Close
Enter your
text here

Social Technology

Twitter’s Law Enforcement Policies Revisited Again – Social Tech eDiscovery

It’s time to take another look at the social media platforms to see how they handle private information and law enforcement requests (such as subpoenas).  Let’s start with Twitter.

In 2010 and 2012, we reviewed Twitter’s Privacy Policy and Law Enforcement Guidelines.  Since our last review, despite their efforts to fight it, Twitter was ordered to produce tweets for a New York criminal case (People v. Harris).  At the time, Manhattan Criminal Court Judge Matthew Sciarrino stated that “If you post a tweet, just like if you scream it out the window, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy”, but acknowledged that his decision was “partially based on Twitter’s then terms of service agreement”, which was subsequently modified to add the statement “You Retain Your Right To Any Content You Submit, Post Or Display On Or Through The Service.”  After its appeal was denied, Twitter ultimately complied with the order.

There aren’t a lot of changes to Twitter’s Privacy Policy since our post in 2012, though the page is rearranged.  Most information in Twitter is still publicly shared with everyone, as noted by the tip at the top – “What you say on Twitter may be viewed all around the world instantly” (which former congressman and failed NYC mayor candidate Anthony Weiner famously discovered).  Your privacy settings determine whether some information such as location of tweets, email address and cell phone number is private or not.

In the Privacy Policy, Twitter now provides some details about Data Retention of account data, which is about 30 days from the date of deactivation, with the data being permanently deleted within a week afterwards.  Although the Data Retention section of the Guidelines for Law Enforcement page still states “Twitter retains different types of information for different time periods”.

One key change to the Guidelines for Law Enforcement page is that Twitter now provides a web form for law enforcement officers to submit general inquiries or emergency disclosure requests (no more sending faxes!).  If you’re not an authorized law enforcement or government representative, you can’t use the form.

Tomorrow, we will take a look at Twitter’s latest Transparency Report to show government requests for data over the last six months of 2013.  See you then!

So, what do you think?  Have you needed to request information from Twitter for litigation purposes?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Plaintiff Ordered to Re-Open Social Media Account for Discovery – eDiscovery Case Law
 

In Chapman v. Hiland Operating, LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. Case No. 1:13-cv-052 (D.N.D. May 29, 2014), while noting that he was “skeptical” that reactivating the plaintiff’s Facebook account would produce any relevant, noncumulative information, North Dakota Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller ordered the plaintiff to “make a reasonable, good faith attempt” to reactivate her Facebook account.

The defendant’s requests for production included a request for communications in the form of, “emails, text messages, instant messages, journal updates, Facebook postings, notes, cards, and/or memorandums”.  The plaintiff objected to that request on several grounds, including that it violated the attorney client and work product privileges, was “unintelligible, improperly vague and ambiguous” and overbroad.

However, in the plaintiff’s deposition, she stated that her attorney advised her to deactivate her Facebook account, which occurred prior to the production request by the defendants. She also stated that stated that she attempted to reactivate her account to respond to discovery requests but was unable to remember her password, but had not attempted to change her password or contacted Facebook regarding reactivating her account. She claimed that she rarely used the account, and when she did it was primarily to communicate with her nieces and nephews. 

Judge Miller noted that although the court was “skeptical” that the plaintiff’s Facebook account “will contain any relevant, noncumulative information, especially given the amount of discovery already completed in this case”, he granted in part the defendant’s motion to compel and ordered the plaintiff and attorney to “make a reasonable, good faith attempt” to reactivate the Facebook account.   He instructed that the plaintiffs do not have to permit defense counsel to be present during the attempt to reactivate the account, and if the account is reactivated, plaintiffs do not have to provide defense counsel the account login and password or full access to the account.

If the Facebook account is reactivated, Judge Miller ordered the plaintiffs to produce in the form of a screen shot other similar format all information from the account referencing a co-plaintiff’s health and his relationship with the other plaintiff since October 19, 2008, and ordered the plaintiff to complete the items by June 27th (last Friday).

So, what do you think? Was the plaintiff’s attorney out of line in ordering the plaintiff to deactivate her Facebook account?  Are screen shots the best way to produce social media data?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.

Order for Financial Records and Facebook Conversations Modified Due to Privacy Rights – eDiscovery Case Law
 

In Stallings v. City of Johnston City, No. 13-cv-422-DRH-SCW, 2014 U.S. Dist. (S.D. III. May 19, 2014), Illinois Chief District Judge David R. Herndon modified an earlier order by a magistrate judge in response to the plaintiff’s appeal, claiming that the order violated the privacy rights of the plaintiff, and of minor children with whom the plaintiff had held conversations on Facebook.

