Close
Enter your
text here

Social Technology

Court Declines to Compel Defendant to Produce Direct Messages Between its Employees: eDiscovery Case Week

eDiscovery Case Week is here!  We got a head start on it by catching up on a case on Friday, leading up to our webcast on Wednesday where Tom O’Connor and I will be talking about key eDiscovery case law for the first half of 2018.  With that in mind, let’s discuss a key case regarding custody and control by Twitter of the direct messages of its employees.

In Shenwick v. Twitter, Inc., No. 16-cv-05314-JST (SK) (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2018), California Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim ruled on several discovery disputes between the parties, including denial of a request by the plaintiffs to order the defendants to produce protected direct messages of individual custodians who are not parties.

In this securities class action on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of the defendant, there were six issues in dispute.  One key dispute involved a request from the plaintiffs that the defendants search Twitter private direct messages that each custodian sent and received.  The defendants had agreed to provide direct messages for individual defendants Anthony Noto and Richard Costolo only (who had consented to their production). The defendants argued that the Stored Communications Act prevents the disclosure of direct messages from anyone other than a named individual defendant.

In agreeing with the defendants, Judge Kim stated:

“’The Stored Communications Act prevents ‘providers’ of communication services from divulging private communications to certain entities and individuals… Courts have held that the Stored Communications Act prevents a court from enforcing a subpoena issued to a third party ECS or RCS for the protected information.’ Crispin v. Christina (sic) Audigier, Inc., 717 F.Supp.2d 965, 971-72 (C.D. Cal. 2010)… Plaintiffs are correct that a court can compel a party to produce information within the party’s custody and control, but they confuse the identity of the party with the identity of the individual custodians. Here, for purposes of analysis, the Court will treat Twitter as if it is separate from the individual custodians who have direct messages stored with Twitter. The individual custodians other than Costolo and Noto are not parties. In other words, because Defendants claim, without opposition, that Twitter did not require its employees to use direct messages for communications, the Court must evaluate Twitter separately from the individual custodians who have privacy rights protected by the Stored Communications Act. The two named individual defendants, Costolo and Noto, are allowing discovery of their direct messages, as Plaintiffs can issue to them requests for information pursuant to Rule 34 and obtain their direct messages… Plaintiffs merge Twitter and its individual custodians’ rights. They are not the same. If Plaintiffs issued a third party subpoena to a company—not Twitter—for direct messages that the individual custodians sent and received, there is no question that the Court could not enforce such a subpoena. Under the same reasoning, the Court cannot compel Twitter, a party in this litigation, to produce protected direct messages of individual custodians who are not parties simply because Twitter is also the provider of the direct messaging service.”

Ruling on other disputes, Judge Kim: 1) ordered the defendants to search the files of an additional custodian, Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter and former CEO; 2) denying without prejudice the plaintiff’s request that the defendants produce documents from Falquora, Twitter’s internal message board; 3) ordered the defendants to produce documents in unredacted form that were covered by a stipulated Protective Order; 4) denying the plaintiff’s motion to compel documents containing terms “DAU” (daily active users) and “MAU” (monthly active users) WITHOUT PREJUDICE as potentially overbroad (allowing the plaintiffs to re-file the motion with a more specific, targeted approach if they are concerned the other requests for production are not yielding relevant documentation); 5) that the search “engag*” be conducted for documents with that term within 10 words of 20 terms proposed by defendants and up to 10 additional terms proposed by plaintiffs; and 6) denying WITHOUT PREJUDICE the plaintiff’s motion to compel the defendants to produce documents concerning Defendants’ efforts to “maintain, search for and preserve all documents” (which the defendants deemed to be privileged).

Despite the six issues being ruled on, Judge Kim stated “it is clear that the parties have worked hard in meeting and conferring to narrow the issues of dispute. The Court commends the parties for doing so and for presenting the remaining issues for dispute in a clear and cogent matter. The Court is confident that the parties will continue to meet and confer in good faith, narrow the areas of their dispute, and only present to the Court matters which they cannot resolve and which are significant.”

