Close
Enter your
text here

Production

eDiscovery Case Law: Counsel, The Inadvertent Disclosure "Buck" Stops With You
 

Here is yet another case of inadvertently disclosed privileged documents.  In Blythe v. Bell, 2012 NCBC 42, North Carolina Business Superior Court Judge James L. Gale denied a motion for an order compelling the return of privileged documents inadvertently disclosed by the defendants, ruling that privilege had been waived on those documents.

In this case, the defendants produced 3.5 million documents on two hard drives which were ultimately determined to contain approximately 1,700 potentially privileged documents (the documents were to or from the outside counsel’s domain, an easy criteria to identify potentially privileged documents).  The defendants contracted with an outside consultant (Computer Ants) to obtain, process, and search their eMails for responsive documents.  For their part, the plaintiffs questioned whether Computer Ants was sufficiently qualified as an expert in electronic discovery to reasonably justify Defendants’ reliance on it to protect against the production of privileged information.  Prior to establishing Computer Ants, the owner (Thomas Scott) had worked as a truck driver, a Bass Pro Shop Security Manager, a respiratory therapist, and a financial auditor for a retail seller.  He had “never provided any forensic computer services in the context of a lawsuit” nor had ever “been engaged as a computer expert or provided an opinion in any legal proceeding”.  Sounds as if the plaintiffs had a legitimate concern.

Judge Gale used a five-factor balancing test previously used in Morris v. Scenera Research, LLC, which considers: “(1) the reasonableness of the precautions taken to prevent inadvertent disclosure; (2) the number of inadvertent disclosures; (3) the extent of the disclosures; (4) any delay in measures taken to rectify the disclosures; and (5) the overriding interests of justice.”

Judge Gale noted that “One federal district court characterizes the need for advance efforts to protect against waiver as “’paramount.’”  However, the defendant produced “the hard drives prepared by Computer Ants without any review or sampling or other quality assurance effort to assess whether the consultant’s efforts had been successful in eliminating privileged communications. Defendants admit that they relied exclusively on ‘this contractor and this procedure’ to filter out documents potentially subject to the attorney-client privilege.”

Since “the multi-factor balancing test applied by the federal courts on this record is controlled by the first factor”, Judge Gale, while noting that the “court takes no pleasure in finding the waiver of attorney-client privilege”, nonetheless had no choice but to do so based on the first factor alone.

So, what do you think?  How do you evaluate your eDiscovery provider to ensure their qualifications?  What precautions do you take to prevent inadvertent disclosure?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Source: JD Supra, via Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard LLP

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 History: Zubulake’s e-Discovery
 

In the 22 months since this blog began, we have published 133 posts related to eDiscovery case law.  When discussing the various case opinions that involve decisions regarding to eDiscovery, it’s easy to forget that there are real people impacted by these cases and that the story of each case goes beyond just whether they preserved, collected, reviewed and produced electronically stored information (ESI) correctly.  A new book, by the plaintiff in the most famous eDiscovery case ever, provides the “backstory” that goes beyond the precedent-setting opinions of the case, detailing her experiences through the events leading up to the case, as well as over three years of litigation.

Laura A. Zubulake, the plaintiff in the Zubulake vs. UBS Warburg case, has written a new book: Zubulake's e-Discovery: The Untold Story of my Quest for Justice.  It is the story of the Zubulake case – which resulted in one of the largest jury awards in the US for a single plaintiff in an employment discrimination case – as told by the author, in her words.  As Zubulake notes in the Preface, the book “is written from the plaintiff’s perspective – my perspective. I am a businessperson, not an attorney. The version of events and opinions expressed are portrayed by me from facts and circumstances as I perceived them.”  It’s a “classic David versus Goliath story” describing her multi-year struggle against her former employer – a multi-national financial giant.

Zubulake begins the story by developing an understanding of the Wall Street setting of her employer within which she worked for over twenty years and the growing importance of email in communications within that work environment.  It continues through a timeline of the allegations and the evidence that supported those allegations leading up to her filing of a discrimination claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and her subsequent dismissal from the firm.  This Allegations & Evidence chapter is particularly enlightening to those who may be familiar with the landmark opinions but not the underlying evidence and how that evidence to prove her case came together through the various productions (including the court-ordered productions from backup tapes).  The story continues through the filing of the case and the beginning of the discovery process and proceeds through the events leading up to each of the landmark opinions (with a separate chapter devoted each to Zubulake I, III, IV and V), then subsequently through trial, the jury verdict and the final resolution of the case.