The initial order concerned discovery production of the plaintiff’s financial records through a previously issued subpoena. The plaintiff had objected to this production, on the grounds that the defendant had not specified the information sought from the records, namely an unidentified amount of money missing from the defendant’s accounts. In the objection, the plaintiff stated a belief that “seeking the financial records is a fishing expedition on the [defendant’s] part.” However, the magistrate judge ordered the production of the records and found upon review several cash deposits that were deemed potentially relevant, and then directed that the production of the plaintiff’s financial records would be subject to a protective order.

On the matter of the Facebook conversations, the plaintiff had produced approximately 466 pages of printed documents from the relevant account, with the names redacted, in response to the defendant’s discovery request for “[e]ach and every social media posting by [plaintiff] from 2011 to the present concerning her employment” at the defendant, “allegations of wronging against her, her suspension or termination, the investigation into missing money or wrongdoing … her lawsuit, her emotional or physical well-being, or any other matter identified in her Amended Complaint.” The defendant objected to the redaction of names, to which the plaintiff responded that they did not have an unredacted hard copy of the pages due to technical difficulties involving Facebook’s policies. The magistrate judge directed the plaintiff to produce either an electronic version of the Facebook pages, or a hard copy of unredacted pages.

The plaintiff then appealed on these orders, arguing that “defendants have presented no basis to override her right to privacy in her bank records afforded under the Illinois Constitution” and further that the request for unredacted Facebook data “violates her privacy, as well as the privacy of minors and other individuals not involved in this litigation.” At issue regarding the Facebook pages was that Facebook only allows users to download the contents of their entire account, which would require the plaintiff to produce all of her Facebook conversations since 2007 if submitted as discovery, when the defendant requested only documents from 2011 onward.

Upon reviewing the issue of the financial records, Judge Herndon found that any evidence of cash deposits made to the plaintiff’s account during the specified time period were relevant to the defendant, but agreed that the plaintiff has a right to privacy of bank records. Therefore, it was ordered that discovery of evidence would be limited to only those deposits made in cash, “demonstrating that they were made in cash and on what date.”

With regard to the discovery issues concerning Facebook pages, Judge Herndon noted that while the plaintiff states potential violation of privacy for minors, the plaintiff had not indicated clearly whether any of the conversation relevant to the litigation had taken place with minors. Further, it was noted that some of the redacted pages did contain relevant conversations, or conversations that could be deemed relevant at a later date, such as potential admissions against interest or inconsistent testimony. Therefore, the plaintiff was ordered to produce “a redacted hard copy of all relevant Facebook pages from 2011 to the present” as well as “the names and towns of residence of the individuals with whom [plaintiff] had relevant conversations.” Further, “[i]f any of the relevant conversations are between individuals who are currently minors, [plaintiff] is not to provide defendants with the minor’s name or town of residence unless Ordered by the Court at a later date.”

So, what do you think? Are sufficient steps being taken to protect individual rights to privacy concerning 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.

Plaintiff Ordered to Produce Facebook Photos and Messages as Discovery in Personal Injury Lawsuit – eDiscovery Case Law
 

In Forman v. Henkin, 2014 NY Slip Op 30679 (NY Sup. Ct. Mar 19, 2014), a Motion to Compel was granted in part for a defendant who requested authorization to obtain records of the plaintiff’s private postings to Facebook.

In this New York personal injury litigation, the plaintiff had been injured after falling off a horse owned by the defendant. During deposition, the plaintiff testified that she had posted photos of herself engaged in various activities on Facebook prior to the accident, and that she could no longer engage in those activities due to her injuries. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that she had suffered brain injuries from the fall, which have impaired her ability to read and write, leaving her unable to compose text messages and emails. The plaintiff also claimed that her memory had been impaired, and so she could not remember whether she had posted any photos on Facebook after the injury.

At some point after the accident, but prior to the litigation, the plaintiff had deactivated her Facebook account. The defendant filed a “motion to compel disclosure or for penalties due to the plaintiff’s nondisclosure” requesting access to the plaintiff’s photos, status messages, and instant messages on the Facebook account. No time frame was specified for the defendant’s request.