So, what do you think?  Should the direct messages of Twitter employees have been ruled out of the custody and control of Twitter?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Want to Learn More About the Sedona Conference Primer on Social Media? Check Out this Video: eDiscovery Best Practices

As we discussed earlier this month, The Sedona Conference® (TSC) and its Working Group 1 on Electronic Document Retention & Production (WG1) have announced the publication of the Public Comment Version of The Sedona Conference Primer on Social Media, Second Edition.  Want to learn more about it without reading the 58 page PDF file?  Check out this video.

On the blog Techno Gumbo which is maintained by my buddy and colleague Tom O’Connor and the Gulf Coast Legal Technology Center – “gumbo”, from New Orleans, get it? – Tom has just posted a video chat between his wife Gayle O’Connor and noted thought leader Craig Ball regarding the Primer, downloadable here.  Both Gayle and Craig have informed perspectives on the topic – Gayle, because of her experience in providing marketing assistance (including social media marketing) to attorneys and legal vendors and Craig, because of his experience as an attorney and Special Master focusing on eDiscovery issues.

Interestingly, both Craig and Gayle had high praise for the Primer.  Craig noted that he was “pleasantly surprised” and stated that it was a “very high-quality document”, “carefully thought out”, “very current”, “useful in its structure” and “tremendously balanced for the most part in terms of the interests of requesting parties and producing parties”.  Gayle noted that she was “very, very impressed in how they included everything that’s going on these days”, including updates (from the 2012 edition) to reflect the new Federal rules, the ABA guidelines regarding technical competence for attorneys and even the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).  Both Craig and Gayle also particularly noted coverage of messaging and messaging apps in addition to the traditional sources of social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Instagram and they discussed the challenges and considerations associated with social media in eDiscovery in general.

I won’t be “that guy” and spoil the whole conversation; instead, feel free to check out the discussion here.  Gayle has also written an article about the Primer on the ACEDS site, which you can check out here.

TSC has scheduled a webinar on the public comment version of the Primer for Wednesday, August 8, at 1 pm EDT.  You can register for the webinar here – it’s free of charge to judges, court staff, all other full-time government employees, and to accredited law schools and a minimal charge (no more than $99) for regular folks.  As for the public comment period, it’s open for public comment through September 10, 2018. Questions and comments regarding the Primer may be sent to comments@sedonaconference.org.

So, what do you think?  Do you have challenges in handling social media in litigation?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

The Sedona Conference Has You Primed to Learn Best Practices for Handling Social Media: eDiscovery Best Practices

As Tom O’Connor and I discussed in our webcast last month, handling social media in discovery can be challenging.  Now, The Sedona Conference® (TSC) has updated a primer to help with social media issues.

TSC and its Working Group 1 on Electronic Document Retention & Production (WG1) have announced the publication of the Public Comment Version of The Sedona Conference Primer on Social Media, Second Edition.

The first edition of the Primer was published in 2012 (light years ago in social media terms) and was designed to be a useful resource on various information governance and litigation issues, as it established a practical approach for addressing the corporate use and management of social media. Since 2012, however, there has been a proliferation of new messaging technologies and business applications, in addition to major evolution in “traditional” social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn – because they have such a long “tradition”, of course :o). There have also been significant developments in the law addressing social media and in the rules of discovery, evidence, and professional responsibility. In light of these developments, this edition of the Primer focuses exclusively on the discovery of social media in civil litigation. Therefore, WG1 recognized a compelling need to update the Primer and has prepared a public comment version of this Second Edition.

After the one-page introduction (Section I of the Primer), Section II of the Primer discusses traditional and emerging social media technologies and the discovery challenges that they present. Section III examines relevance and proportionality in the context of social media. It also explores preservation challenges, collection and search obligations, and the impact of the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), together with review and production considerations. Section IV describes the impact of cross-border issues on social media discovery while Section V explores authentication issues. The Primer analyzes ethical issues that lawyers should consider in connection with social media discovery in Section VI before ending with a one paragraph conclusion section.  The Primer weighs in at a fairly tidy 58 page PDF file, so it’s a reasonable read.

