Close
Enter your
text here

Production

EEOC Sanctioned for Failing to Comply with Motion to Compel Production – eDiscovery Case Law

As noted previously in this blog, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was ordered to turn over social media information related to a class action case alleging sexual harassment and retaliation.  Apparently, they were less than cooperative in complying with that order.

In EEOC v. Original Honeybaked Ham Co. of Georgia, 11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH, 2012 U.S. Dist. (D. Colo. Feb. 27, 2013), Colorado Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty sanctioned the EEOC for failing to provide discovery of social media content.

This has been a busy case with at least eight court rulings in 2013 alone, including ruling where Judge Hegarty barred the EEOC from asserting claims not specifically identified during pre-suit litigation and prohibited the EEOC from seeking relief on behalf of individuals who the defendant could not reasonably identify from the information provided by the EEOC.

In this ruling, Judge Hegarty stated: “I agree that the EEOC has, on several occasions, caused unnecessary expense and delay in this case. In certain respects, the EEOC has been negligent in its discovery obligations, dilatory in cooperating with defense counsel, and somewhat cavalier in its responsibility to the United States District Court.”

Elaborating, Judge Hegarty stated, as follows:

“The offending conduct has been demonstrated in several aspects of the EEOC’s discovery obligations. These include, without limitation, the following. First, the circumstances surrounding the EEOC’s representations to this Court concerning its decision to use its own information technology personnel to engage in forensic discovery of the Claimants’ social media (cell phones for texting, web sites for blogging, computers for emailing), for which I had originally appointed a special master. The EEOC unequivocally requested this change, which I made an Order of the Court on November 14, 2012 (docket #248). Weeks later, the EEOC reneged on this representation, requiring the Court and the Defendant to go back to the drawing board. Second, in a similar vein, the EEOC changed its position — again ostensibly because some supervisor(s) did not agree with the decisions that the line attorneys had made — after lengthy negotiation and agreement with Defendant concerning the contents of a questionnaire to be given to the Claimants in this case, designed to assist in identifying the social media that would be forensically examined. The EEOC’s change of mind in midstream (and sometimes well downstream) has required the Defendant to pay its attorneys more than should have been required and has multiplied and delayed these proceedings unnecessarily.”

Stating that he had “for some time, believed that the EEOC’s conduct was causing the Defendant to spend more money in this lawsuit than necessary”, Judge Hegarty granted (in part) the defendants’ Motion for Sanctions and required the EEOC to “pay the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs expended in bringing this Motion”.  Perhaps more to come.

So, what do you think?  Was the sanction sufficient?  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 Production Must be TIFFs with Bates Numbers – eDiscovery Case Law

In Branhaven, LLC v. Beeftek, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist., (D. Md. Jan. 4, 2013), Maryland Magistrate Judge Susan K. Gauvey sanctioned plaintiff’s attorneys for wrongfully certifying the completeness of their eDiscovery production and also ruled that defendants “demonstrated that without Bates stamping and .tiff format”, the plaintiff’s production “was not reasonably usable and therefore was insufficient under Rule 34”.

In this trademark infringement suit, the defendants alleged numerous instances of “discovery abuses intended to harass defendants, cause unnecessary delay, and needlessly increase the cost of litigation” by the plaintiff, resulting in $51,122 in legal fees and expenses related to the plaintiff’s “document dump” of 112,000 pages of electronically stored information (ESI).  The Plaintiffs produced their ESI in PDF format, which was challenged by the defendants, because the production was untimely and not in TIFF format with Bates Numbers on every page.

While noting that the court did not “want to micromanage discovery between counsel”, Judge Gauvey stated however that “neither does this judge want to endorse this ‘hands off’ approach in working with clients to meet discovery obligations and this casual and even reckless attitude of plaintiff’s counsel to opposing party’s right to timely and orderly discovery.”

With regard to the PDF production, Judge Gauvey referred to the plaintiff’s contention that “the Protocol for Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (Local Rules of District of Maryland) which states that TIFF is the preferred format is only advisory” as a “weak defense”.

Judge Gauvey also noted “as defendants point out, Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(ii) provides two options regarding the form in which a party may produce documents and plaintiff did not satisfy either. The July 20 production was not in a form ‘in which it is ordinarily maintained’ or in ‘a reasonably usable form’…The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 34 warn that: ‘[a] party that responds to a discovery request by simply producing electronically stored information in a form of its choice, without identifying that form in advance of the production in the response required by Rule 34(b) runs the risk that the requesting party can show that the produced form is not reasonably usable’…That is precisely what happened here…Defendant was blindsided by the volume of the documents (since the prior productions consisted of 388 pages). Moreover, defendants had every reason to think that the documents would be completely Bates-stamped, as prior productions were and further defendants had no reason to think that this production would be so incredibly voluminous, as to require special arrangements and explicit agreement.”

Judge Gauvey ordered the defendant to submit a bill of costs by January 15 for the technical fees they incurred to process the flawed production (which they did, for $2,200). The plaintiff also agreed to pay an undisclosed sum in attorneys’ fees related to the sanctions motion.

On the surface, the ruling that “without Bates stamping and .tiff format, the data was not reasonably usable and therefore was insufficient under Rule 34” appears to take a step backward with regard to production format expectations.  However, the ruling also notes that the production “was not in a form ‘in which it is ordinarily maintained’” and the plaintiff’s previous PDF productions (apparently Bates stamped) and the defendant’s productions in PDF format (also presumably Bates stamped) were allowed.  Perhaps, if the plaintiff had produced the files in native format instead of a poorly executed PDF format production, the ruling would have been different?