Judge Lucy Billings noted that any photos of the plaintiff prior to her injury would be of little probative value, because “[i]f she did post such photographs on Facebook, they only will corroborate her testimony. If she did not post such photographs, their absence will not show that she did not engage in various activities before her injury that she no longer engages in.” However, it was stated that photos of the plaintiff after the accident would be of probative value. Specifically, “Photographs of plaintiff engaging in various activities after her injury, particularly any activities she claims she no longer is able to engage in due to her fall from defendant’s horse…”

In addition to photos, the defendant requested writings by the plaintiff from both pre-injury and post-injury time frames, to assess “the impact of plaintiff’s injury on her ability to reason, find words, write, and communicate effectively.” Judge Billings agreed that the defendant was entitled to request the plaintiff’s writings, both after the accident and for a limited time period leading up to the accident for the purposes of comparison. In addition, the defendant was permitted to obtain a psychological and a physical examination of the plaintiff to assess her communication abilities. However, it was noted that the plaintiff’s writing outside of private Facebook messages, along with a single examination, “may not fully reveal the frequency, speed, and volume of her writing,” and therefore the defendant was entitled to obtain Facebook records showing “each time plaintiff posted a private message and the number of characters or words in the text of each private messages,” for a time period from the date of the accident to the deactivation of her Facebook account.

The plaintiff was ordered to produce within 20 days all photos of herself engaged in the activities she intends to introduce at trial that were posted to Facebook, as well as all photos posted to Facebook after her injury that do not contain nudity or romantic encounters, and to provide the defendant with authorization to obtain records from Facebook as stated.

So, what do you think? Should private Facebook accounts be subjected to discovery requests, even after accounts have been deactivated? Are Facebook records presented without the actual text of the messages or postings sufficient to introduce as evidence? 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.

300,000 Visits on eDiscovery Daily! – eDiscovery Milestones

While we haven’t served over 300 billion burgers like McDonald’s, we have provided something to digest each business day for over 43 months.  We’re proud to announce that on Friday, eDiscovery Daily reached the 300,000 visit milestone!  It took us a little over 21 months to reach 100,000 visits and just over 22 months to triple that to 300,000!  On to 500,000!

When we reach key milestones, we like to take a look back at some of the recent stories we’ve covered, so, in case you missed them, here are some recent eDiscovery items of interest from the past six weeks.

After 2,354 Public Comments, One Major Change to the Proposed Federal Rules: By the February 15 deadline for the comment period, no less than 2,354 public comments had been filed regarding the proposed Federal Rules amendments.  Much of the controversy related to Rule 37(e)(1)(B), which included a hotly debated amendment that the court may impose sanctions or order an adverse jury instruction, but only if it finds that the failure to preserve caused “substantial prejudice” in the litigation and was “willful or in bad faith,” or that the failure to preserve “irreparably deprived a party of any meaningful opportunity” to litigate the claims in the action.  Since then, Rule 37(e) has been modified, not just once, but twice.

Government Attorneys Have eDiscovery Issues Too: From a confidence standpoint, 73% of respondents feel as confident or more confident in their ability to manage eDiscovery in their cases.  But, 84% of respondents feel somewhat or not at all effective in their agency’s ability to deal with the challenges of eDiscovery and 80% of respondents feel somewhat or not at all confident that if challenged their agency could demonstrate that their ESI was “accurate, accessible, complete and trustworthy.  These and other survey findings are available here.

Cloud Security Fears Diminish With Experience: According to a recent survey of 1,068 companies conducted by RightScale, Inc., concern about cloud security diminish as users gain more experience using cloud-based services.  Learn more about organizations’ cloud habits here.

Daughter’s Facebook Post Voids $80,000 Settlement: As reported a few weeks ago on CNN, the former head of a private preparatory school in Miami lost out an $80,000 discrimination settlement after his daughter boasted about it on Facebook.  That’s why it’s important to think before you hit send.  Even if you’re still in grade school.

New California Proposed Opinion Requires eDiscovery Competence: If a new proposed opinion in California is adopted, attorneys in that state had better be sufficiently skilled in eDiscovery, hire technical consultants or competent counsel that is sufficiently skilled, or decline representation in cases where eDiscovery is required.

Predictive Analytics: It’s Not Just for Review Anymore: One of the most frequently discussed trends in this year’s annual thought leader interviews that we conducted was the application of analytics (including predictive analytics) to Information Governance.  A recent report published in the Richmond Journal of Law & Technology (and discussed here) addresses how analytics can be used to optimize Information Governance.

How Do You Dispose of “Digital Debris”? EDRM Has Answers:  Those answers can be found in a new white paper discussed here.

Also, hackers took Typepad, our platform for hosting the blog, down for a bit.  But, we’re back and better than ever!

Want to get to know some of your litigation support colleagues better?  Leave it to Jane Gennarelli, who has provided profiles here, here, here, here, here and here.

We’ve also had 11 posts about case law, just in the last six weeks (and 296 overall!).  Here is a link to our case law posts.

Every post we have ever published is still available, so the blog has become quite a knowledge base over the last 43+ months.  Sometime this summer, we will publish our 1,000th post!