The Primer on Social Media, Second Edition is open for public comment through September 10, 2018. Questions and comments regarding the Primer may be sent to comments@sedonaconference.org.  And, a webinar on the Primer is scheduled for Wednesday, August 8, 2018, at 1 pm EDT. Further details will be announced by email and on The Sedona Conference website once registration is open. The webinar will give you the opportunity to ask questions and provide and gain additional insight on this important topic.

To download the Primer, free of charge, click here.

So, what do you think?  Do you have challenges in handling social media in litigation?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Tinder Date Murder Case Highlights the Increasing Complexity of eDiscovery in Criminal Investigations: eDiscovery Trends

With things like social media, electronic purchases, GPS tracking, and the Internet of Things, a normal day in anyone’s life creates an in-depth data trail. So, it’s no surprise that more and more, electronic evidence plays a key component in criminal investigations. While eDiscovery technology is mostly used in the civil courts, namely because corporate and government organizations have more resources than municipal, county, and even state law enforcement agencies to conduct reviews of large data-sets, it’s still worthwhile to look at the varied ways electronically stored information (ESI) is used to help detectives piece together a chain of events in order to solve a crime.

In an article published in The Daily Beast this week, we find the seemingly mismatched couple, 51-year-old Aubrey Trail and 24-year-old Bailey Boswell, charged with the murder of a 24-year-old Nebraska woman, Sydney Loofe. The story echoes the Starkweather / Fugate crime spree throughout the same region 60 years ago, only this time digital evidence led investigators to the perpetrators.

Trail and Boswell were arrested as part of a gold coin theft racket in November, but after further investigation, are now charged with Loofe’s murder, who was last seen November 15th before going on a Tinder date with Boswell. Police found the remains of Loofe’s body in a field a few weeks later, and in the months that followed, used a wide variety of ESI, along with traditional forensics, to link Trail and Boswell to the murder. The list of evidence pieced together is remarkable from an eDiscovery point of view:

  • Tinder Profiles: 140 messages between Loofe and Boswell in the days before November 15th were pulled from their online dating profiles. The last was on Nov. 15 at 6:54 p.m., when Boswell said she’d arrived at Loofe’s apartment. Police also found that Boswell went by “Audrey” on her online-dating profile.
  • Snapchat Photo: Loofe sent a selfie to a friend via Snapchat on November 15th with the caption, “Ready for my date.”
  • Facebook Videos: Trail and Boswell both posted Facebook videos claiming innocence while police were looking for them. In one, Boswell said she was “Audrey on Tinder and a few other names because I have warrants.”
  • iPhone Reset: After her arrest, Boswell gave investigators permission to search her iPhone 7, which they found had been reset to factory default settings on November 17.
  • Cellphone Pings/GPS Locations: Loofe’s phone last pinged a cell tower near Wilber, where Boswell and Trail lived in a basement apartment. When detectives searched that residence, the landlord, who lived upstairs, “reported a strong odor of bleach coming from the basement.” Data from Boswell’s phone showed its location was “in close proximity to the area where the remains were discovered Dec. 16th.”
  • Security Video Footage: Security footage from a local Home Depot showed Trail and Boswell on Nov. 15 around 10:35 a.m., shopping for tools and supplies that could be used to cover up the crime.
  • Phone Calls from Jail: In two different phone calls, one to the Lincoln Journal Star and the other to the Omaha World-Herald, Trail gave different accounts, claiming he unintentionally killed Loofe in a sex game gone wrong.

All of this led to a confession from Trail, stating that he had killed Loofe, and then he and Boswell covered up the crime scene and disposed of the body.

Using electronic evidence to solve crimes is nothing new, but now more than ever, the digital footprint that individuals and organizations leave is staggering in its depth and variance. At the same time, it’s amazing how skilled investigators are using the raw data left behind in order to put together cases in both the criminal and civil courts. The common denominator with both then becomes the ability to preserve, collect, and review this data in a timely and affordable fashion, in order to get the facts as quickly and efficiently as possible.

