Close
Enter your
text here

Production

Data Needs to Be Converted More Often than You Think – eDiscovery Best Practices

We’ve discussed previously that electronic files aren’t necessarily ready to review just because they’re electronic.  They often need processing and good processing requires a sound process.  Sometimes that process includes data conversion if the data isn’t in the most useful format.

Case in point: I recently worked with a client that received a multi-part production from the other side (via a another party involved in the litigation, per agreement between the parties) that included image files, OCR text files and metadata.  The files that my client received were produced over several months to several other parties in the litigation.  The production contained numerous emails, each of which (of course) included an email sent date.  Can you guess which format the email sent date was provided in?  Here are some choices (using today’s date and 1:00 PM as an example):

  • 09/03/2013 13:00:00
  • 9/03/2013 1:00 PM
  • September 3, 2013 1:00 PM
  • Sep-03-2013 1:00 PM
  • 2013/09/03 13:00:00

The answer: all of them.

Because there were several productions to different parties with (apparently) different format agreements, my client didn’t have the option to request the data to be reproduced in a standard format.  Not only that, the name of the produced metadata field wasn’t consistent between productions – in about 15 percent of the documents the producing party named the field email_date_sent, in the rest it was named date_sent.

Ever try to sort emails chronologically when they’re not only in different formats, but also in two different fields?  It’s impossible.  Fortunately, at CloudNine Discovery, there is no shortage of computer “geeks” to address problems like this (I’m admittedly one of them).

As a result, we had to standardize the format of the dates into one standard format in one field.  We used a combination of SQL queries to get the data into one field and string commands and regular expressions to manipulate dates that didn’t fit a standard SQL date format by re-parsing them into a correct date format.  For example, the date 2013/09/03 was reparsed into 09/03/2013.

Getting the dates into a standard format in a single field not only enabled us to sort the emails chronologically by date sent, it also enabled us to identify (in combination with other standard email metadata fields) duplicates in the collection based on metadata fields (since the data was in image and OCR formats, HASH algorithms weren’t a viable option for de-duplication).

Over the years, I’ve seen many examples where data (either from our side or the other side) needs to be converted.  It happens more than you think.  When that happens, it’s good to have a computer “geek” on your side to address the problem.

So, what do you think?  Have you encountered data conversion issues in your cases?   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.

Judge Sides with Both Parties in Form of Production Dispute – eDiscovery Case Law
 

The opinion in Kwasniewski v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, No. 2:12-cv-00515-GMN-NJK (D. Nev. June 28, 2013) suggests that producing parties can satisfy their obligation to produce documents in an organized manner by offering a table of contents, rendering text searchable, indicating which data responds to which request, and including certain metadata, such as Bates numbers.

During discovery, defendant Sanofi-Aventis responded to the plaintiffs’ discovery requests by producing a large number of documents. The plaintiffs objected, arguing that the response was improper because Sanofi-Aventis failed to provide an index, to indicate which documents corresponded to which request, and to Bates stamp the documents. Sanofi-Aventis argued that it complied with the discovery rules and produced documents as they were “kept in the usual course of business.” Moreover, it had produced the documents in a text-searchable format and included an index. The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion and ordered the parties “to meet and confer in good faith by discussing the merits of each argument in an effort to resolve the dispute without further Court involvement.”

The parties could not resolve the dispute on their own. Subsequently, the plaintiffs re-filed their motion to compel, asking Sanofi-Aventis to organize and Bates number its production by request. Sanofi-Aventis again asserted that it had produced the information properly.

The court began its analysis by quoting the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. To prevent parties from “‘obscuring the significance of documents by giving some structure to the production,’” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i)requires parties to choose either to “produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business” or to “organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request . . .” The court noted that “[p]roducing parties should not raise ‘unnecessary obstacles for the requesting party’ in the production of ESI.” As a result, “the production of ESI must be rationally organized to enable the parties to determine if responsive documents have been produced.”

Sanofi-Aventis responded that its production was organized and searchable; instead, the problem is that the plaintiffs had “not made a reasonable effort to determine which documents are responsive to their requests.”

