Close
Enter your
text here

Cooperation

Did the Plaintiff Send a Letter to Confer with Defendants? It’s Anybody’s “Guess”: eDiscovery Case Law

See what I did there?  ;o)

In Simpson v. J.L. Guess et al., No. 3:18-cv-547-J-39PDB (M.D. Fla. March 20, 2020), Florida District Judge Brian A. Davis ruled on several motions from both the plaintiff and defendants, including denying the defendants’ motion for sanctions over whether the plaintiff sent a letter to confer with defense counsel about the motion to compel.

Case Background

In this case by a prisoner proceeding pro se alleging use of excessive force by six correctional officers, the Court ruled on the plaintiff’s motion to compel, the plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to respond to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff’s request to strike a declaration of defense counsel and the defendants’ request for sanctions up to dismissal of the action.

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to the plaintiff’s motion to compel and motion for an extension of time, the defendants responded that three officers had no records of discipline, and three others had no records of discipline for use of excessive force on an inmate.  But, Judge Davis stated, in granting both motions: “Contrary to the defendants’ argument, records of discipline are relevant even if the discipline was for something other than use of excessive force on an inmate…In responding to the discovery request, the defendants made no objection about proportionality, instead focusing on relevancy, inadmissibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), and confidentiality and now provide no analysis about proportionality using the pertinent factors.”

However, Judge Davis denied the plaintiff’s request to strike a declaration of defense counsel, stating: “Accepting a lawyer’s representation that his client has no responsive documents is commonplace in civil litigation absent evidence of misrepresentation beyond conjecture. Matters about discovery collection and review will not be part of the trial as matters merely collateral to the claims tried before the jury. There is no risk defense counsel will be called to testify at trial.”

With regard to the defendants’ motion for sanctions, the plaintiff declared (under penalty of perjury) he tried to confer with defense counsel about the motion to compel by letter (and included a copy of the letter), but received no response.  Conversely, defense counsel declared (under penalty of perjury) he received no letter from the plaintiff and contended the plaintiff was “a liar and a fraudster who has maligned defense counsel’s character”.  There was a dispute over whether the prison logs outgoing mail from prisoners, but Judge Davis said:

“The declarations create material issues of fact on facts immaterial to the merits of the claims and defenses: whether the plaintiff lied when he said he mailed the letter, whether defense counsel lied when he said he never received the letter, whether no one lied because the letter was sent but not received due to inadvertent misplacement or loss at the prison, the post office, or defense counsel’s office, and whether defense counsel misled the Court by suggesting the log would reflect outgoing mail. In the interest of the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of this action…the Court declines to conduct an evidentiary hearing on these collateral issues or otherwise divert limited resources to trying to resolve them and thus denies the defendants’ request for sanctions…But to confront an alleged but unaddressed misrepresentation by a lawyer, the Court directs defense counsel to inform the Court whether any log actually would reflect outgoing mail sent by the plaintiff…The information must be provided by April 30, 2020.”

So, what do you think?  Should the plaintiff be given the benefit of doubt under the circumstances?  Please let us know if 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.

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Sanctions Request, Points Out Her Own “Misconduct”: eDiscovery Case Law

In Vaks v. Quinlan, et al., No. 18-12571-LTS (D. Mass. Feb. 24, 2020), Massachusetts District Judge Leo T. Sorokin denied the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and for Sanctions, calling her accusations “without basis” and pointing out her own “pattern of misconduct and disregard of the governing rules”.

Case Background

In this case involving claims of age discrimination by the plaintiff against the defendants, the plaintiff, in filing the motion, accused the defendants and their attorneys of: (1) “obstructing” a deposition; (2) “relentless refusal to produce documents”; and (3) “defiantly [and] in bad faith violat[ing] every Federal Rule of Civil Procedure related to discovery[.]”

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Sorokin, in responding to the plaintiff’s accusations, stated: “These are serious accusations made in writing. They are without basis.”  Judge Sorokin also referenced a previous observation from his court where he “note[d] that there is no basis to infer improper discovery practices by defendant or anything other than reasonable forthright practices by [defense] counsel.”  Continuing, he noted:

“Indeed, to date, Plaintiff—rather than Defendants—has not conformed to the governing rules. She filed late discovery requests…which the Court ultimately found were almost entirely overbroad, unreasonable, and not proportional to the case…She induced the Court to issue an order by making a material misrepresentation: in writing, she represented that defense counsel had assented to an extension of the governing schedule which, the Court later learned, defense counsel had not.”