On behalf of everyone at CloudNine Discovery who has worked on the blog and other publications that have picked up and either linked to or republished our posts, thanks to all of you!  We really appreciate the support!  Now, on to the next topic.  🙂

And, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Peruse, But Don’t Friend Potential Jurors on Social Media – eDiscovery Trends
 

Unless limited by law or court order, a lawyer may review a juror’s or potential juror’s Internet presence, which may include postings by the juror or potential juror in advance of and during a trial, but a lawyer may not communicate directly or through another with a juror or potential juror.  So says a new formal opinion from the American Bar Association (ABA) Standing Committee on Ethics and Professionalism.

Formal Opinion 466 is a nine page PDF document which is designed to cover the responsibilities for lawyers who are reviewing jurors’ Internet presence.  For the purposes of this opinion, Internet-based social media sites that readily allow account-owner restrictions on access are referred to as “electronic social media” or “ESM” sites – of which the opinion gives current examples like Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, and Twitter. 

Under Model Rule 3.5(b) of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer may not communicate with a potential juror leading up to trial or any juror during trial unless authorized by law or court order.  With that in mind, the opinion addresses three levels of lawyer review of juror Internet presence:

1. passive lawyer review of a juror’s website or ESM that is available without making an access request where the juror is unaware that a website or ESM has been reviewed;

2. active lawyer review where the lawyer requests access to the juror’s ESM; and

3. passive lawyer review where the juror becomes aware through a website or ESM feature of the identity of the viewer.

To illustrate whether each activity violates Rule 3.5 (b), the opinion analogizes each of the activities to real world contact, as follows:

1. In the world outside of the Internet, a lawyer or another, acting on the lawyer’s behalf, would not be engaging in an improper ex parte contact with a prospective juror by driving down the street where the prospective juror lives to observe the environs in order to glean publicly available information that could inform the lawyer’s jury-selection decisions.  So, passive review of a juror’s website or ESM, that is available without making an access request, and of which the juror is unaware, does not violate Rule 3.5(b).

2. This would be akin to driving down the juror’s street, stopping the car, getting out, and asking the juror for permission to look inside the juror’s house because the lawyer cannot see enough when just driving past and it would be the type of ex parte communication prohibited by Model Rule 3.5(b).

3. This is akin to a neighbor’s recognizing a lawyer’s car driving down the juror’s street and telling the juror that the lawyer had been seen driving down the street.  A lawyer who uses a shared ESM platform to passively view juror ESM under these circumstances does not communicate with the juror. The lawyer is not communicating with the juror; the ESM service is communicating with the juror based on a technical feature of the ESM.

Also, under Model Rule 3.3(b), if a lawyer discovers criminal or fraudulent conduct by a juror related to the proceeding, the lawyer must take reasonable remedial measures including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.  However, the opinion hedged on a lawyer’s duty to notify the court when the conduct is merely “improper”, but stops short of being criminal or fraudulent.

So, what do you think? Do any of the parameters of this opinion surprise you? 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.

Daughter’s Facebook Post Voids $80,000 Settlement – eDiscovery Trends

My boss reminded me that we haven’t had a good social media disaster story in a while, so here goes.  I know it’s a few weeks old, but it’s still a good story if you haven’t heard it.

As reported a few weeks ago on CNN, the former head of a private preparatory school in Miami lost out an $80,000 discrimination settlement after his daughter boasted about it on Facebook.

When Patrick Snay, the former head of Gulliver Preparatory School, filed an age discrimination complaint when his 2010-11 contract wasn’t renewed, the school and Snay came to an agreement in which Snay would be paid $10,000 in back pay, as well as an $80,000 settlement.

He was all set.  Then, his daughter posted a comment to Facebook, as follows:

“Mama and Papa Snay won the case against Gulliver. Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer. SUCK IT.”

And, she sent it to her 1,200 Facebook followers, which included many current and former Gulliver students and word got back to school officials.

The problem?   It seems that Snay had a confidentiality agreement which stated that neither Snay nor his wife could speak about the settlement to anyone except for his attorneys and other professional advisers.  That included their daughter.  Within a few days, Gulliver Schools sent a letter to Snay’s attorneys stating that Snay had broken the confidentiality agreement and that he would not be receiving the $80,000 settlement.

Snay filed a motion to enforce the settlement and initially won in a Circuit Court ruling. However, the school appealed and the Third District Court of Appeals for the State of Florida agreed that Snay had, in fact, violated confidentiality and reversed the Circuit Court ruling.  Goodbye $80,000.

Sometimes the case is lost even after it’s won.

That’s why it’s important to think before you hit send.  Even if you’re still in grade school.