The court found that Sanofi-Aventis had complied with Rule 34 by providing a table of contents that described “the types of documents and the volume and page number where those documents are located” and noted that “each volume number is readily identifiable via cover sheet.” Furthermore, Sanofi-Aventis “provided metadata for all the documents, which allows the Plaintiffs to identify the documents by bates range, file path, and document title.” Finally, all but 33 of the produced documents were text-searchable. Accordingly, the court concluded, “if the Plaintiffs make a reasonable effort, they should be able to obtain the documents responsive to their requests.”

Even so, the court found that Sanofi-Aventis’s responses were “deficient in that they create unnecessary obstacles for the plaintiffs”: they “should not have to guess which requests were responded to and which were not.” Therefore, the court granted the motion to the extent the plaintiffs sought “to determine whether the documents produced by Sanofi-Aventis were actually responsive to the Plaintiffs’ discovery requests.”

So, what do you think?  Was that a proper form of production?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Daily will be celebrating Labor Day by…not laboring, so we’ll be back with a new post on Tuesday, September 3.

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).  For eDiscovery news and best practices, check out the Applied Discovery Blog here.

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

Default Judgment Sanction Upheld on Appeal – eDiscovery Case Law

In Stooksbury v. Ross, Nos. 12-5739/12-6042/12-6230, No. 13a0575n.06 (6th Cir. June 13, 2013), the Sixth Circuit upheld the entry of default judgment as a sanction against defendants that repeatedly failed to comply with discovery obligations, including producing a “document dump” of tens of thousands of pages of nonresponsive information that prejudiced the plaintiffs.

At trial in this RICO action, the court found the defendants engaged in “contumacious conduct” and intentionally delayed discovery. Although the defendants had provided a document “dump” of 40,000 pages of documents in response to document requests, the information was not responsive to the requests, lacked important financial information, was not Bates stamped, and prejudiced the plaintiff. The plaintiffs asked the court to sanction the defendants, and the magistrate judge recommended default judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The judge found that the defendant had a “‘total lack of forthrightness’” in refusing to comply and explain their noncompliance; this conduct “‘amount[ed] to bad faith and a willful decision not to cooperate in discovery.’” The district court subsequently adopted the magistrate judge’s findings but awarded costs and fees instead of a default judgment. The court also afforded the defendants 10 more days to comply with the discovery order, warning them that noncompliance could result in further sanctions.

Despite the additional time and warning, the defendants still failed to provide responsive discovery: “[T]hey included boilerplate objections and failed to provide basic accounting documents or Bates stamp references for the earlier document dump.” As a result, when the plaintiff renewed his motion for a default judgment, the court granted it. The district court relied on four findings: “(1) the defendants intentionally failed to comply with the discovery orders, (2) they failed to heed the court’s warning, (3) the plaintiff suffered prejudice as a result of their noncompliance, and (4) less drastic sanctions would not be effective.” The defendants later objected, but the court refused to reconsider its motion, finding there was no evidence that the defendants’ actions stemmed from excusable neglect.

The defendants appealed this decision. The court reviewed the district court’s four findings for an abuse of discretion. The Sixth Circuit approved the lower court’s decision for the following reasons:

  • First, the defendants met the standard for “willful conduct and bad faith” because they “lacked forthrightness, failed to directly respond to the Court’s inquiries about the discovery matters, offered no explanation for their lack of compliance, and demonstrated ‘bad faith and a willful decision not to cooperate in discovery.’”
  • Second, the plaintiff was prejudiced because the dispute had continued for more than a year, despite judicial intervention and two continuances. Further, the “discovery abuses imposed excessive costs on Plaintiff, who had to sort through the document dump, and undermined Plaintiff’s proof on the issue of liability.”
  • Third, the defendants were fairly warned about the possibility of sanctions, including a default judgment, by the magistrate judge and district court.
  • Fourth, the court first issued a less severe sanction and warned the defendants of the possibility of the default if they did not meet their discovery obligations. Nevertheless, the defendants “forced the district court’s hand in ordering the default judgment.”

Accordingly, the court ruled there was no abuse of discretion.

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

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).  For eDiscovery news and best practices, check out the Applied Discovery Blog here.