So, what do you think?  How do you see the influx of new data sources affecting your eDiscovery practices and policies in the future?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Collecting Responsive ESI from Difficult Places: eDiscovery Webcasts

Happy June!  I don’t normally promote webcasts twice in one week, but this month’s webcast is a little earlier than normal.  What can I say, it’s family vacation season and my family has plans the last week of this month… :o)

Believe it or not, there was a time when collecting potentially responsive ESI from email systems for discovery was once considered overly burdensome. Now, it’s commonplace and much of it can be automated. But, that’s not where all of the responsive ESI resides today – much of it is on your mobile device, in social media platforms and even in Internet of Things (IoT) devices. Are you ignoring this potentially important data? Do you have to hire a forensics professional to collect this data or can you do much of it on your own?  We will discuss these and other questions in a webcast in a few weeks.

Wednesday, June 20th at noon CST (1:00pm EST, 10:00am PST), CloudNine will conduct the webcast Collecting Responsive ESI from Difficult Places. In this one-hour webcast that’s CLE-approved in selected states, we will discuss what lawyers need to know about the various sources of ESI today, examples of how those sources of data can be responsive to litigations and investigations, and how lawyers may be able to collect much of this data today using intuitive applications and simple approaches. Topics include:

  • Challenges from Various Sources of ESI Data
  • Ethical Duties and Rules for Understanding Technology
  • Key Case Law Related to Mobile Devices, Social Media and IoT
  • Options and Examples for Collecting from Mobile Devices
  • Options and Examples for Collecting from Social Media
  • Examples of IoT Devices and Collection Strategies
  • Recommendations for Addressing Collection Requirements
  • Resources for More Information

As always, I’ll be presenting the webcast, along with Tom O’Connor.  To register for it, click here.  Even if you can’t make it, go ahead and register to get a link to the slides and to the recording of the webcast (if you want to check it out later).  If you want to know how to collect electronically stored information from difficult places, this is the webcast for you!

So, what do you think?  Do you feel like you know when and how to collect ESI from mobile devices, social media and IoT devices?  If not, register for our webcast!  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily 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 Grants Adverse Inference Sanction Against Infringing Author: eDiscovery Case Law

In Nunes v. Rushton, No. 2:14-cv-00627-JNP-DBP (D. Utah May 14, 2018), Utah District Judge Jill N. Parrish, ruling that the plaintiff was prejudiced by the deletion of one of the defendant’s Google “sock puppet” accounts, granted the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions in part, ordering an adverse instruction to the jury regarding the “bad faith” deletion of that account.  Judge Parrish denied the motion with regard to several other accounts, ruling that the plaintiff was not prejudiced by deletion of those accounts (as most of the information was still available or recoverable).

Case Background

In this case, the defendant infringed the plaintiff’s copyright in her novel by copying protected elements of the book and distributing copies of the infringing work to reviewers and bloggers for promotional purposes. Around this time, the defendant created a number of “sock puppet” accounts on Google and Yahoo by registering these accounts under usernames that did not identify her as the individual controlling the accounts and used these accounts to create several sock puppet accounts on Facebook, Goodreads, and Amazon. The defendant then used the Goodreads and Amazon sock puppet accounts to post positive reviews of her own books and negative reviews of the plaintiff’s books. The defendant also created a Twitter account and a Blogspot account under her pen name to promote her books.

In August 2014, the plaintiff became aware of the potential infringement, attempted to obtain an advance copy of the infringing novel and discover the true identity of the defendant’s pen name. The defendant used her sock puppet social media accounts to anonymously criticize the plaintiff’s efforts to investigate the infringing novel. Sometime in August or September of 2014, after the plaintiff had discovered the defendant’s identity, The defendant deleted most of her sock puppet accounts. The defendant also deleted her pen name Twitter and Blogspot accounts. The plaintiff filed this lawsuit on August 28, 2014.