So, what do you think?  Does this ruling appear to be a setback for native productions?  Or merely reflection of a poorly executed PDF format production?  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.

Craig Ball of Craig D. Ball, P.C. – eDiscovery Trends, Part 3

This is the tenth (and final) of the 2013 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends?
  2. If last year’s “next big thing” was the emergence of predictive coding, what do you feel is this year’s “next big thing”?
  3. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Craig Ball.  A frequent court appointed special master in electronic evidence, Craig is a prolific contributor to continuing legal and professional education programs throughout the United States, having delivered over 1,000 presentations and papers.  Craig’s articles on forensic technology and electronic discovery frequently appear in the national media, and he writes a monthly column on computer forensics and eDiscovery for Law Technology News called Ball in your Court, as well as blogs on those topics at ballinyourcourt.com.

Craig was very generous with his time again this year and our interview with Craig had so much good information in it, we couldn’t fit it all into a single post.  Wednesday was part 1 and yesterday was part 2.  Today is the third and last part.  A three-parter!

Note: I asked Craig the questions in a different order and, since the show had not started yet when I interviewed him, instead asked about the sessions in which he was speaking.

What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

I’m really trying to make 2013 the year of distilling an extensive but idiosyncratic body of work that I’ve amassed through years of writing and bring it together into a more coherent curriculum.  I want to develop a no-cost casebook for law students and to structure my work so that it can be more useful for people in different places and phases of their eDiscovery education.  So, I’ll be working on that in the first six or eight months of 2013 as both an academic and a personal project.

I’m also trying to go back to roots and rethink some of the assumptions that I’ve made about what people understand.  It’s frustrating to find that lawyers talking about, say, load files when they don’t really know what a load file is, they’ve never looked at a load file.  They’ve left it to somebody else and, so, the resolution of difficulties has gone through so many hands and is plagued by so much miscommunication.   I’d like to put some things out there that will enable lawyers in a non-threatening and accessible way to gain comfort in having a dialog about the fundamentals of eDiscovery that you and I take for granted.  So, that we don’t have to have this reliance upon vendors for the simplest issues.  I don’t mean that vendors won’t do the work, but I don’t think we should have to bring a technical translator in for every phone call.

There should be a corpus of competence that every litigator brings to the party, enabling them to frame basic protocols and agreements that aren’t merely parroting something that they don’t understand, but enabling them to negotiate about issues in ways that the resolutions actually make sense.  Saying “I won’t give you 500 search terms, but I’ll give you 250” isn’t a rational resolution.  It’s arbitrary.

There are other kinds of cases that you can identify search terms “all the live long day” and they’re really never going to get you that much closer to the documents you want.  The best example in recent years was the Pippins v. KPMG case.  KPMG was arguing that they could use search terms against samples to identify forensically significant information about work day and work responsibility.  That didn’t make any sense to me at all.  The kinds of data they were looking for wasn’t going to be easily found by using keyword search.  It was going to require finding data of a certain character and bringing a certain kind of analysis to it, not an objective culling method like search terms.  Search terms have become like the expression “if you have a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail”.  We need to get away from that.

I think a little education made palatable will go a long way.  We need some good solid education and I’m trying to come up with something that people will borrow and build on.  I want it to be something that’s good enough that people will say “let’s just steal his stuff”.  That’s why I put it out there – it’s nice that they credit me and I appreciate it; but if what you really want to do is teach people, you don’t do it for the credit, you do it for the education.  That’s what I’m about, more this year than ever before.

Thanks, Craig, for participating in the interview!

And to the readers, as always, 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.

Craig Ball of Craig D. Ball, P.C. – eDiscovery Trends, Part 2

This is the tenth (and final) of the 2013 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends?
  2. If last year’s “next big thing” was the emergence of predictive coding, what do you feel is this year’s “next big thing”?
  3. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Craig Ball.  A frequent court appointed special master in electronic evidence, Craig is a prolific contributor to continuing legal and professional education programs throughout the United States, having delivered over 1,000 presentations and papers.  Craig’s articles on forensic technology and electronic discovery frequently appear in the national media, and he writes a monthly column on computer forensics and eDiscovery for Law Technology News called Ball in your Court, as well as blogs on those topics at ballinyourcourt.com.

Craig was very generous with his time again this year and our interview with Craig had so much good information in it, we couldn’t fit it all into a single post.  Yesterday was part 1.  Today is part 2 and part 3 will be published in the blog on Friday.  A three-parter!

Note: I asked Craig the questions in a different order and, since the show had not started yet when I interviewed him, instead asked about the sessions in which he was speaking.

I noticed that you are speaking at a couple of sessions here.  What would you like to tell me about those sessions?

{Interviewed the evening before the show}  I am on a Technology Assisted Review panel with Maura Grossman and Ralph Losey that should be as close to a barrel of laughs as one can have talking about technology assisted review.  It is based on a poker theme – which was actually Matt Nelson’s (of Symantec) idea.  I think it is a nice analogy, because a good poker player is a master or mistress of probabilities, whether intuitively or overtly performing mental arithmetic that are essentially statistical and probability calculations.  Such calculations are key to quality assurance and quality control in modern review.

We have to be cautious not to require the standards for electronic assessments to be dramatically higher than the standards applied to human assessments.  It is one thing with a new technology to demand more of it to build trust.  That’s a pragmatic imperative.  It is another thing to demand so exalted a level of scrutiny that you essentially void all advantages of the new technology, including the cost savings and efficiencies it brings.  You know the old story about the two hikers that encounter the angry grizzly bear?  They freeze, and then one guy pulls out running shoes and starts changing into them.  His friend says “What are you doing? You can’t outrun a grizzly bear!” The other guy says “I know.  I only have to outrun you”.  That is how I look at technology assisted review.  It does not have to be vastly superior to human review; it only has to outrun human review.  It just has to be as good or better while being faster and cheaper.