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

Plaintiff Needs More Than “Mere Hope” to Discover Defendant’s Personal Info – eDiscovery Case Law

We’ve seen several cases where social media or personal data was requested – with some requests granted (including this one, this one, this one, this one and this one) and other requests denied (including this one, this one, this one and this one).  Here is another recent case where the request was denied.

In Salvato v. Miley, No. 5:12-CV-635-Oc-10PRL (M.D. Fla. June 11, 2013), a wrongful death action, Florida Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens denied the plaintiff’s motion to compel the defendant’s responses to discovery requests “based on Plaintiff’s very limited showing as to the relevance of the requested discovery and the broadly drafted discovery requests”.

In this case, the plaintiff sued two police officers for causing their son’s death by using excessive force and failing to provide medical treatment. During discovery, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel one officer’s responses to the discovery requests. The interrogatories in question sought information about the defendant’s cell phone numbers, e-mail addresses, social media accounts, and list-serve or message board membership. The contested requests for production sought cell phone records, including all text messages; e-mails; social media messages and other communications; and comments made on websites or message boards that related to the allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint. The defendant objected, arguing that the requests sought confidential information and invaded his privacy, sought irrelevant information and amounted to a fishing expedition, and were intended to annoy, embarrass, and oppress him.

Judge Lammens found the plaintiff “failed to make a threshold showing that the requested information is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” The plaintiff’s argument in support of the relevancy of the requests was that they seek “‘information about statements that Defendant Brown made about the incident at issue in this case, which could include admissions against interest, and could certainly lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.’” Judge Lammens ruled that the “mere hope” that the texts, e-mails, and other communications might contain an admission is not enough to allow the plaintiff “open access to [the defendant’s] private communications with third parties.” Accordingly, the judge rejected the plaintiff’s attempt “to conduct ‘a fishing expedition’” because he did “‘not have a generalized right to rummage at will through information that Plaintiff has limited from public view.’”

So, what do you think?  Should the motion to compel have been granted?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).  For eDiscovery news and best practices, check out the Applied Discovery Blog here.

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

Court Compels Discovery of Plaintiff’s Facebook Posts as Relevant – eDiscovery Case Law

In Moore v. Miller, No.: 10-cv-651-JLK, 2013 (D. Colo. June 6, 2013), Colorado Senior District Judge John L. Kane ruled (over the plaintiff’s privacy objections) that the plaintiff’s Facebook posts and activity log must be produced because they related to his claims of physical injury and emotional distress and because the plaintiff put his posts directly at issue by discussing the incident giving rise to the lawsuit online.

In this case, the defendants filed a motion to enforce the court’s order to compel the plaintiff’s production of “writings related to his arrest, his tax records, and his employment records.” As part of those writings, the defendants asked for his Facebook records and activity log and documents he posted on his websites. The defendants claimed that the plaintiff did not comply because he only partially produced writings, including “‘an incomplete and highly-redacted printout of Plaintiff’s Facebook wall posts’” and he did not produce an activity log.

The plaintiff relied on his interpretation of “about his arrest” to narrow the scope of the order compelling production. The court remarked that narrowing the scope to this extent would “exclude writings relevant to the arrest such as writings relating to Mr. Moore’s bias, emotional and physical states before and after the arrest and his alleged physical and mental injuries.” Moreover, the court noted that the defendants’ request for Facebook information extended to “all of his missing Facebook posts” and the activity log.

The plaintiff argued that this expanded scope sought irrelevant evidence and would invade his privacy. But the court found the plaintiff’s allegations of physical injury and emotional distress warranted a more in-depth review of his social media account. His “Facebook activity is relevant to his claims of emotional pain and suffering (for which he claims $750,000 in damages) as well as his claims of physical pain ($750,000) and humiliation ($500,000).” Moreover, the plaintiff “reputedly has chosen to share his version of events online often and in many different forums, including detailed and specific descriptions of what he alleges happened to him on March 25, 2008, as well as the injuries he allegedly suffers to this day.” {emphasis added}

Although the plaintiff requested that the data be reviewed in camera, the court found its protective order would protect the plaintiff’s privacy.

The court also granted the defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees related to the motion, noting “how unfortunate it is that the parties’ differing interpretations about the scope of ordered discovery spawned a chain of hostile emails and ultimately the instant motion. Where the nature or scope of an Order is contested, the best course of action is for the disputing parties jointly to file a motion for clarification.” In addition, the motion sought the defendant’s current address, tax returns, and employment history: “No party should have to resort to motion practice to obtain information as elemental as a party opponent’s address.”