Throughout the book, Zubulake relays her experiences, successes, mistakes, thought processes and feelings during the events and the difficulties and isolation of being an individual plaintiff in a three-year litigation process.  She also weighs in on the significance of each of the opinions, including one ruling by Judge Shira Scheindlin that may not have had as much impact on the outcome as you might think.  For those familiar with the opinions, the book provides the “backstory” that puts the opinions into perspective; for those not familiar with them, it’s a comprehensive account of an individual who fought for her rights against a large corporation and won.  Everybody loves a good “David versus Goliath story”, right?

The book is available at Amazon and also at CreateSpace.  Look for my interview with Laura regarding the book in this blog next week.

So, what do you think?  Are you familiar with the Zubulake opinions?  Have you read the book?  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 Case Law: Twitter to Appeal Decision in People v. Harris
 

As reported by The Wall Street Journal, Twitter plans to appeal a court order requiring the company to produce messages posted by Malcolm Harris, an Occupy Wall Street activist facing criminal charges.  He was one of more than 700 people arrested last October when demonstrators marched onto the Brooklyn Bridge roadway.

Back in April, Harris tried to quash a subpoena seeking production of his Tweets and his Twitter account user information in his New York criminal case.  That request was rejected, so Twitter then sought to quash the subpoena themselves, claiming that the order to produce the information imposed an “undue burden” on Twitter and even forced it to “violate federal law”.

On June 30, in People v. Harris, 2011NY080152, New York Criminal Court Judge Matthew Sciarrino Jr. ruled that Twitter must produce tweets and user information of Harris, noting: “If you post a tweet, just like if you scream it out the window, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. There is no proprietary interest in your tweets, which you have now gifted to the world. This is not the same as a private email, a private direct message, a private chat, or any of the other readily available ways to have a private conversation via the internet that now exist…Those private dialogues would require a warrant based on probable cause in order to access the relevant information.”

Judge Sciarrino indicated that his decision was “partially based on Twitter's then terms of service agreement. After the April 20, 2012 decision, Twitter changed its terms and policy effective May 17, 2012. The newly added portion states that: ‘You Retain Your Right To Any Content You Submit, Post Or Display On Or Through The Service.’”  So, it would be interesting to see if the same ruling would be applied for “tweets” and other information posted after that date.

“We're appealing the Harris decision,” wrote Benjamin Lee, Twitter's lead litigator. “It doesn't strike the right balance between the rights of users and the interests of law enforcement”.

Martin Stolar, the attorney representing Harris, praised Twitter's decision. "Privacy interests in the information age are a special category which has to be freshly looked at by the courts," he said in a statement. "We are pleased that Twitter sees the far-reaching implications of the ruling against Mr. Harris and against Twitter."

So, what do you think?  Will Twitter succeed in its appeal?  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 Case Law: 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?

As noted in Law Technology News (Judge Scheindlin Issues Strong Opinion on Custodian Self-Collection, written by Ralph Losey, a previous thought leader interviewee on this blog), New York District Judge Scheindlin issued a decision last Friday (July 13) addressing the adequacy of searching and self-collection by government entity custodians in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.  As Losey notes, this is her fifth decision in National Day Laborer Organizing Network et al. v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, et al., including one that was later withdrawn.

Regarding the defendant’s question as to “why custodians could not be trusted to run effective searches of their own files, a skill that most office workers employ on a daily basis” (i.e., self-collect), Judge Scheindlin responded as follows:

“There are two answers to defendants' question. First, custodians cannot 'be trusted to run effective searches,' without providing a detailed description of those searches, because FOIA places a burden on defendants to establish that they have conducted adequate searches; FOIA permits agencies to do so by submitting affidavits that 'contain reasonable specificity of detail rather than merely conclusory statements.' Defendants' counsel recognize that, for over twenty years, courts have required that these affidavits 'set [ ] forth the search terms and the type of search performed.' But, somehow, DHS, ICE, and the FBI have not gotten the message. So it bears repetition: the government will not be able to establish the adequacy of its FOIA searches if it does not record and report the search terms that it used, how it combined them, and whether it searched the full text of documents.”

“The second answer to defendants' question has emerged from scholarship and caselaw only in recent years: most custodians cannot be 'trusted' to run effective searches because designing legally sufficient electronic searches in the discovery or FOIA contexts is not part of their daily responsibilities. Searching for an answer on Google (or Westlaw or Lexis) is very different from searching for all responsive documents in the FOIA or e-discovery context.”