We cannot let the vague uneasiness about the technology cause it to implode.  If we have to essentially examine everything in the discard pile, so that we not only pay for the new technology but also back it up with the old.  That’s not going to work.  It will take a few pioneers who get the “arrows in the back” early on—people who spend more to build trust around the technology that is missing at this juncture.  Eventually, people are going to say “I’ve looked at the discard pile for the last three cases and this stuff works.  I don’t need to look at all of that any more.

Even the best predictive coding systems are not going to be anywhere near 100% accurate.  They start from human judgment where we’re not even sure what “100% accurate” is, in the context of responsiveness and relevance.  There’s no “gold standard”.  Two different qualified people can look at the same document and give a different assessment and approximately 40% of the time, they do.  And, the way we decide who’s right is that we bring in a third person.  We indulge the idea that the third person is the “topic authority” and what they say goes.  We define their judgment as right; but, even their judgments are human.  To err being human, they’re going to make misjudgments based on assumptions, fatigue, inattention, whatever.

So, getting back to the topic at hand, I do think that the focus on quality assurance is going to prompt a larger and long overdue discussion about the efficacy of human review.  We’ve kept human review in this mystical world of work product for a very long time.  Honestly, the rationale for work product doesn’t naturally extend over to decisions about responsiveness and relevance.  Even though, most of my colleagues would disagree with me out of hand.  They don’t want anybody messing with privilege or work product.  It’s like religion or gun control—you can’t even start a rational debate.

Things are still so partisan and bitter.  The notions of cooperation, collaboration, transparency, translucency, communication – they’re not embedded yet.  People come to these processes with animosity so deeply seated that you’re not really starting on a level playing field with an assessment of what’s best for our system of justice.  Justice is someone else’s problem.  The players just want to win.  That will be tough to change.

We “dinosaurs” will die off, and we won’t have to wait for the glaciers to advance.  I think we will have some meteoric events that will change the speed at which the dinosaurs die.  Technology assisted review is one.  We’ve seen a meteoric rise in the discussion of the topic, the interest in the topic, and I think it will have a meteoric effect in terms of more rapidly extinguishing very bad and very expensive practices that don’t carry with them any more superior assurance of quality.

More from Craig tomorrow!

And to the readers, as always, 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.

 

Craig Ball of Craig D. Ball, P.C. – eDiscovery Trends, Part 1

This is the tenth (and final) of the 2013 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends?
  2. If last year’s “next big thing” was the emergence of predictive coding, what do you feel is this year’s “next big thing”?
  3. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Craig Ball.  A frequent court appointed special master in electronic evidence, Craig is a prolific contributor to continuing legal and professional education programs throughout the United States, having delivered over 1,000 presentations and papers.  Craig’s articles on forensic technology and electronic discovery frequently appear in the national media, and he writes a monthly column on computer forensics and eDiscovery for Law Technology News called Ball in your Court, as well as blogs on those topics at ballinyourcourt.com.

Craig was very generous with his time again this year and our interview with Craig had so much good information in it, we couldn’t fit it all into a single post.  So, today is part 1.  Parts 2 and 3 will be published in the blog on Thursday and Friday.  A three-parter!

Note: I asked Craig the questions in a different order and, since the show had not started yet when I interviewed him, instead asked about the sessions in which he was speaking.

If last year’s “next big thing” was the emergence of predictive coding, what do you feel is this year’s “next big thing”?

I think this is the first year where I do not have a ready answer to that question.  It’s  like the wonderful movie Groundhog Day.  I am on the educational planning board for the show, and as hard as we try to find and present fresh ideas, technology assisted review is once again the dominant topic.

This year, we will see a change of the marketing language repositioning the (forgive the jargon) “value proposition” for the tools being sold continuing to move more towards the concept of information governance.  If knowledge management had a “hook up” here at LTNY with eDiscovery, their offspring would be information governance.  Information governance represents a way to spread the cost of eDiscovery infrastructure among different budgets.  It’s not a made up value proposition.  Security and regulatory people do have a need, and many departments can ultimately benefit from more granular and regimented management of their unstructured and legacy information stores.

I remain something of a skeptic about what has come to be called “defensible deletion.”  Most in-house IT people do not understand that, even after you purchase a single instance de-duplication solution, you’re still going to have as much of 40% “bloat” in your collection of data between local stores, embedded and encoded attachments, etc.  So, there are marked efficiencies we can achieve by implementing sensible de-duplication and indexing mechanisms that are effective, ongoing and systemic. Consider enterprise indexing models that basically let your organization and its information face an indexing mechanism in much the same way as the internet faces Google.   Almost all of us interact with the internet through Google, and often get the information we are seeking from the Google index or synopsis of the data without actually proceeding to the indexed site.  The index itself becomes the resource, and the document indexed a distinct (and often secondary) source.  We must ask ourselves: “if a document is indexed, does it ever leave our collection?”