So, what do you think?  Was the judge right to allow discovery of the plaintiff’s Facebook information?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).  For eDiscovery news and best practices, check out the Applied Discovery Blog here.

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

Wish There Were Better Standards for Production of Native Files? Enough is ENF! – eDiscovery Trends

At the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) annual meeting back in May, I provided updates for several of the EDRM projects, two of which (Metrics and Jobs) have already made significant announcements since the meeting.  Another project, the new Native Files project, has recently released two white papers authored by EDRM member Wade Peterson (of Bowman and Brooke LLP) proposing the creation and adoption of a new ENF (encapsulated native file) standard for the production of native files.

In Can Native File Productions be ENF (Enough)?, Peterson presents the conceptual framework for defining the new standard.  This white paper includes several sections, such as:

  • Background: Describes the historical background regarding traditional document productions as either paper, TIFF or PDF;
  • Executive Overview: Describes the problem (outdated standards defined almost two decades ago) and the purpose of the paper (to present a conceptual framework for defining a new, up-to-date standard that reflects “3-dimensional” native documents);
  • Challenges: A list of several challenges facing litigation support professionals today when producing documents, including these: “Courts and opposing counsel are increasingly demanding ‘native file productions’”, “Native files can be altered (either intentionally or not)” and “Native files cannot be redacted”;
  • Solution: The stated goal to develop a new standard for document productions, which addresses today’s concerns, has an open architecture to meet future requirements and is eventually adopted by courts as the legal standard;
  • Architecture: A detailed description of the architecture “framework for ‘encapsulating’ native files in sort of an envelope metaphor”, with a diagram to illustrate the framework;
  • Enhancements to the Standard: A discussion of possible enhancements that could be incorporated into the open-architecture standard;
  • Overcoming Obstacles: A discussion of potential obstacles as well as processes and tools needed to support this standard;
  • Conclusion: A summary call to construct a new document production standard to replace the standards “defined well over 20 years ago to produce documents which didn’t even exist 20 years ago”;
  • Author: A bio of the author, Wade Peterson.

In This is Just About ENF, Wade illustrates a sample ENF, describes some of its elements, and describes the operation of a basic utility to view ENF files.  It shows a sample XML representation of a sample ENF, describes Attributes, potential Vendor enhancements to ENF files, includes a detailed description of the Native Files element of the ENF, discusses Areas of Concern when dealing with native files and illustrates a very basic viewing tool, which he refers to as “viewENF”.

The two white papers reflect quite a bit of thought and effort to begin the process to create and adopt a new standard for addressing a growing problem – the production of a diverse collection of native files.  It will be interesting how the effort progresses to gain support for this proposed new standard.

So, what do you think?  Does this proposed standard appear to be a promising solution to the native file production issue?  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.

Printed Copies of Documents Not Enough, Spoliation Sanctions Upheld for Discarding Computer – eDiscovery Case Law

On May 30, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department upheld a spoliation sanction against a plaintiff that failed to preserve electronic files and discarded his computer containing those files.

As reported in IT-Lex.org (Gross Negligence + Lack Of Litigation Hold = Spoliation Sanctions), In Harry Weiss, Inc. v. Moskowitz, a dispute involving diamond dealers and brokers, the Appellate Division upheld the defendants’ motion for spoliation sanctions to the extent of precluding plaintiff from offering any evidence and/or testimony at trial in opposition to defendants’ defenses and counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, with costs.  As noted in the transcript:

“More than two years into this litigation, plaintiff’s bookkeeper revealed at his deposition for the first time that certain electronic files that were created to track defendants’ commissions were either “lost” or “deleted” at the end of 2007 and 2008, after a copy of the file had been printed. The bookkeeper further testified that he created and kept all of plaintiff’s records on one computer, which had been in use for the last ten years. A month later, when defendants’ attorney sought to forensically examine the computer to determine if any of the deleted files could be restored, plaintiff’s bookkeeper claimed, for the first time, that the computer was “broken” and had been thrown away in late 2009 or early 2010, after the commencement of this action. Thereafter, the bookkeeper testified that numerous documents supporting plaintiff’s claim that defendants were not entitled to commissions could not be produced because they were stored only on the discarded computer.”