So, what do you think? Have you seen any cases lately that turned on social media evidence? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Plaintiff Sanctioned for Spoliation of Digital Evidence in Sexual Harassment Lawsuit – eDiscovery Case Law
 

In Calderon v. Corporacion Puertorrique a de Salud, No. 12-1006 (FAB) (D.P.R. Jan. 16, 2014), the plaintiff was found to have violated his duty to preserve evidence during the discovery phase of this sexual harassment lawsuit. Sanctions were imposed, though not to the extent requested by the defendants.

The discovery dispute began over the Electronically Stored Information (ESI) produced by the plaintiff, which were in the form of messages from his phone exchanged between the plaintiff and a particular identified email address belonging to an unknown person who was alleged to be the harasser. The plaintiff produced relevant messages to the defendants, but also admitted that some of the messages had been deleted from his phone. In response, the defendants filed a motion in limine that sought to have all of the messages excluded, and requesting that the case be dismissed.

While the motion in limine was still pending, the defendants received ESI from the plaintiff’s phone service provider, which contained the plaintiff’s phone and text messages spanning the time period relevant to the case. These records showed that at least 38 messages, including some from the alleged harasser and others that were “the numerous text messages that [plaintiff] sent in response” were not among those messages produced by the plaintiff to the defendants. Therefore, the defendants filed a supplemental motion based on the missing messages that asked to sanction the plaintiff by dismissing the case, since spoliation of evidence had occurred.

The plaintiff filed a motion to quash, with the argument that the defendants had subpoenaed the plaintiff’s service provider before the discovery deadline, and had not given adequate pre-service notice. Therefore, the plaintiff claimed that the subpoena which resulted in the discovery of missing messages should be quashed as procedurally defective. However, it was noted that had the defendants given notice of the subpoena and the plaintiff objected, the subpoena would not have been quashed. Further, the late disclosure of the defendants’ receipt of phone records was determined to be harmless to the plaintiff.

In considering the motions, District Judge Francisco A. Besosa found that spoliation had indeed occurred. This was based on discovery of the 38 messages the plaintiff had deleted, some of which had included photos that were also not produced by the plaintiff. Additionally, the plaintiff’s records revealed that he had “reasonably foresaw litigation and had a duty to preserve relevant evidence,” because the plaintiff had contacted his attorney via his phone prior to the point where he admitted to “forwarding some messages…so that he ‘would be able to print’ them.” Judge Besosa stated that this constituted “conscious abandonment of potentially useful evidence” and indicated that the plaintiff believed the deleted messages would not help his side of the case.

While spoliation had been found to occur, Judge Besosa declined to sanction the plaintiff by dismissing the case, citing that dismissal of an entire lawsuit as a sanction is generally reserved for extreme cases, as cited in Benitez-Garcia v. Gonzalez-Vega, 468 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2006), which stated: “[I]t has long been our rule that a case should not be dismissed with prejudice except when a plaintiff’s misconduct is particularly egregious or extreme.” Instead, Judge Besosa ruled that an adverse inference instruction to the jury was the most appropriate sanction for this case.

So, what do you think? Should the court consider quashing evidence that would not have been likely quashed during normal proceedings, if a party obtains such evidence outside of established processes? Are adverse inference instructions truly sufficient to exclude or caution against potential spoliation of evidence? 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.

Adam Losey of IT-Lex.org – eDiscovery Trends

This is the sixth of the 2014 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders after LTNY this year (don’t get us started) and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What significant eDiscovery trends did you see at LTNY this year and what do you see for 2014?
  2. With new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure now in the comment phase, do you see those being approved this year and what do you see as the impact of those Rules changes?
  3. It seems despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery?  Do you agree with that and, if so, what do you think can be done to improve the situation?
  4. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Adam Losey.  Adam is president and editor-in-chief of IT-Lex.org, a technology law not-for-profit educational and literary organization and an attorney at Foley & Lardner LLP.  Adam also served as an adjunct professor at Columbia University, where he taught electronic discovery as part of Columbia’s Information and Digital Resource Management Master’s Program.

What significant eDiscovery trends did you see at LTNY this year and what do you see for 2014?

There were several trends that I saw at the show this year.  I think there was more emphasis this year on data security and privacy.  I don’t think that anybody is doing anything all that differently when they’re hosting data.  I think that they were – hopefully – going through the same steps for security before, but they’re emphasizing security more in marketing.  There was a lot more emphasis on ease-of-use solutions.  Candidly, I was expecting for some of the providers that are in this space to merge or go away and I know some of that is happening, but I saw increased competition in the marketplace in a variety of fields, which surprised me a little bit, but is good for the market.  I also saw more dedicated web-based litigation hold management products out there than I had seen in the past.  Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to go by every booth, so my experience is largely anecdotal and I may have missed some other trends.