I also think eDiscovery education is changing and I am cautiously optimistic.  But, people are getting just enough better information about eDiscovery to be dangerous.  And, they are still hurting themselves by expecting there to be some simple “I don’t really need to know it” rule of thumb that will get them through.  And, that’s an enormous problem.  You can’t cross examine from a script.  Advocates need to understand the answers they get and know how to frame the follow up and the kill.  My cautious optimism respecting education is function of my devoting so much more of my time to education at the law school and professional levels as well as for judicial organizations.  I am seeing a lot more students interested in the material at a deeper level, and my law class that just concluded in December impressed me greatly.   The level of enthusiasm the students brought to the topic and the quality and caliber of their questions were as good as any I get from my colleagues in the day to day practice of eDiscovery.  Not just from lawyers, but also from people like you who are deeply immersed in this topic.

That is not so much a credit to my teaching (although I hope it might be).  The greatest advantage that students have is that they have haven’t yet acquired bad habits and don’t come with preconceived notions about what eDiscovery is supposed to be.  Conversely, many lawyers literally do not want to hear about certain topics–they “glaze” and immediately start looking for a way to say “this cannot be important, I cannot have to know this”.  Law students don’t waste their energy that way. If the professor says “you need to know this”, then they make it their mission to learn.  Yesterday, I had a conversation with a student where she said “I really wish we could have learned more about search strategies and more ways to apply sophisticated tools hands on”.  That’s exactly what I wish lawyers would say.

I wish lawyers were clamoring to better understand things like search or de-duplication or the advantages of one form of production over another.  Sometimes, I feel like I am alone in my assessment that these are crucial issues. If I am the only one thinking that settling on forms of productions early and embracing native forms of production is crucial to quality, what is wrong with me?

I am still surprised at how many people TIFF most of their collection or production.

They have no clue how really bad that is, not just in terms in cost but also in terms of efficiency.  I am hoping the dialogue about TAR will bring us closer to a serious discussion about quality in eDiscovery.  We never had much of a dialogue about the quality of human review or the quality of paper production.  Either we didn’t have the need, or, more likely we were so immersed in what we were doing we did not have the language to even begin the conversation.

I wrote in a blog post recently about an experiment discussed in my college Introductory Psychology course where this cool experiment involved raising kittens such that they could only see for a few hours a day in an environment composed entirely horizontals or verticals.  Apparently, if you are raised from birth only seeing verticals, you do not learn to see horizontals, and vice-versa.  So, if I raise a kitten among the horizontals and take a black rod and put it in front of them, they see it when it is horizontal.  But, if I orient it vertically, it disappears in their brain.  That is kind of how we are with lawyers and eDiscovery.

There are just some topics that you and I and our colleagues see the importance of, but lawyers have been literally raised without the ability to see why those things matter.  They see what has long been presented to them in, say, Summation or Concordance, as an assemblage of lousy load files and error ridden OCR and colorless images stripped of embedded commentary.  They see this information so frequently and so exclusively that they think that’s the document and, since they only have paper document frames of reference (which aren’t really that much better than TIFFs), they think this must be what electronic evidence looks like.  They can’t see the invisible plane they’ve been bred to overlook.

You can look at a stone axe and appreciate the merits of a bronze axe – if all that you’re comparing it to are prehistoric tools, a bronze axe looks pretty good.  But, today we have chainsaws. I want lawyers demanding chainsaws to deal with electronic information and to throw away those incredibly expensive stone axes; but, unfortunately, they make more money using stone axes.  But, not for long.  I am seeing the “house of cards” start to shake and the house of cards I am talking about is the $100 to $300 (or more) per gigabyte pricing for eDiscovery.  I think that model is not only going to be short lived, but will soon be seen as negligence in the lawyers who go that route and as exploitive gouging by service providers, like selling a bottle of water for $10 after Hurricane Sandy.  There is a point at which price gouging will be called out.  We can’t get there fast enough.

More from Craig tomorrow!

And to the readers, as always, 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.

 

Stored Communications Act Limits Production of Google Emails – eDiscovery Case Law

In Optiver Australia Pty. Ltd. & Anor. v. Tibra Trading Pty. Ltd. & Ors. (N.D.Cal., January 23, 2013), California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal granted much of the defendant’s motion to quash subpoena of Google for electronic communications sent or received by certain Gmail accounts allegedly used by employees of the defendant because most of the request violated the terms of the Stored Communications Act.

The plaintiff alleged that several of its former employees copied the plaintiff’s proprietary source code, left the plaintiff company, and used the code to found the defendant in 2006.  After receiving a production from the defendant, the plaintiff “suspected that key emails relating to the allegedly stolen code were previously deleted”; as a result, the Federal Court of Australia ordered further discovery.  The defendant filed an ex parte application for judicial assistance pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to serve a subpoena upon Google for documents to be used in the foreign proceeding, which was granted.

The plaintiff submitted two requests to Google, as follows:

  • “Request One: Documents sufficient to identify the recipient(s), sender, subject, date sent, date received, date read, and date deleted of emails, email attachments, or Google Talk messages that contain either of the terms ‘PGP’ or ‘Optiver’ (case insensitive) sent or received between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2007” for selected email addresses; and
  • “Request Two: Documents sufficient to show the recipient(s), sender, subject, date sent, date received, date read, and date deleted of emails, email attachments, or Google Talk messages sent or received between November 3, 2005 to December 31, 2009 that were sent to or from” selected email addresses.

The defendant moved to quash the subpoena.

Judge Grewal noted that “it is well-established that civil subpoenas, including those issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, are subject to the prohibitions of the Stored Communications Act (‘SCA)”, which was passed in 1986.  The SCA prohibits service providers from knowingly disclosing the contents of a user’s electronic communications.