The plaintiff was put on notice of its obligation to “preserve all relevant records, electronic or otherwise,” at the very latest, in July 2009, when it received defendants’ answer asserting counterclaims for commissions, so the disposition of the computer was spoliation of that data.

The plaintiff claimed that disposal of the computer did not cause defendants any prejudice because many of the files were printed prior to its disposal, but the court rejected that argument, noting that “converting the files from their native format to hard-copy form would have resulted in the loss of discoverable metadata”. “In addition, by discarding the computer after its duty to preserve had attached without giving notice to defendants, plaintiff deprived defendants of the opportunity to have their own expert examine the computer to determine if the deleted files could be restored”.

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

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

eDiscovery Vendors Are Not Immune to eDiscovery Sanctions – eDiscovery Case Law

In Nuance Communications Inc. v. Abbyy Software House et al., no 3:08-cv-02912 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2013), California District Judge Jeffrey S. White refused Wednesday to dismiss Nuance Communications Inc.’s patent infringement suit against Lexmark International Inc. and Abbyy Software House, and awarded reimbursement of plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs in excess of $130,000 as part of discovery abuse sanctions resulting from the late production of relevant documents from Abbyy.

In this patent infringement case, this order addressed motions for summary judgment filed by both defendants as well as a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs as part of discovery sanctions filed by the plaintiff.  Judge White found that “these matters are appropriate for disposition without oral argument” and vacated the hearing scheduled two days later to discuss them.

Despite the fact that the plaintiff “went so far as to congratulate ABBYY’s top management on the product” upon its release, “and only sued on the alleged infringement six years later, after the products were already off the market”, Judge White did not find that the “congratulatory e-mail, as a matter of law, establishes that Nuance was both aware of and acquiesced to ABBYY’s packaging, thereby entitling ABBBY to the defense of acquiescence or laches.”  As a result, he denied Abbyy’s motion for summary judgment on the trade dress claims.

With regard to the motions for summary judgment filed by both defendants regarding patent claims, Judge White found “that there remain questions of fact regarding each of the patent infringement claims which preclude the Court from granting either defendant ABBYY’s or Lexmark’s motions for summary judgment”, so those motions were also denied.

As for the plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs as part of discovery abuse sanctions resulting from the late production of relevant documents from Abbyy, while Abbyy claimed that the production due to “satisfaction of Nuance’s multiple other discovery requests seeking massive amounts of irrelevant information”, Judge White did not find the delay in production justified.  He also noted that Abbyy’s “late production required the extension of time for discovery and Nuance’s retaking of many depositions which had been completed prior to the original close of discovery”. Because of this, he ruled that “sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 are justified for the expense Nuance incurred in the retaking of otherwise-completed depositions once the Court re-opened discovery due to the late disclosures.”

As a result, Abbyy was ordered to pay $14,544.94 in costs and $120,068.57 in fees (a total of $134,613.51) within 30 days of the order to reimburse the plaintiff for the amount incurred “after the re-opening of discovery due to the late production”.

So, what do you think?  Were the sanctions warranted?  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.

Motion to Compel Dismissed after Defendant Agrees to Conditional Meet and Confer – eDiscovery Case Law

In Gordon v. Kaleida Health, No. 08-CV-378S(F) (W.D.N.Y. May 21, 2013), New York Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio dismissed (without prejudice) the plaintiffs’ motion to compel the defendant to meet and confer to establish an agreed protocol for implementing the use of predictive coding software after the defendants stated that they were prepared to meet and confer with the plaintiffs and their non-disqualified ESI consultants regarding the defendants’ predictive coding process.

For over a year, the parties unsuccessfully attempted to agree on how to achieve a cost-effective review of the defendants’ 200,000 to 300,000 emails using a keyword search methodology.  Eventually, in June 2012, the court expressed dissatisfaction with the parties’ lack of progress toward resolving the issues and pointed to the availability of predictive coding, citing its approval in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, No. 11 Civ. 1279 (ALC) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012) (much more on that case here).