During litigation, the plaintiff made a discovery request for documents stored on the defendant’s various Google and Yahoo accounts. On August 12, 2015, while this discovery request was pending, the defendant deleted one of her Google sock puppet accounts.  When the court granted a motion to compel the defendant to produce documents from her Google and Yahoo accounts, counsel for the defendant represented that she had lost the passwords to the accounts, leading to subpoenas to those services.  The defendant deleted all of the remaining accounts on March 21, 2016, asserting that she did so because she believed that all of the documents associated with the accounts had been or would be produced by Google and Yahoo pursuant to the subpoenas.  Google stated that the account deleted on August 12, 2015 could not be recovered because too much time had passed, but preserved the accounts that had been deleted on March 21, 2016.

Judge’s Ruling

In analyzing the defendants’ motion, Judge Parrish denied the motion for sanctions regarding most of the accounts, determining that the plaintiff suffered no prejudice because the information pertaining to those accounts either remained, was saved by the plaintiff before the accounts were deleted or could be recovered by Google and Yahoo.

As for the August 12, 2015 deletion of one of the Google accounts, Judge Parrish stated: “At the time of the deletion, Rushton had a duty to preserve this account because litigation was pending. The court also finds that Nunes was prejudiced by the deletion because any documents or emails stored on this account were irretrievably lost… Given that litigation had been pending for almost a year, that Rushton was represented by counsel, and that Nunes had requested the production of documents associated with this Google account, the court infers that Rushton’s August 12, 2015 deletion of one of her Google accounts was done in bad faith.”

As a result, Judge Parrish ordering an adverse instruction to the jury regarding the “bad faith” deletion of that account.

So, what do you think?  Was an advance inference sanction a severe enough punishment?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Defendant Sanctioned for “Deliberately” Altering a Skype Communication: eDiscovery Case Law

In GoPro, Inc. v. 360Heros, Inc., No. 16-cv-01944-SI (N.D. Cal. March 30, 2018), California District Judge Susan Illston denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied the defendant’s motion in limine to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s forensic analysis expert, but granted (in part) the plaintiff’s motion for partial terminating sanctions against the defendant for forging evidence in two Skype conversations, opting for an adverse inference instruction sanction and reimbursement of expenses related to forensic analysis and testimony instead of the terminating sanctions sought.

But first, this week’s eDiscovery Tech Tip of the Week is about Saving Searches.  Documentation is a key component of a sound discovery process. The ability to automatically save the searches that you have performed not only saves time in retrieving those documents later, but it also helps document the process for performing searches should you have to defend your approach in court.  Saving searches is just one component of an overall program for documenting your approach in eDiscovery.

To see an example of how Saving Searches is conducted using our CloudNine platform, click here (requires BrightTalk account, which is free).

Case Background

In this case regarding federal and state trademark infringement and unfair competition, the defendant (in November 2016) produced to the plaintiff two emails (in a single PDF format) containing the transcript of two 2014 Skype conversations between representatives of the plaintiff and defendant where . In the Skype conversations as produced by the defendant, the plaintiff referenced the term “abyss” twice (the parties had a dispute over plaintiff’s ABYSS mark).

At his deposition, the defendant representative testified under oath that the PDF document was a true and correct copy of the Skype conversation, stating that he had copied and pasted the Skype conversation into an email, and then sent it to himself. He claimed the only alteration he made to the document was to highlight the two lines of conversation containing the word “abyss”. In response to the plaintiff’s request for the Skype files in their native form, the defendant representative claimed the original Skype conversation was no longer available to him.

As part of its investigation into the defendant’s claims, the plaintiff accessed equipment containing its end of the Skype conversation and its Skype records did not contain the two highlighted lines referencing “abyss.” To confirm their findings, GoPro retained a forensic expert (Derek Duarte of Blackstone Discovery) to conduct a forensic analysis, which determined that it’s representative’s imaged Skype database did not contain the two highlighted lines referencing “abyss”, leading to the motion for partial terminating sanctions.  In response, the defendant claimed that the expert’s results were unverifiable and unreliable because he could not verify that the data on the hard drive contained the same data as it did in 2014.