“Simple keyword searching is often not enough: 'Even in the simplest case requiring a search of on-line e-mail, there is no guarantee that using keywords will always prove sufficient.' There is increasingly strong evidence that '[k]eyword search[ing] is not nearly as effective at identifying relevant information as many lawyers would like to believe.' As Judge Andrew Peck — one of this Court's experts in e-discovery — recently put it: 'In too many cases, however, the way lawyers choose keywords is the equivalent of the child's game of 'Go Fish' … keyword searches usually are not very effective.'”

Regarding search best practices and predictive coding, Judge Scheindlin noted:

“There are emerging best practices for dealing with these shortcomings and they are explained in detail elsewhere. There is a 'need for careful thought, quality control, testing, and cooperation with opposing counsel in designing search terms or keywords to be used to produce emails or other electronically stored information.' And beyond the use of keyword search, parties can (and frequently should) rely on latent semantic indexing, statistical probability models, and machine learning tools to find responsive documents.”

“Through iterative learning, these methods (known as 'computer-assisted' or 'predictive' coding) allow humans to teach computers what documents are and are not responsive to a particular FOIA or discovery request and they can significantly increase the effectiveness and efficiency of searches. In short, a review of the literature makes it abundantly clear that a court cannot simply trust the defendant agencies' unsupported assertions that their lay custodians have designed and conducted a reasonable search.”

Losey notes that “A classic analogy is that self-collection is equivalent to the fox guarding the hen house. With her latest opinion, Schiendlin [sic] includes the FBI and other agencies as foxes not to be trusted when it comes to searching their own email.”

So, what do you think?  Will this become another landmark decision by Judge Scheindlin?  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 Trends: How Many Requests for User Information is Twitter Receiving? It’s Transparent.
 

As illustrated in the example we posted Tuesday, Twitter continues to receive requests from government agencies for user information (often related to litigation).  How many are they receiving?  Now, you can find out, simply by clicking on their new Transparency Report page to see the number of requests they have received.

Starting for the first six months of this year, Twitter’s report will be issued every six months and provides information in three areas:

  • Government requests received for user information;
  • Government requests received to withhold content; and
  • DMCA takedown notices received from copyright holders.

Twitter provides a table for each category.  For the government requests categories (first two sections), it shows requests by country.  In the User Information Requests table, it’s notable that, out of 849 total user information requests for the first half of 2012, 679 were requested by US government entities (we’re so litigious!).  They also provide stats for percentage of the requests where some or all information was produced and a count of users/accounts specified.  Here are some observations:

  • There were 849 total user information requests for the first half of 2012, 679 coming from US government entities.  The only other countries that had more than 10 requests were: Japan (98), Canada (11) and the United Kingdom (11).
  • Information was produced in 63% of those requests, 75% of the time for US requests.  Interestingly enough, only 20% of Japan’s 98 requests resulted in information produced.
  • The 849 total user information requests for the first half of 2012 specified 1,181 user accounts in those requests, with the 679 US requests specifying 948 user accounts.

Twitter notes that their report is inspired by Google’s own Transparency Report (click here to see their Transparency Report page and here to see user data requests they receive from government agencies and courts for a selected six-month period, starting with July through December 2009).  Early versions of the report don’t show the percentages of user data requests they comply with or the number of users or accounts about which data was requested.  But, it’s interesting to note that since Google began tracking requests, they have risen from greater than 12,539 in July through December 2009 to greater than 18,257 in July through December 2011, a 46% rise in two years.  It will be interesting to see if the number of Twitter requests rises in a similar fashion.  I’m betting yes.

Of course, there’s a protocol to follow if you’re a government entity or law enforcement organization requesting private information from Twitter as we detailed back in April.

So, what do you think?  Is this useful information?  Would you have expected more or less information requests to Twitter?  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 Case Law: “Tweets” Are Public and Must Be Produced, Judge Rules
 

First, Malcolm Harris tried to quash a subpoena seeking production of his Tweets and his Twitter account user information in his New York criminal case.  That request was rejected, so Twitter then sought to quash the subpoena themselves, claiming that the order to produce the information imposed an “undue burden” on Twitter and even forced it to “violate federal law”.  Now, the criminal court judge has ruled on Twitter’s motion.

On June 30, in People v. Harris, 2011NY080152, New York Criminal Court Judge Matthew Sciarrino Jr. ruled that Twitter must produce tweets and user information of, Harris, an Occupy Wall Street protester, who clashed with New York Police back in October of last year and faces disorderly conduct charges.