As for trends for 2014, on the legal front, I expect more litigation on spoliation.  Again, my experience is anecdotal, but I happen to handle that particular issue a lot.  I’m seeing it pop up in a lot more cases; if not spoliation itself, then requests by parties to dig into their opponents’ search and review processes, just as a matter of course in the litigation if it is of any size.  In the past, I didn’t see that for any case of any size- it typically only came up in larger cases.  I don’t know if that’s decreased trust or a “trust but verify” Reagan type of approach, but it has become the norm in my world.  These days, many people want to do discovery on your eDiscovery, again just as a matter of course.  Typically, in the past, you’d only see that come up if there was any issue or deficiency with a production where someone could point to something wrong with your efforts.  But, it may not always be appropriate to do discovery about discovery, short of any issue identified with a production.

On the vendor front, I see a lot of vendors that have “click and drag” tools and solutions for small or medium sized firms or cases, which I think are really cool and I’m looking forward to playing with some of them.  From ingest to the end, a single person or lawyer can handle everything, clicking and dragging files to get them processed.  Obviously, sometimes issues come up in processing, so I’m wondering how the vendors handle those.  But, there’s a lot of cool stuff that I saw this year that I’m looking forward to playing around with.

The last trend that I see is a lot of interest and emphasis on forensic collection from mobile devices and social media collection.  That’s no surprise because in cases that I deal with, that comes up all the time.  I’ve done plenty of collections from iPhones and other devices.  The problem is that when you have those solid state drives, collections can be a little weirder and forensics can be a little more difficult.  And, social media collection is always somewhat of a “tricky bird” for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is you sometimes have a lot of layers in that onion that make it harder to collect from those sources.

With new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure now in the comment phase, do you see those being approved this year and what do you see as the impact of those Rules changes?

Excellent question.  I see some of the rules being approved.  I would want to fact check and make sure I’ve got the changes right, but I imagine that changes related to timing of depositions and number of witnesses and other minor procedural “quirks” will be passed, though I don’t see those as having a big impact on litigation.  I think that the number of hours per deposition is trimmed by an hour or two.  In all of the depositions that I’ve been involved, time of deposition is not a major controversial point.  If you can’t work that out with the other side, that doesn’t bode well.  But, for Rule 37(e), the rule that essentially creates a new standard for the imposition of spoliation sanctions, I hope that doesn’t pass.  I think it raises a lot of issues whether or not you think it’s necessary.  There’s a big issue about whether federal or state law governs this stuff.  When you’re litigating spoliation on a diversity case, it’s presumably governed by state law.  Or, so some cases say, others say “no, it’s a procedural issue, it’s governed by federal law”.  But, if they pass that rule, you suddenly have a new standard for spoliation in federal court, which will lead to all sort of nasty issues of “forum shopping” where people who destroy things will want to be in federal court, believe it or not.  Which is unusual, because there will be a standard that makes it difficult to get spoliation sanctions.

Judge Francis had a well-reasoned and superbly reasoned opinion addressing spoliation, where he held that “[The] sanction [of an adverse inference] should be available even for the negligent destruction of documents if that is necessary to further the remedial purpose of the inference. It makes little difference to the party victimized by the destruction of evidence whether that act was done willfully or negligently. The adverse inference provides the necessary mechanism for restoring the evidentiary balance. The inference is adverse to the destroyer not because of any finding of moral culpability, but because the risk that the evidence would have been detrimental rather than favorable should fall on the party responsible for its loss.” (Turner v. Hudson Transit Lines, Inc., 142 F.R.D. 68, 75 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)).

It does not matter whether the spoliator was a “cackling villain twirling his mustache” or an innocent employee that pressed the wrong button.  Spoliation addresses prejudice a party suffers as a result of the destruction of evidence needed to prove a case. It doesn’t really matter to the victim what the other party’s intent was.  You just want to be put in the position where you would have been if the evidence had not been destroyed.  So, the law until now in most jurisdictions (which I think had it right) said that if you have possession, custody and control of the ESI and you knew that you should have preserved it and it gets destroyed, we’re not going to shy away from leveling the playing field based on that.  The new Rule 37(e) is going to make it night impossible for some judges to keep the playing field level.

I’m not sure if that is going to pass or not, I have no special insight into that process or those committees.  But, although we do have some chaos now in that there are different standards in different jurisdictions, but I like for judges to have flexibility generally.  I think that “bright line” rules, while they may initially have some attractiveness in uniformity, take away flexibility from the good judges we have, who are smart people.  With flexibility, I think you see justice more than if you have a hard iron rule and the conflict of law issues that are going to come up as a result will be tricky.

It seems despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery?  Do you agree with that and, if so, what do you think can be done to improve the situation?