Judge’s Ruling

In ruling on the motion, Judge Illston ruled, as follows:

“The Court is not persuaded by defendant’s explanation of the suspect document, and concludes on the present record that defendant deliberately altered it in an effort to strengthen its legal position with respect the ABYSS mark. GoPro argues it has been prejudiced because as part of its investigation into 360Heros’ prior use defense, GoPro incurred various expenditures, including having to locate and hire an expert to forensically investigate the Skype chat. Sanctions less drastic than terminating sanctions are available to remedy any potential prejudice to GoPro. Accordingly, the Court finds that sanctions are warranted, and that the appropriate sanctions in this case are twofold: (1) an adverse inference instruction at trial, related to Mr. Kintner’s conduct; and (2) reimbursement to GoPro of the costs incurred in retaining Mr. Duarte, including expenses paid to Mr. Duarte and the cost of attorney time required to locate and retain Mr. Duarte. Plaintiff shall submit its statement of costs so incurred in a sworn document to be filed no later than April 13, 2018.”

Judge Illston also denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, finding that “defendant raises material issues of fact as to numerous of the factors”.  She also denied the defendant’s motion in limine to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s forensic analysis expert, but Judge Illston found the expert to be “qualified to testify on these matters” and that his proposed testimony was “directly relevant to the authenticity of the disputed Skype conversation.”

So, what do you think?  Did the judge go far enough with her sanctions?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

NY Appellate Court Reverses Ruling on Discovery of “Private” Facebook Posts: eDiscovery Case Law

In Forman v. Henkin, No. 1. (N.Y. Feb. 13, 2018), the Court of Appeals of New York reinstated a trial judge’s ruling requiring the plaintiff who was disabled in a horse riding accident to turn over “private” photos to the defendant taken before and after her injuries.

But first, this week’s eDiscovery Tech Tip of the Week is about Fuzzy Searching.  When performing keyword searching, you may know what terms you’re searching for, but it’s easy to miss important search hits if the term is misspelled or has OCR inaccuracies.  So, if you’re looking for the term “petroleum”, you can find variations such as “peroleum”, “petoleum” or even “petroleum” – misspellings or OCR errors that could be relevant.  Fuzzy searching is a way to catch many of those variations, expanding the potential recall of your search.  The ability that fuzzy searching provides to find words that are one or two characters off from the correct spelling of the term could enable you to locate important ESI to your case that would otherwise be missed, simply because the term is not spelled correctly.

To see an example of how Fuzzy Searching is conducted using our CloudNine platform, click here (requires BrightTalk account, which is free).

Case Background

In this case regarding allegations that the plaintiff was injured when she fell from a horse owned by defendant and maintained that, since the accident, she had become reclusive as a result of her injuries and also had difficulty using a computer and composing coherent messages.  In particular, she contended that a simple email could take hours to write because she had to go over written material several times to make sure it made sense.  The defendant sought an unlimited authorization to obtain plaintiff’s entire “private” Facebook account, contending the photographs and written postings would be material and necessary to his defense of the action under CPLR 3101(a).  When the plaintiff failed to provide the authorization, the defendant moved to compel, asserting that the Facebook material sought was relevant to the scope of plaintiff’s injuries and her credibility.  The plaintiff opposed the motion arguing that the defendant failed to establish a basis for access to the “private” portion of her Facebook account because, among other things, the “public” portion contained only a single photograph that did not contradict the plaintiff’s claims or deposition testimony.

In February 2014, the trial court ordered the plaintiff to give the defendant pre-accident photos she intended to use at trial, post-accident photos not depicting nudity or romantic encounters, and access to post-accident records of her messages.  However, in December 2015, the appeals court limited the disclosure to photos intended for trial, saying the defendant could not go on a “fishing expedition” for evidence.  Two Justices dissented, concluding the defendant was entitled to broader access to the plaintiff’s Facebook account and calling for reconsideration of that court’s recent precedent addressing disclosure of social media information as unduly restrictive and inconsistent with New York’s policy of open discovery. The Appellate Division granted the defendant leave to appeal to this Court, asking whether its order was properly made.