Judge Grewal ruled that the plaintiff’s “Request One is invalid because it seeks disclosure of the terms ‘Optiver’ and ‘PGP’” and granted the defendant’s motion to quash that request.  As for Request Two, Judge Grewal ruled that it “violates the SCA insofar as it seeks the subject of the communications, but the remainder is permissible.”  Therefore, he ruled that Google was required to provide only the following: “Documents sufficient to show the recipient(s), sender, date sent, date received, date read, and date deleted of emails, email attachments, or Google Talk messages sent or received between November 3, 2005 to December 31, 2009 that were sent to or from the email addresses listed”.

So, what do you think?  Was the correct information excluded due to the SCA?  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.

Waste Management Wants to Throw Away the Metadata – eDiscovery Case Law

In the case In Re: Waste Management of Texas, Inc., No. 06-12-00097-CV (Tex: Court of Appeals, Sixth Dist., Jan. 18, 2013), a Texas appeals court refused to grant Waste Management’s petition for writ of mandamus asks us to direct the trial court to withdraw its order to produce native, electronic format with all metadata.

This antitrust case between competing sanitation companies in Texas has had a lengthy discovery phase.  As noted in the opinion issued by Chief Justice Josh R. Morriss, III:

“In late 2009—in response to an order that compelled the production of various internal business records but reserved for a later decision the question of whether the production must include metadata—Waste Management produced responsive records in the format of its choice, Adobe portable document format an explicit exception in the order, the 2009 production excluded the records’ metadata. In September 2012, the trial court ordered Waste Management to produce similar information, but this time in its native, electronic format with all metadata.”

As a result, Waste Management petitioned for a writ of mandamus asking the 6th District Court of Appeals of Texas to direct the trial court to withdraw its order, claiming that :

  • “the 2012 discovery order requires disclosure of ‘trade secrets and proprietary, confidential information, to a direct competitor.’”;
  • “the order requires production of data outside the relevant geographic area and is thus an overbroad ‘fishing expedition.’”;
  • “(a) that the order is a ‘do over’ that requires Waste Management to review and redact the data a second time, (b) that it requires the production of metadata after metadata was relinquished earlier, (c) that it insufficiently specifies the form in which the data is to be produced, (d) that production in native format makes redaction impossible, and (e) that producing metadata in native format is more costly.”;
  • “the order contradicts an agreed scheduling order entered ten weeks before…to provide data for a time period of only September 1, 2005, through October 31, 2010”; and
  • the opposing party “should be responsible for the costs because a ‘do-over’ is an “extraordinary step”.

The court found that Waste Management “failed to introduce any such evidence” that the discovery order will disclose trade secrets and rejected their various claims, including undue burden claims.  With regard to the claim that the order is a ‘do-over’ and that the opposing party had not previously requested metadata, the court noted previous requests that contained the following instruction “Any and all data or information which is in electronic or magnetic form should be produced in a reasonable manner”.  Citing FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b) which requires “a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably useable form or forms”, the court stated “We conclude Bray’s original instruction that the electronic discovery must be produced in a ‘reasonable manner is the functional equivalent of the Federal ‘reasonably useable form or forms.’”.

So, what do you think?  Was it appropriate to require production of metadata?  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.

Another Social Media Request Denied as a “Carte Blanche” Request – eDiscovery Case Law

After last week’s recap of 2012 cases, it’s time to start discussing cases in 2013!

In Keller v. National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co., No. CV 12-72-M-DLC-JCL, (Dist. Court, D. Montana Jan. 2, 2013), the defendants filed a motion to compel the plaintiff’s to respond to various discovery requests.  While Magistrate Judge Jeremiah Lynch granted their request to compel the plaintiffs to produce medical records, he denied the defendant’s request “to delve carte blanche into the nonpublic sections of Plaintiffs’ social networking accounts”.

In this breach of contract case claiming damages in the form of unpaid medical expenses and $100,000 in uninsured motorist benefits against the defendant who insured the plaintiff under an automobile liability policy after an automobile accident, the defendant filed a motion to compel the plaintiffs to respond to various discovery requests.  As part of the motion to compel, the defendants requested “any and all records, reports or other documentation for each physician or other health care provider with whom Plaintiff Jennifer Keller has treated or consulted for the period beginning January 1, 2000 up to August 26, 2008”.  The defendants also requested “a full printout of all of [each of the plaintiff’s] social media website pages and all photographs posted thereon including, but not limited to, Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, LinkedIn, LiveJournal, Tagged, Meetup, myLife, Instagram and MeetMe from August 26, 2008 to the present”.

Noting that “Plaintiffs have not shown or argued that producing those records would be unduly burdensome, or that National Farmers Union propounded the discovery request for purposes of harassment”, Judge Lynch granted the motion to compel with regard to the medical records.  However, with regard to the request for social media web pages, while noting that the “content of social networking sites is not protected from discovery merely because a party deems the content ‘private’”, Judge Lynch referenced Tompkins v. Detroit Metropolitan Airport and noted a requirement for a “threshold showing that the requested information is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence”.  In this case, Judge Lynch ruled that the defendant “has not made the requisite threshold showing”, stating that the defendant “is not entitled to delve carte blanche into the nonpublic sections of Plaintiffs’ social networking accounts”.

Therefore, while granting the defendant’s request that the “Plaintiffs must provide a list of all the social networking sites to which they belong”, the remainder of the defendant’s request for social media information was denied, subject to their “right to renew the motion in the event it can make the threshold showing of relevance discussed above”.

So, what do you think?  Should the request have been granted?  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.

2012 eDiscovery Year in Review: eDiscovery Case Law, Part 4

As we noted the past three days, eDiscoveryDaily published 98 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 62 unique cases!  Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to admissibility and the duty to preserve and produce electronically stored information (ESI).  Today, let’s take a look back at cases related to sanctions and spoliation.