In a September 2012 email, after informing the plaintiffs that they intended to use predictive coding, the defendants objected to the plaintiffs’ ESI consultants participating in discussions with Defendants relating to the use of predictive coding and establishing a protocol.  Later that month, despite the plaintiffs’ requests for discussion of numerous search issues to ensure a successful predictive coding outcome, the defendants sent their ESI protocol to the plaintiffs and indicated they would also send a list of their email custodians to the plaintiffs.  In October 2012, the plaintiffs objected to the defendants’ proposed ESI protocol and filed the motion to compel, also citing Da Silva Moore and noting several technical issues “which should be discussed with the assistance of Plaintiffs’ ESI consultants and cooperatively resolved by the parties”.

Complaining that the defendants refused to discuss issues other than the defendants’ custodians, the plaintiffs claimed that “the defendants’ position excludes Plaintiffs’ access to important information regarding Defendants’ selection of so-called ‘seed set documents’ which are used to ‘train the computer’ in the predictive coding search method.  The defendants responded, indicating they had no objection to a meet and confer with the plaintiffs and their consultants, except for those consultants that were the subject of the defendants’ motion to disqualify (because they had previously provided services to the defendants in the case). With regard to sharing seed set document information, the defendants stated that “courts do not order parties in ESI discovery disputes to agree to specific protocols to facilitate a computer-based review of ESI based on the general rule that ESI production is within the ‘sound discretion’ of the producing party” and noted that the defendants in Da Silva Moore weren’t required to provide the plaintiffs with their seed set documents, but volunteered to do so.

Because the defendants stated that “they are prepared to meet and confer with Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ ESI consultants, who are not disqualified”, Judge Foschio ruled that “it is not necessary for the court to further address the merits of Plaintiffs’ motion at this time” and dismissed the motion without prejudice.  It will be interesting to see if the parties can ultimately agree on sharing the protocol or if the question regarding sharing information about seed set documents will come back before the court.

So, what do you think?  Should producing parties be required to share information regarding selection of seed set documents?  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.

Important Considerations when Negotiating Search Terms with Opposing Counsel – eDiscovery Best Practices

Negotiating search terms with opposing counsel has become commonplace to agree on the scope of discovery.  However, when you negotiate terms with the other side, you could be agreeing to produce more than you think.  Craig Ball’s latest article in Law Technology News discusses the issues and tries to answer the question: Are Keywords Just Filters?

Many attorneys still consider attorney eyes-on linear review as the final step to decide relevance of the document collection, but Craig notes that “requesting parties frequently believe that by agreeing to the use of a set of keywords as a proxy for attorney review, those agreed searches serve as a de facto request for production and define responsiveness per se, requiring production if not privileged.”

While producing parties may object to keyword search as a proxy for attorney review, Craig notes that “there’s sufficient ambiguity surrounding the issue to prompt prudent counsel to address the point explicitly when negotiating keyword search protocols and drafting memorializing agreements.”

Craig states what more and more people have come to accept, “Objective culling, keyword search, and emerging technologies such as predictive coding make clear that the idealized view of counsel as ultimate arbiter of relevance is mostly myth.”  We discussed a study regarding the reliability of review attorneys in a post here.  “Consequently, as more parties forge detailed agreements establishing objective evidentiary identifiers such as dates, sources, custodians, circulation, data types, and lexical content, litigants and courts grow impatient with the cost and time required for attorney review and reluctant to give it deference.”

Craig’s article discusses the issue in greater depth and even provides a couple of examples of agreed upon language – one where keyword search would be considered as a filter for attorney review, the other where it would be considered as a replacement for review.  His advice to producing parties: “In effect, requesting parties regard an agreement to use queries as an agreement to treat those queries as requests for production. Producing parties who reject this thinking would nevertheless be wise to plan for opponents (and judges) who embrace it.”

It’s a terrific article and I don’t want to steal all his thunder, so click here to check it out.

BTW, Craig is no stranger to this blog – in addition to several of his articles we’ve referenced, we’ve also conducted thought leader interviews with him at LegalTech New York the past three years.  Here’s a link if you want to check those out.

So, what do you think?  Do you negotiate search terms with opposing counsel?  If so, do you use the terms as a filter or a proxy for attorney review?  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.