Appellate Court’s Ruling

In considering that appeal, the Court observed that “a threshold rule requiring [the party seeking disclosure] to ‘identify relevant information in [the] Facebook account’ effectively permits disclosure only in limited circumstances, allowing the account holder to unilaterally obstruct disclosure merely by manipulating ‘privacy’ settings or curating the materials on the public portion of the account. Under such an approach, disclosure turns on the extent to which some of the information sought is already accessible – and not, as it should, on whether it is ‘material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of an action’”.  So, while the Court stated that “we reject the notion that the account holder’s so-called ‘privacy’ settings govern the scope of disclosure of social media materials”, it also stated that “we agree with other courts that have rejected the notion that commencement of a personal injury action renders a party’s entire Facebook account automatically discoverable”.

Nonetheless, the Court acknowledged that “even private materials may be subject to discovery if they are relevant. For example, medical records enjoy protection in many contexts under the physician-patient privilege…But when a party commences an action, affirmatively placing a mental or physical condition in issue, certain privacy interests relating to relevant medical records – including the physician-patient privilege – are waived”.  With that in mind, the Court stated:

“Applying these principles here, the Appellate Division erred in modifying Supreme Court’s order to further restrict disclosure of plaintiff’s Facebook account, limiting discovery to only those photographs plaintiff intended to introduce at trial. With respect to the items Supreme Court ordered to be disclosed (the only portion of the discovery request we may consider), defendant more than met his threshold burden of showing that plaintiff’s Facebook account was reasonably likely to yield relevant evidence.”  So, the Court reversed the Appellate Division order and reinstated the lower court order.

So, what do you think?  Should “private” Facebook posts be discoverable?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Germany Finds that Facebook’s Privacy Settings and Terms of Service Violate Their Privacy Rules: Data Privacy Trends

One of the things that Tom O’Connor and I discussed in last week’s webcast about the upcoming Europe General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was how consent will be interpreted for use of data for its data subjects.  Last month, a German court may have given an early indication of how consent will be enforced.

In Legaltech News (Facebook Foreshadowing: German Court Underscores Tech’s Uncertain GDPR Future, written by Rhys Dipshan, free subscription required), the author notes that after a three-year battle, a regional court in Berlin has found that Facebook’s default privacy settings, terms of service, and requirement that users register under their own name violate Germany’s data privacy and consent rules.

The January 2018 ruling (available here, in German, of course) based on German law on a case brought by The Federation of German Consumer Organisations (VZBV) could nonetheless illustrate trouble for international technology companies under the GDPR, once it takes effect on May 25th of this year.

Germany’s data privacy laws are currently based on the EU Directive 95/46/EC, the data privacy directive passed by the European Union in 1995 which has provisions that mirror those in the GDPR, especially around the issue of consent.  EU Directive 95/46/EC will be replaced by GDPR on May 25th.

Last November, the EU Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (WP29) issued Guidelines on Consent under Regulation 2016/679 to clarify how the EU would move to define and regulate consent and that guidance aligns closely with how the German court interpreted consent in the case against Facebook. For example, the court ruled that the pre-activated privacy settings on Facebook’s mobile application, such as allowing geotagging and for search engines to index a user’s Facebook profile, are a violation of user consent.

The court also found that eight clauses in Facebook’s terms of service assumed and framed consent too broadly and declared that asking users to register under their own names “was a covert way of getting people’s consent to use their real names,” said Nick Wallace, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Data Innovation.

The WP29’s guidance affirms both points and it also notes, “If consent is bundled up as a non-negotiable part of terms and conditions, it is presumed not to have been freely given.”  WP29 also states, “The use of pre-ticked opt-in boxes is invalid under the GDPR. Silence or inactivity on the part of the data subject, as well as merely proceeding with a service cannot be regarded as an active indication of choice.”