We grouped those cases into common subject themes and have reviewed them over the past few posts, ending today.  Perhaps you missed some of these?  Now is your chance to catch up!

SPOLIATION / SANCTIONS

All hail the returning champion!  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 62 cases we covered this past year, almost a third of them (20 total cases) related to sanctions and spoliation issues.  We found them in a variety of sources, even The Hollywood Reporter!  Here they are.  And, as you’ll see by the first case (and a few others), sanctions requested are not always granted – at least not yet.

Sanctions for Violating Motion to Compel Production? Not Yet.  In Fidelity National Title Insurance Co. v. Captiva Lake Investments, LLC, where a party’s “conduct [did not] rise[ ] to the level of a willful violation of the order compelling production” because it was continually working toward the proper production of documents requested by its adversary, a court concluded that the adversary’s motion for sanctions was premature.

“Rap Weasel” Forced to Honor $1 Million Reward Offered via YouTube.  It isn’t every day that eDiscoveryDaily has reason to reference The Hollywood Reporter in a story about eDiscovery case law, but even celebrities have eDiscovery preservation obligations during litigation. In Augstein v. Leslie, New York District Judge Harold Baer imposed an adverse inference sanction against hip hop and R&B artist Ryan Leslie for “negligent destruction” of a hard drive returned to him by the plaintiff after a $1 million reward was offered via YouTube. On November 28, a jury ordered him to pay the $1 million reward to the plaintiff.

Plaintiff Hammered with Case Dismissal for “Egregious” Discovery Violations.  Apparently, destroying your first computer with a sledgehammer and using Evidence Eliminator and CCleaner on your second computer (when you have a duty to preserve both) are not considered to be best practices for preservation. Who knew? 😉

Rambus’ “Shred Days” Result in Sanctions Yet Again.  In Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., California District Judge Ronald Whyte used his discretion to fashion an appropriate fact-specific sanctions award after it found a party willfully destroyed evidence despite reasonably foreseeable litigation, it destroyed such evidence in bad faith, and the opposing party suffered prejudice.

Defendant Ordered to Retain Outside Vendor, Monetary Sanction Awarded.  In Carrillo v. Schneider Logistics, Inc., California Magistrate Judge David Bristow ordered the defendant to “retain, at its expense, an outside vendor, to be jointly selected by the parties, to collect electronically stored information and email correspondence”. The defendant was ordered to produce all surveillance videotapes responsive to plaintiffs’ discovery requests and monetary sanctions were awarded for plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs incurred as a result of the defendant’s discovery violations.

Government Document Productions Can Be Like Water Torture.  In Botell v. United States, Magistrate Judge Gregory Hollows noted that the US Government’s “document production performance in these proceedings has been akin to a drop-by-drop water torture” and ordered a preclusion order prohibiting the US Government “from presenting evidence in its case that had been requested by plaintiffs in the Requests for Production, but which has not been produced” as of the date of the order. The US was also still required to produce the documents, whether they planned to use them or not. Judge Hollows also noted that the “Plaintiff has not waived any motion to seek further sanctions regarding non-production of documents, or spoliation of documents.”

Defendant Appeals Sanctions, Only to See Sanction Amount Raised on Appeal.  In Multifeeder Tech. Inc. v. British Confectionery Co. Ltd., the defendant had been previously sanctioned $500,000 ($475,000 to the plaintiff and $25,000 to the court) and held in contempt of court by the magistrate judge for spoliation, who also recommended an adverse inference instruction be issued at trial. The defendant appealed to the district court, where Minnesota District Judge John Tunheim increased the award to the plaintiff to $600,000. Oops!

eDiscovery Sanctions Can Happen in Police Brutality Cases Too.  As reported in the Seattle Times, Pierce County (Washington) Superior Court Judge Stephanie Arend issued a $300,000 sanction against King County for failure to produce key documents illustrating the previous troubling behavior of a sheriff deputy who tackled Christopher Sean Harris and left him permanently brain-damaged. Judge Arend also indicated that the county would be liable for attorneys’ fees and possibly compensatory damages for the Harris family. This after King County had settled with the Harris family for $10 million in January 2011 during a civil trial in King County Superior Court.

When is a Billion Dollars Not Enough?  When it’s Apple v. Samsung, of course! According to the Huffington Post, Apple Inc. requested a court order for a permanent U.S. sales ban on Samsung Electronics products found to have violated its patents along with additional damages of $707 million on top of the $1.05 billion dollar verdict won by Apple last month, already one of the largest intellectual-property awards on record.

No Sanctions For Spoliation With No Bad Faith.  In Sherman v. Rinchem Co., the plaintiff in a defamation case against his former employer appealed the district court’s denial of both his summary judgment motion and request for an adverse inference jury instruction. The district court had decided the case under Minnesota law, which “provides that ‘even when a breach of the duty to preserve evidence is not done in bad faith, the district court must attempt to remedy any prejudice that occurs as a result of the destruction of the evidence.’” In contrast, as the Eighth Circuit pointed out, in this case where the parties had diversity, and a question remained as to whether state or federal spoliation laws were applicable, federal law requires “a finding of intentional destruction indicating a desire to suppress the truth” in order to impose sanctions.

Pension Committee Precedent Takes One on the Chin.  In Chin v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it was within a district court’s discretion not to impose sanctions against a party for its failure to institute a litigation hold.

