? Should parties need to obtain approval regarding the review methodology that they plan to use?  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.

Plaintiff’s Failure to Communicate with Defendants Causes Complications in Discovery – eDiscovery Case Law
 

In Procaps S.A. v. Patheon Inc., 12-24356-CIV-GOODMAN, 2014 U.S. Dist. (S.D. Fla. Mar. 18, 2014), the defendants filed a Motion to Compel over search terms for Electronically Stored Information (ESI), after the lead counsel for the plaintiffs repeatedly demonstrated uncooperative behavior by not responding to emails sent by defendants’ counsel, or responding with brief and unclear messages.

This discovery dispute arose after Florida District Judge Jonathan Goodman granted the defendants’ motion for a forensic analysis of the plaintiffs’ electronic media. Several reasons were given for granting the motion, among them the fact that the plaintiffs’ personnel had been permitted to self-search for ESI without context – the employees had neither seen the defendants’ discovery requests, nor been given a list of search terms. Judge Goodman ordered that both parties agree to a preliminary list of search terms.

Following this order, counsel for the plaintiffs produced a list of eight search terms, in English, along with an advisory that the plaintiffs could “confer with our clients as to appropriate Spanish translation.” This was problematic because the plaintiffs’ business is headquartered in Columbia, and while some of its employees speak both English and Spanish, others speak only Spanish.

The defendants responded that the counsel’s proposal with the absence of Spanish search terms and a suggestion to translate the terms post-agreement was “patently unreasonable,” and further stressed that “perhaps most troubling is that it doesn’t appear these terms were discussed with [plaintiffs’] employees in order to determine what words and phrases they use.”

Counsel for the defendants attempted to reach the plaintiffs’ lead counsel with regards to this matter, first through a phone call, and then through an email follow-up that summarized the call, stating in part: “this confirms…[plaintiff] does not agree that it has an obligation to come up with search terms with input from [plaintiffs’] custodians about the words and abbreviations they use, and that [plaintiff] will not suggest any search terms other than the eight search terms it proposed.” The counsel for the plaintiff replied with a single-line email: “I do not believe your characterization of our position is accurate.” A response from the defendants’ counsel asking for clarification on which of the two points in the original email counsel believed to be inaccurate went unanswered.

Several further emails were sent, to which the plaintiffs’ counsel either did not respond, or responded with brief messages that did not address all the points questioned by defendants’ counsel. Due to the lack of communication regarding whether the plaintiffs’ counsel would confer with their clients regarding search terms, the defendants filed a Motion to Compel.

Judge Goodman held a multi-hour hearing with the parties, during which the plaintiffs’ counsel alleged that the defendants’ counsel had a history of “incorrectly summarize(ing) telephone conversations,” and further that the defendants were “seeking to engage in an ‘e-mail war,’ that email is being used ‘as a tool to gain an advantage’ and that [defendants’ emails] were an ‘ambush attempt’ and that he was not going to ‘get trapped into this kind of tactic’.” Additionally, counsel asserted that they had already been in communication with the plaintiffs’ ESI custodians, detailing in an affidavit that attorneys for the plaintiffs had spoken to a total of 24 custodians currently employed by the plaintiffs, as well as two former custodians, regarding search terms and ESI that was reasonably likely to contain relevant information.

Upon review of the affidavit and testimony, it was found that the plaintiffs’ counsel had first communicated with ESI custodians regarding search terms only on the day after the defendants had filed the Motion to Compel, and that the discussion outlined in the affidavit had taken place during the week after the motion had been filed. Therefore, the search terms had not in fact been discussed with the plaintiffs’ ESI custodians at the time of the email exchanges, contrary to what counsel had indicated.

Despite having ultimately arranged for the appropriate persons to provide search term input, Judge Goodman awarded attorney’s fees to the defendants in the amount of $3,750, with $1,000 of the fees to be paid personally by the lead counsel for the plaintiff due to his non-communication. It was stressed that this award was for fee-shifting purposes, and not intended as a sanction.

So, what do you think? Should apparent refusal to communicate provide grounds for sanctioning during the discovery process? 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.