Debbie Reynolds, director of EimerStahl Discovery Solutions, an affiliate of law firm Eimer Stahl, stated that “Facebook and a lot of tech companies sell marketing,” and having their users register under their real names “makes the information they collect more valuable. So I think this is going to in some way change the foundation of how they are operating today.”

As you can imagine, the requirements of specific consent could change things for a lot of companies that currently collect data from individuals, including EU data subjects – perhaps significantly.  We will see.

Speaking of data privacy, today is the day that the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in United States v. Microsoft Corp (which we’ve referred to as the “Microsoft Ireland” case).  Needless to say, the ruling in this case will have major impact on how organizations treat data privacy as well.  We will certainly cover the ruling when it’s issued.

So, what do you think?  Is your organization changing how it obtains consent from individuals for handling their data?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Defendant’s Request for Social Media Data is Reasonably Calculated to Be Overbroad: eDiscovery Case Law

In Ehrenberg v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 16-17269 (E.D. La. Aug. 18, 2017), Louisiana Magistrate Judge Janis van Meerveld, rejecting the defendant’s request for the plaintiff’s social media data as “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence”, identified a level of social media data to be produced by the plaintiff that considered “weighing relevance and proportionality”.

Case Background

In this case where the plaintiff sued the defendant for additional damages to compensate her for all of her injuries and losses sustained when she was struck by a motor vehicle, after learning of numerous vacations taken by the plaintiff, the defendant requested complete social media data (“a complete copy of your post-accident…data link from your…account, including but not limited to messages, photos, wall posts, friends posts, your posts, metadata associated with photos, etc.) from the plaintiff’s Facebook, Twitter and Instagram accounts.  The defendant filed a Motion to Compel when the plaintiff objected to the requests as “invasion of privacy and not relevant”.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge van Meerveld began her analysis by pointing out the defendant’s request was not in line with current rules:

“Although State Farm focuses its briefing on whether its requests are ‘reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,’ the Court must point out that this phrase does not guide the scope of discovery. The amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that went into effect in December 2015 deleted this language from Rule 26. That Rule now provides that ‘parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.’” 

Judge van Meerveld also noted that “In addition to being relevant, discovery must be proportional to the needs of the case.”  With that in mind, she ruled that “after weighing relevance and proportionality, including privacy considerations, as to Ms. Ehrenberg’s Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram accounts, the Court finds discoverable the following categories of information from the date of the alleged accident through the present:

  1. Posts or photos that refer or relate to the accident.
  2. Posts or photos that refer or relate to physical injuries that Ms. Ehrenberg alleges she sustained as a result of the accident and any treatment she received therefore.
  3. Posts or photos that refer or relate to other, unrelated physical injuries suffered or sustained by Ms. Ehrenberg.
  4. Posts or photos reflecting physical activity by Ms. Ehrenberg and/or which reflect a physical capability of Ms. Ehrenberg.
  5. Posts or photos that refer or relate to emotional distress or mental anguish that Ms. Ehrenberg alleges she sustained as a result of the accident and any treatment she received therefore.
  6. Posts or photos that refer or relate to any alternative potential emotional stressors experienced by Ms. Ehrenberg.
  7. Posts or photos that refer or relate to any vacations taken by Ms. Ehrenberg, including but not limited to the specific vacations referred to by State Farm in its Motion to Compel.”

Judge van Meerveld also stated that if the defendant were to discover evidence that the plaintiff had deleted social media posts (which the defendant had suggested happened), then “it may return to the Court to request relief.”

So, what do you think?  What should courts do (if anything) to make sure parties know the current Rules?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

If you’ve been watching the news the past few days, you’ve seen the devastation in my hometown of Houston from Hurricane Harvey.  What can you do to help?  Consider donating online to the Houston Food Bank, Galveston County Food Bank or Corpus Christi Food Bank.  Or the Coastal Bend Disaster Recovery Group.  And, if you’re in the Houston area, you can volunteer at the American Red Cross here or by calling 713-526-8300.  Thanks for your help.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

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