Noting that “The court order is not unreasonably burdensome to Twitter, as it does not take much to search and provide the data to the court.”, Judge Sciarrino provided an analogy regarding the privacy of the Twitter account information, as follows:

“Consider the following: a man walks to his window, opens the window, and screams down to a young lady, ‘I'm sorry I hit you, please come back upstairs.’ At trial, the People call a person who was walking across the street at the time this occurred. The prosecutor asks, ‘What did the defendant yell?’ Clearly the answer is relevant and the witness could be compelled to testify. Well today, the street is an online, information superhighway, and the witnesses can be the third party providers like Twitter, Facebook, Instragram, Pinterest, or the next hot social media application.”

Continuing, Judge Sciarrino stated: “If you post a tweet, just like if you scream it out the window, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. There is no proprietary interest in your tweets, which you have now gifted to the world. This is not the same as a private email, a private direct message, a private chat, or any of the other readily available ways to have a private conversation via the internet that now exist…Those private dialogues would require a warrant based on probable cause in order to access the relevant information.”

Judge Sciarrino indicated that his decision was “partially based on Twitter's then terms of service agreement. After the April 20, 2012 decision, Twitter changed its terms and policy effective May 17, 2012. The newly added portion states that: ‘You Retain Your Right To Any Content You Submit, Post Or Display On Or Through The Service.’”  So, it would be interesting to see if the same ruling would be applied for “tweets” and other information posted after that date.

Judge Sciarrino did note that the government must obtain a search warrant to compel a provider of Electronic Communication Service (“ECS”) to disclose contents of communication in its possession that are in temporary "electronic storage" for 180 days or less (18 USC §2703[a]).  So, he ordered “that Twitter disclose all non-content information and content information from September 15, 2011 to December 30, 2011” related to Harris’ account.

So, what do you think?  Did the judge make the right call or should Twitter have been able to quash the subpoena?  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 Best Practices: Quality Assurance vs. Quality Control and Why Both Are Important in eDiscovery
 

People tend to use the terms Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) interchangeably and it’s a pet peeve of mine.  It’s like using the word “irregardless” – which isn’t really a word.  The fact is that QA and QC are different mechanisms for ensuring quality in…anything.  Products, processes and projects (as well as things that don’t begin with “pro”) are all examples of items that can benefit from quality ensuring mechanisms and those that are related to electronic discovery can particularly benefit.

First, let’s define terms

Quality Assurance (QA) can be defined as planned and systematic activities and mechanisms implemented so that quality requirements for a product or service will be fulfilled.

Quality Control, (QC) can be defined as one or more processes to review the quality of all factors involved in that product or service.

Now, let’s apply the terms to an example in eDiscovery

CloudNine Discovery’s flagship product is OnDemand®, which is an online eDiscovery review application.  It’s easy to use and the leader in self-service, online eDiscovery review (sorry, I’m the marketing director, I can’t help myself).

OnDemand has a team of developers, who use a variety of Quality Assurance mechanisms to ensure the quality of the application.  They include (but are not limited to):

  • Requirements meetings with stakeholders to ensure that all required functionality for each component is clearly defined;
  • Development team “huddles” to discuss progress and to learn from each other’s good development ideas;
  • Back end database and search engine that establish rules for data and searching that data (so, for example, the valid values for whether or not a document is responsive are “True” and “False” and not “Purple”) and;
  • Code management software to keep versions of development code to ensure the developers don’t overwrite each other’s work.

Quality Control mechanisms for OnDemand include:

  • Test plan creation to identify all functional areas of the application that need to be tested;
  • Rigorous testing of all functionality within each software release by a team of software testers;
  • Issue tracking software to track all problems found in testing that allows for assignment to responsible developers and tracking through to completion to address the issue and re-testing to confirm the issue has been adequately addressed;
  • Beta testing by selected clients interested in using the latest new features and willing to provide feedback as to how well those features work and how well they meet their needs.

These QA and QC mechanisms help ensure that OnDemand works correctly and that it provides the functionality required by our clients.  And, we continue to work to make those mechanisms even more effective.

QA & QC mechanisms aren’t just limited to eDiscovery software.  Take the process of conducting attorney review to determine responsiveness and privilege.  QA mechanisms include instructions and background information provided to reviewers up front to get them up to speed on the review process, periodic “huddles” for additional instructions and discussion amongst reviewers to share best practices, assignment of “batches” so that each document is reviewed by one, and only one, reviewer and validation rules to ensure that entries are recorded correctly.  QC mechanisms include a second review (usually by a review supervisor or senior attorney) to ensure that documents are being categorized correctly and metrics reports to ensure that the review team can meet deadlines while still conducting a thorough review.  QA & QC mechanisms can also be applied to preservation, collection, searching and production (among other eDiscovery activities) and they are critical to enabling discovery obligations to be met.