Well, again, my observations are anecdotal.  I’ve “drank the Kool-Aid” like many people that you’re probably interviewing.  So, most of the people that I deal with have some knowledge of eDiscovery.  But, in the Bar at large, I do think things are getting a lot better.  I think that the big barrier to education in a lot of cases is that you get a lot of eyes glazed over by a certain type of person when you start to talk about eDiscovery.  Much like my eyes might glaze over if you talk about particular provisions of the partnership tax code.  Some people love tax law – I have a friend that I went to law school with that is enamored with tax law and he’s an awesome tax lawyer.  And, he really likes that, but he doesn’t like eDiscovery.  So, it’s “different strokes for different folks”

Unfortunately, unlike partnership tax law, if you’re going to be litigating, you have to know about eDiscovery.  Ironically, my first trial was in Tax Court, on a pure tax issue, and some pretty major eDiscovery issues popped up in the middle of trial in a dramatic, surprising, way – so even the tax litigator needs to know eDiscovery basics.  So, the real challenge on eDiscovery education isn’t reaching the people who already follow this and already read the blogs – they’re well versed in it.  It’s important to provide something that’s funny and entertaining, if you can, so that you can bridge that interest gap with either humor or writing or presentation skills.  I think a lot of organizations are doing that and I feel that more people know about it now.  Certainly, the judiciary does.  The judges are very well versed in a lot of eDiscovery issues, at least generally.

But, at firms, there are some folks that don’t want to learn it, but realize it’s important, so they delegate.  In most situations, I don’t see anything wrong with that.  If you have a senior trial lawyer that’s in his 80s and he’s an excellent presenter and trial lawyer, but does not want to handle the “nitty-gritty” of eDiscovery and he brings someone on to handle that for him, I don’t see anything wrong with that.  The rules of professional conduct, at least in Florida, allow that too.  In competence, we have an ethics opinion in Florida (I think it’s 0602) that says you have a duty to competence that extends to an understanding of eDiscovery.  I think 0602 talks about metadata scrubbing and emails, but one of the ways that you can make up that competence shortfall is by involving other lawyers and having them help with the things you don’t know or understand, and I don’t see anything wrong with that.  I’ve seen a lot of companies actually (and I agree with this and love doing it), have firms or individuals just to serve as eDiscovery counsel to look over the shoulder.  They may use different firms for different litigations, but they want somebody that knows how the business works really well that can look over the shoulder of outside counsel or in-house folks in every case, which I think is a good trend.

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

There are a couple of quick points that I’d like to hit on with IT-Lex.  One, for law students and young lawyers, we have the highest paid cash prize writing competition in the country.  So, if you are a law student or know a law student, by all means, check it out or send them the link.  The cash prize is big, but it’s not the biggest part of the prize – the real prize is that the winner gets to headline at the Innovate conference, which is a huge career springboard.  Plus, they get invitations to become members.  So, I really want to emphasize the writing competition.

On top of that, our Innovate conference is going to be coming up October 9 and 10 of this year, so we’d love to see people there.  If you want to sign up as a friend of IT-Lex, you can do so for free and we always welcome involvement from folks in the community with what we do.  So, look at what we do and don’t be shy to reach out is the quick message.

Thanks, Adam, for participating in the interview!

And to the readers, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic!

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

2013 eDiscovery Year in Review: eDiscovery Case Law, Part 4

As we noted on Thursday, Friday and yesterday, eDiscoveryDaily published 78 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 62 unique cases!  Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to proportionality and the first half of the cases related to sanctions (yes, there were that many).  Today, here are the rest of the cases related to sanctions.

We grouped those cases into common subject themes and have been reviewing them over the previous three posts.  Today is the last post in the series.  Perhaps you missed some of these cases?  Now is your chance to catch up!

SANCTIONS

Of the 62 cases we covered this past year, over 40% of them (26 total cases) related to sanctions, either due to spoliation issues or inadequate or untimely productions, many of which were granted, but some were denied.  Oh, and, apparently, having your case dismissed isn’t the worst that can happen to you for spoliation of data.  Here are the remaining 13 cases:

Judge Rules Against Spoliation Sanctions when the Evidence Doesn’t Support the Case.  In Cottle-Banks v. Cox Commc’ns, Inc., California District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel denied the plaintiff’s motion for spolation sanctions because the plaintiff was unable to show that deleted recordings of customer calls would have likely been relevant and supportive of her claim.

Spoliation of Data Can Get You Sent Up the River.  Sometimes, eDiscovery can literally be a fishing expedition. I got a kick out of Ralph Losey’s article on E-Discovery Law Today (Fishing Expedition Discovers Laptop Cast into Indian River) where the defendant employee in a RICO case in Simon Property Group, Inc. v. Lauria threw her laptop into a river. Needless to say, given the intentional spoliation of evidence, the court imposed struck all of the defenses raised by the defendant and scheduled the case for trial on the issue of damages.