More Sanctions for Fry’s Electronics.  In E.E.O.C. v Fry’s Electronics, Inc., Washington District Judge Robert S. Lasnik ordered several sanctions against the defendant in this sexual harassment case (including ordering the defendant to pay $100,000 in monetary sanctions and ordering that certain evidence be considered presumptively admissible at trial), but stopped short of entering a default judgment against the defendant. This ruling came after having previously ordered sanctions against the defendant less than two months earlier.

No Sanctions When You Can’t Prove Evidence Was Destroyed.  In Omogbehin v. Cino, the plaintiff claimed that the District Court erred in denying his motion for spoliation sanctions and appealed to the US Third Circuit Court of Appeals, but lost as the appellate court upheld the rulings by the district judge and magistrate judge.

“Naked” Assertions of Spoliation Are Not Enough to Grant Spoliation Claims.  In Grabenstein v. Arrow Electronics, Inc., Colorado Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix denied the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, finding that their claims of spoliation were based on “naked” assertions that relevant eMails must exist even though the plaintiff could not demonstrate that such other eMails do or did exist. The motion was also denied because the plaintiff could not establish when the defendant had deleted certain eMail messages, thereby failing to prove claims that the defendant violated its duty to preserve electronic evidence. Judge Mix noted that sanctions are not justified when documents are destroyed in good faith pursuant to a reasonable records-retention policy, if that’s prior to the duty to preserve such documents.

Spoliation of Data Can Lead to Your Case Being Dismissed.  In In 915 Broadway Associates LLC v. Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP, the New York Supreme Court imposed the severest of sanctions against the plaintiffs for spoliation of evidence – dismissal of their $20 million case.

Better Late Than Never? Not With Discovery.  In Techsavies, LLC v. WFDA Mktg., Inc., Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman of the United States District Court for the District of Northern California sanctioned the defendant for repeated failures to produce responsive documents in a timely manner because of their failure to identify relevant data sources in preparing its initial disclosures.

The Zubulake Rules of Civil Procedure.  As noted in Law Technology News, the New York Appellate Division has embraced the federal standards of Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, in two case rulings within a month’s time, one of which resulted in sanctions against one of the parties for spoliation of data.

eDiscovery Violations Leave Delta Holding the Bag.  In the case In re Delta/AirTran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litig., U.S. District Judge Timothy Batten ordered Delta to pay plaintiff attorney’s fees and costs for eDiscovery issues in consolidated antitrust cases claiming Delta and AirTran Holdings, Inc. conspired to charge customers $15 to check their first bag. Noting that there was a “huge hole” in Delta’s eDiscovery process, Judge Batten reopened discovery based on defendants’ untimely production of records and indications that there was overwriting of backup tapes, inconsistencies in deposition testimony and documents, and neglect in searching and producing documents from hard drives.

Burn Your Computer and the Court Will Burn You.  In Evans v. Mobile Cnty. Health Dept., Alabama Magistrate Judge William Cassady granted a motion for sanctions, including an adverse inference instruction, where the plaintiff had burned and destroyed her computer that she used during the time she claimed she was harassed.

Appeals Court Decides Spoliation Finding For Not Producing Originals is Bull.  In Bull v. UPS Inc., the Third Circuit court conceded that “producing copies in instances where the originals have been requested may constitute spoliation if it would prevent discovering critical information”. However, it found that in this case, the District Court erred in finding that spoliation had occurred and in imposing a sanction of dismissal with prejudice.

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.

2012 eDiscovery Year in Review: eDiscovery Case Law, Part 3

As we noted the past two days, eDiscoveryDaily published 98 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 62 unique cases!  Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to social media and the first cases approving technology assisted review.  Today, let’s take a look back at cases related to admissibility and the duty to preserve and produce electronically stored information (ESI).

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!

ADMISSIBILITY AND DUTY TO PRESERVE AND PRODUCE

Admissibility of ESI, and the duty to preserve and produce it, is more at issue than ever.  Whether the issue is whether certain emails should be considered privileged, whether cloning of computer files is acceptable or whether text messages require substantiation of authorship, parties are disputing what ESI should actually be admissible in litigation.  Parties are also disputing when and where litigation holds are required and whether collection and search practices are acceptable.  In short, there are numerous disputes about data being produced and not being produced.  Here are (a whopping) sixteen cases related to admissibility and the duty to preserve and produce ESI:

Emails Between Husband and Wife Are Not Privileged, If Sent from Work Computer.  In United States v. Hamilton, the Fourth Circuit found that the district court had not abused its discretion in finding that e-mails between the defendant and his wife did not merit marital privilege protection because the defendant had used his office computer and his work e-mail account to send and receive the communications and because he had not taken steps to protect the e-mails in question, even after his employer instituted a policy permitting inspection of e-mails and he was on notice of the policy.

Defendant Had Duty to Preserve Despite No Physical Possession of Documents.  In Haskins v. First American Title Insurance Co., a court found that an insurance company had a duty to issue a litigation hold to its independent title agents because litigation was reasonably foreseeable and the duty to preserve extends to third parties, as long as the documents are “within a party’s possession, custody, or control.” Although it did not have physical possession, the insurance company controlled the agents’ documents because it had “‘the legal right or ability to obtain the documents from [the agents] upon demand.’”

Defendant Compelled to Produce Additional Discovery to Plaintiff.  In Freeman v. Dal-Tile Corp., a case alleging harassment and discrimination, among other claims, against her former employer Dal-Tile Corporation, the plaintiff brought a motion to compel, asserting that some of the defendant’s discovery responses related to its search for ESI were deficient.

Defendant Claiming Not Reasonably Accessible Data Has Some ‘Splaining To Do.  In Murray v. Coleman, the plaintiff alleged harassment and retaliation in connection with his employment with the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS). This discovery dispute arose when the plaintiff requested access to certain electronic records, alleging that the defendants withheld them.