So, what do you think?  What QA & QC mechanisms do you use in your eDiscovery processes?  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 Best Practices: Types Of Metadata and How They Impact Discovery
 

If an electronic document is a “house” for information, then metadata could be considered the “deed” to that house. There is far more to explaining a house than simply the number of stories and the color of trim. It is the data that isn’t apparent to the naked eye that tells the rest of the story. For a house, the deed lines out the name of the buyer, the financier, and the closing date among heaps of other information that form the basis of the property. For an electronic document, it’s not just the content or formatting that holds the key to understanding it. Metadata, which is data about the document, contains information such as the user who created it, creation date, the edit history, and file type. Metadata often tells the rest of the story about the document and, therefore, is often a key focus of eDiscovery, such as in cases like this one we recently covered here.

There are many different types of metadata and it is important to understand each with regard to requesting that metadata in opposing counsel productions and being prepared to produce it in your own productions.  Examples include:

  • Application Metadata: This is the data created by an application, such as Microsoft® Word, that pertains to the ESI (“Electronically Stored Information”) being addressed. It is embedded in the file and moves with it when copied, though copying may alter the application metadata.
  • Document Metadata: These are properties about a document that may not be viewable within the application that created it, but can often be seen through a “Properties” view (for example, Word tracks the author name and total editing time).
  • Email Metadata: Data about the email.  Sometimes, this metadata may not be immediately apparent within the email application that created it (e.g., date and time received). The amount of email metadata available varies depending on the email system utilized.  For example, Outlook has a metadata field that links messages in a thread together which can facilitate review – not all email applications have this data.
  • Embedded Metadata: This metadata is usually hidden; however, it can be a vitally important part of the ESI. Examples of embedded metadata are edit history or notes in a presentation file. These may only be viewable in the original, native file since it is not always extracted during processing and conversion for eDiscovery.
  • File System Metadata: Data generated by the file system, such as Windows, to track key statistics about the file (e.g., name, size, location, etc.) which is usually stored externally from the file itself.
  • User-Added Metadata: Data created by a user while working with, reviewing, or copying a file (such as notes or tracked changes).
  • Vendor-Added Metadata: Data created and maintained by an eDiscovery vendor during processing of the native document.  Don’t be alarmed, it’s impossible to work with some file types without generating some metadata; for example, you can’t review and produce individual emails within a custodian’s Outlook PST file without generating those out as separate emails (either in Outlook MSG format or converted to an image format, such as TIFF or PDF).

Some metadata, such as user-added tracked changes or notes, could be work product that may affect whether a document is responsive or contains privileged information, so it’s important to consider that metadata during review, especially when producing in native format.

So, what do you think? Have you been involved in cases where metadata was specifically requested as part of discovery? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

eDiscovery Best Practices: Documentation is Key to a Successful Discovery Effort
 

We like to point out good articles about eDiscovery on this blog to keep our readers aware of trends and best practices.  I recently read an article on InsideCounsel titled E-discovery: Memorializing the e-discovery process, written by Alvin Lindsay, which had some good specific examples of where good documentation is important to prevent sanctions and save litigation costs.

Litigation Holds

The author notes that, since the Zubulake opinions issued by Judge Shira Scheindlin in 2003 and 2004, 1) most jurisdictions have come to expect that parties must issue a litigation hold “as soon as litigation becomes reasonably foreseeable”, and 2) “oral” litigation holds are unlikely to be sufficient since the same Judge Scheindlin noted in Pension Committee that failure to issue a “written” litigation hold constitutes “gross negligence”.  His advice: “make sure the litigation hold is in writing, and includes at minimum the date of issue, the recipients and the scope of preservation”.  IT personnel responsible for deleting “expired” data (outside of retention policies) also need to receive litigation hold documentation; in fact, “it can be a good idea to provide a separate written notice order just for them”.  Re-issuing the hold notices periodically is important because, well, people forget if they’re not reminded.  For previous posts on the subject of litigation holds, click here and here.