Adverse Inference Sanction for Defendant who Failed to Stop Automatic Deletion.  Remember the adverse inference instructions in the Zubulake v. UBS Warburg and Apple v. Samsung cases? This case has characteristics of both of those. In Pillay v. Millard Refrigerated Servs., Inc., Illinois District Judge Joan H. Lefkow granted the plaintiff’s motion for an adverse inference jury instruction due to the defendant’s failure to stop automatic deletion of employee productivity tracking data used as a reason for terminating a disabled employee.

Appellate Court Upholds District Court Discretion for Determining the Strength of Adverse Inference Sanction.  In Flagg v. City of Detroit, the Sixth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a permissive rather than mandatory adverse inference instruction for the defendant’s deletion of emails, noting that the district court has discretion in determining the strength of the inference to be applied.

eDiscovery Vendors Are Not Immune to eDiscovery Sanctions.  In Nuance Communications Inc. v. Abbyy Software House et al., California District Judge Jeffrey S. White refused Wednesday to dismiss Nuance Communications Inc.’s patent infringement suit against Lexmark International Inc. and Abbyy Software House, and awarded reimbursement of plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs in excess of $130,000 as part of discovery abuse sanctions resulting from the late production of relevant documents from Abbyy.

Hard Drive Turned Over to Criminal Defendant – Eight Years Later.  If you think discovery violations by the other side can cause you problems, imagine being this guy. As reported by WRAL.com in Durham, North Carolina, the defense in State of North Carolina v. Raven S. Abaroa filed a Motion to Dismiss the Case for Discovery Violations after the state produced a forensic image of a hard drive (in the middle of trial) that had been locked away in the Durham Police Department for eight years.

When Lawyers Get Sued, They Have Preservation Obligations Too.  In Distefano v. Law Offices of Barbara H. Katsos, PC., New York Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson found that the defendant (an attorney who was being sued by the plaintiff she previously represented for breach of contract, negligence/legal malpractice, and breach of fiduciary duty/duty of care) had a duty to preserve information from a discarded computer and ordered a hearing for the defendant to address a number of questions to determine the potential relevance of the destroyed data and whether the defendant had a sufficiently culpable state of mind.

Plaintiff Receives Adverse Inference Sanction for Deleting Facebook Profile.  In Gatto v. United Air Lines, Inc., New Jersey Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion issued an adverse inference sanction against the plaintiff for failing to preserve data due to the fact that he either, deactivated his Facebook account and allowed the account to be automatically deleted after fourteen days, or that he deleted the account outright. Judge Mannion denied the defendant’s request for attorney’s fees and costs for “the time and effort it was forced to expend in an effort to obtain discovery”.

The Hammer Comes Down on Losing Plaintiff for Spoliation of Data.  Apparently, having your case dismissed isn’t the worst that can happen to you for egregious spoliation of data. You can also be ordered to pay the winning party over $200,000 in fees and costs for the case. In Taylor v. Mitre Corp., Virginia District Judge Liam O’Grady partially granted the prevailing defendant’s motion for fees and costs after the court dismissed the case due to the plaintiff’s spoliation of evidence.

Defendants Sanctioned, Sort Of, for Failure to Preserve Text Messages.  In Christou v. Beatport, LLC, Colorado District Judge R. Brooke Jackson ruled that the plaintiffs could introduce evidence at trial to show the defendants failure to preserve text messages after the key defendant’s iPhone was lost. However, the judge also ruled that the defendants could present “evidence in explanation…and argue that no adverse inference should be drawn”.

JP Morgan Chase Sanctioned for a Failure to Preserve Skill Codes.  In EEOC v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, District Judge Gregory L. Frost granted the EEOC’s motion for sanctions for spoliation of data, entitling the plaintiff to “a permissive adverse jury instruction related to the spoliation if this litigation proceeds to a jury trial”, and denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

EEOC Sanctioned for Failing to Comply with Motion to Compel Production.  As noted previously in this blog, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was ordered to turn over social media information related to a class action case alleging sexual harassment and retaliation. Apparently, they were less than cooperative in complying with that order. In EEOC v. Original Honeybaked Ham Co. of Georgia, Colorado Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty sanctioned the EEOC for failing to provide discovery of social media content.

Blind Reliance on Vendor for Discovery Results in Sanctions.  In Peerless Indus., Inc. v. Crimson AV, LLC, Illinois Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox sanctioned the defendant for a “hands off approach” to discovery by relying on a vendor for conducting the discovery from a closely related non-party to the suit.

That’s our eDiscovery case review for 2013.  Let’s do it again next year!

So, what do you think?  Did you miss any of these?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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