Cloning of Computer Files: When There’s a Will, There’s a Way.  In Matter of Tilimbo, a court held it was permissible to order cloning of computer files where doing so did not place an unreasonable burden on a nonparty, appropriate steps were taken to protect any privileged information, and the nonparty had not previously produced the requested information in hard copy.

Citing Rule 26(g), Court Orders Plaintiff’s Counsel to Disclose Search Strategy.  Our 501st post on the blog addresses S2 Automation LLC v. Micron Technology, where New Mexico District Judge James Browning ordered the plaintiff’s attorneys to disclose the search strategy their client used to identify responsive documents, based on Federal Rule 26(g) that requires attorneys to sign discovery responses and certify that they are “complete and correct.”

Judge Scheindlin Says “No” to Self-Collection, “Yes” to Predictive Coding.  When most people think of the horrors of Friday the 13th, they think of Jason Voorhees. When US Immigration and Customs thinks of Friday the 13th horrors, do they think of Judge Shira Scheindlin?  New York District Judge Scheindlin issued a decision on Friday, July 13, addressing the adequacy of searching and self-collection by government entity custodians in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

Plaintiff Compelled to Produce Mirror Image of Drives Despite Defendant’s Initial Failure to Request Metadata.  In Commercial Law Corp., P.C. v. FDIC, Michigan District Judge Sean F. Cox ruled that a party can be compelled to produce a mirror image of its computer drives using a neutral third-party expert where metadata is relevant and the circumstances dictate it, even though the requesting party initially failed to request that metadata and specify the format of documents in its first discovery request.

Court Allows Third Party Discovery Because Defendant is an “Unreliable Source”.  Repeatedly referring to the defendant’s unreliability and untrustworthiness in discovery and “desire to suppress the truth,” Nebraska Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart found, in Peter Kiewit Sons’, Inc. v. Wall Street Equity Group, Inc., that the defendant avoided responding substantively to the plaintiff’s discovery requests through a pattern of destruction and misrepresentation and therefore monetary sanctions and an adverse jury instruction at trial were appropriate.

Inadmissibility of Text Messages Being Appealed.  In October 2011, we covered a case – Commonwealth v. Koch – where a Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled text messages inadmissible, declaring that parties seeking to introduce electronic materials, such as cell phone text messages and email, must be prepared to substantiate their claim of authorship with “circumstantial evidence” that corroborates the sender’s identity. That case, where Amy N. Koch was originally convicted at trial on drug charges (partially due to text messages found on her cell phone), is now being appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Another Case with Inadmissible Text Messages.  Above, we discussed a case where a Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled text messages inadmissible, declaring that parties seeking to introduce electronic materials, such as cell phone text messages and email, must be prepared to substantiate their claim of authorship with “circumstantial evidence” that corroborates the sender’s identity. That case is now being appealed to the state Supreme Court. Today, we have another case – Rodriguez v. Nevada – where text messages were ruled inadmissible.

Court Grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Mirror-Imaging of Defendant’s Computers.  In approving a motion for expedited discovery in United Factory Furniture Corp. v. Alterwitz, Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach granted the plaintiff’s motion for a mirror-imaging order after determining the benefit outweighed the burden of the discovery, and it denied as unnecessary the plaintiff’s motion for an order to preserve evidence and a preliminary injunction from spoliation of evidence.

Court Orders eDiscovery Evidentiary Hearing When Parties Are Unable to Cooperate.  A month ago, in Chura v. Delmar Gardens of Lenexa, Inc., Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse ordered an evidentiary hearing to discuss the sufficiency of the defendant’s search for ESI and format of production in response to the plaintiff’s motion to compel additional searching and production.

At The Eleventh Hour, Encrypted Hard Drive Is Decrypted.  In our previous post regarding the case U.S. v. Fricosu, Colorado district judge Robert Blackburn ruled that Ramona Fricosu must produce an unencrypted version of her Toshiba laptop’s hard drive to prosecutors in a mortgage fraud case for police inspection. Naturally, the defendant appealed. On February 21st, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to get involved, saying Ramona Fricosu’s case must first be resolved in District Court before her attorney can appeal. She would have been required to turn over the unencrypted contents of the drive as of March 1. However, at the last minute, Colorado federal authorities decrypted the laptop.

Court Rules Exact Search Terms Are Limited.  In Custom Hardware Eng’g & Consulting v. Dowell, the plaintiff and defendant could not agree on search terms to be used for discovery on defendant’s forensically imaged computers. After reviewing proposed search terms from both sides, and the defendant’s objections to the plaintiff’s proposed list, the court ruled that the defendant’s proposed list was “problematic and inappropriate” and that their objections to the plaintiff’s proposed terms were “without merit” and ruled for use of the plaintiff’s search terms in discovery.

KPMG Loses Another Round to Pippins.  As discussed previously in eDiscovery Daily, KPMG sought a protective order in Pippins v. KPMG LLP to require the preservation of only a random sample of 100 hard drives from among those it had already preserved for this and other litigation or shift the cost of any preservation beyond that requested scope. Lawyers for Pippins won a ruling last November by Magistrate Judge James Cott to use all available drives and Judge Cott encouraged the parties to continue to meet and confer to reach agreement on sampling. However, the parties were unable to agree and KPMG appealed to the District Court. In February, District Court Judge Colleen McMahon upheld the lower court ruling.

Tune in tomorrow for more key cases of 2012 and, once again, the most common theme of the year!

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.