Retention Policies and Data Maps

Among the considerations for documentation here are the actual retention and destruction policies, system-wide backup procedures and “actual (as opposed to theoretical) implementation of the firm’s recycle policy”, as well as documentation of discussions with any personnel regarding same.  A data map provides a guide for legal and IT to the location of data throughout the company and important information about that data, such as the business units, processes and technology responsible for maintaining the data, as well as retention periods for that data.  The author notes that many organizations “don’t keep data maps in the ordinary course of business, so outside counsel may have to create one to truly understand their client’s data retention architecture.”  Creating a data map is impossible for outside counsel without involvement and assistance at several levels within the organization, so it’s truly a group effort and best done before litigation strikes.  For previous posts on the subject of data maps, click here and here.

Conferences with Opposing Counsel

The author discusses the importance of documenting the nature and scope of preservation and production and sums up the importance quite effectively by stating: “If opposing parties who are made aware of limitations early on do not object in a timely fashion to what a producing party says it will do, courts will be more likely to invoke the doctrines of waiver and estoppel when those same parties come to complain of supposed production infirmities on the eve of trial.”  So, the benefits of documenting those limitations early on are clear.

Collecting, Culling and Sampling

Chain of custody documentation (as well as a through written explanation of the collection process) is important to demonstrating integrity of the data being collected.  If you collect at a broad level (as many do), then you need to cull through effective searching to identify potentially responsive ESI.  Documenting the approach for searching as well as the searches themselves is key to a defensible searching and culling process (it helps when you use an application, like FirstPass®, powered by Venio FPR™, that keeps a history of all searches performed).  As we’ve noted before, sampling enables effective testing and refinement of searches and aids in the defense of the overall search approach.

Quality Control

And, of course, documenting all materials and mechanisms used to provide quality assurance and control (such as “materials provided to and used to train the document reviewers, as well as the results of QC checks for each reviewer”) make it easier to defend your approach and even “clawback” privileged documents if you can show that your approach was sound.  Mistakes happen, even with the best of approaches.

So, what do you think?  These are some examples of important documentation of the eDiscovery process – can you think of others?  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 Case Law: There’s a New Sheriff in Town – Judge Facciola
 

In Taydon v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., District of Columbia Magistrate Judge John Facciola laid down the law to the parties in the case requiring cooperation on eDiscovery issues after “[t]he filing of forty-page discovery motions accompanied by thousands of pages of exhibits” and made it clear that the parties would be expected to “meet and confer in person in a genuine, good faith effort to plan the rest of discovery”.

According to the plaintiffs, defendant infringed on their wireless technology by utilizing the plaintiffs’ technology on its buses. Each side claimed discovery deficiencies and delays by the parties and filed motions accordingly.  The case was referred to Judge Facciola for discovery and in his 12 page Memorandum Opinion on June 6, he denied both motions.  However, he did note that the defendant’s application for sanctions has merit based on Rule 37, which indicates that “if a motion to compel is denied, the court may order the moving party to pay the opposing party’s expenses, including attorney’s fees, unless the motion was “substantially justified.””  Finding that not to be the case, Judge Facciola ordered the plaintiffs “to show cause why a sanction, in the form of attorney’s fees, should not be awarded against them for the time defendant spent opposing plaintiffs’ motion to compel”.

However, it’s the closing of the opinion where he laid down the law to the parties regarding the cooperation he expects moving forward on eDiscovery issues:

“III. High Noon

As explained at the discovery status hearing held on April 30, 2012, there is a new sheriff in town—not Gary Cooper, but me. The filing of forty-page discovery motions accompanied by thousands of pages of exhibits will cease and will now be replaced by a new regimen in which the parties, without surrendering any of their rights, must make genuine efforts to engage in the cooperative discovery regimen contemplated by the Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation…First, the parties will meet and confer in person in a genuine, good faith effort to plan the rest of discovery. They shall discuss and agree, if they can, on issues such as the format of any additional productions, the timing and staging of all depositions, the submission to each other of discovery reports, and the scope and timing of any Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) depositions. The parties will then jointly submit their discovery plan for my approval. I commit myself to work with them in resolving any disagreements, whether they arise initially or during discovery. To that end, I will schedule a telephonic status conference every two weeks in which I will ask the parties about their progress (or lack thereof) and try to resolve any disagreements they have.”

To download a copy of the Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation, click here.

Requiring a conference every two weeks to discuss discovery issues when parties can’t agree – sounds like a great idea to me!  So, what do you think?  Are attorneys taking the responsibility to conduct a Rule 26(f) conference to discuss discovery issues seriously?  Would Judge Facciola look good in a ten gallon hat?  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.