Judge Sorokin also outlined the plaintiff’s submission of documents produced by the defendants in a pending motion as “plainly designated as confidential” and “in direct violation of the protective order” that defendants had requested which was approved by the court, even though the plaintiff had “never challenged any confidentiality designations”.  Judge Sorokin indicated that filing “establishes a pattern of misconduct and disregard of the governing rules.”

As for the merits of the plaintiff’s motion to compel, Judge Sorokin addressed her five claims, as follows:

  • Format of the documents produced electronically by defendants: Judge Sorokin stated: “This challenge is without merit. Defendants produced the metadata both for documents and emails. As to emails, they searched their servers, and produced the relevant emails with attachments and metadata…This is a permissible practice.”
  • Defendants advanced improper general objections: Judge Sorokin stated: “Not so. Defendants augmented their ‘general’ objections with specific objections.”
  • Defendants withheld responsive non-privileged documents: Judge Sorokin stated that “nothing before the Court, contrary to Vaks’ arguments, suggests” that took place, noting that “Defendants produced multiple privilege logs” and indicated that the plaintiff “simply misunderstands” a reference from the defendants to imply there were suppressed documents.
  • Certain documents withheld by Defendants pursuant to the work product privilege doctrine were not privileged: Judge Sorokin stated: “This argument similarly fails”, noting that documents in contention were prepared at the direction of the defendant’s general counsel, “so that she could provide legal advice. In these circumstances, such documents are properly withheld.”
  • Reopen the now-completed Rule 30(b)(6) deposition: Judge Sorokin noted that there was “no basis” to do so, stating: “Indeed, Vaks has not demonstrated in any way that Mr. LeBlanc did not adequately answer questions during his deposition. Moreover, she did not, in any of the parties’ communications after Mr. LeBlanc’s deposition, claim that the deposition was deficient.”

In denying the motion, Judge Sorokin also stated: “One more issue bears comment. Vaks requests sanctions. None are merited here. Whatever the merits of Vaks’ claims—a matter upon which the Court has no view—defense counsel has discharged her discovery obligations well. She has made reasonable accommodations for a pro se party, as she must, while pressing her client’s positions firmly—all while under repeated attack. There is no basis whatsoever for the imposition of sanctions, nor even an arguable basis to request sanctions.”

So, what do you think?  Does the ruling open the door for the defendants to file their own motion for sanctions?  Please let us know if 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.

The Ongoing Battle Over How ESI is Produced: eDiscovery Trends, Part Four

Editor’s Note: Tom O’Connor is a nationally known consultant, speaker, and writer in the field of computerized litigation support systems.  He has also been a great addition to our webinar program, participating with me on several recent webinars.  Tom has also written several terrific informational overview series for CloudNine, including his most recent one, Mobile Collection: It’s Not Just for iPhones Anymore.  Now, Tom has written another terrific overview regarding mobile device collection titled The Ongoing Battle Over How ESI is Produced that we’re happy to share on the eDiscovery Daily blog.  Enjoy! – Doug

Tom’s overview is split into four parts, so we’ll cover each part separately.  The first part was last Tuesday, the second part was last Wednesday and the third part was last Friday, here’s the fourth and final part.

Conclusions

So, is all this controversy over ESI format legitimate? Or is it, in the words of Bob Eisenberg,

“ … a cocktail of the dubious, bogus and unfounded.  A stew of junk or half-baked technical science and disingenuous advocacy, seeking to rationalize the unreasonable, while tilting that proverbial playing field as far as possible in support of the defense …”.

You make the call.

Regardless, we’re certainly seeing more cases where form of production is figuring prominently in court rulings.  Here are some cases covered by eDiscovery Daily in just the past couple of years regarding form of production disputes, some which granted requests for native files and metadata, others which did not:

Finally, there is one terrific resource regarding form of production that everyone should read and it’s (once again) from renowned eDiscovery expert Craig Ball.  Craig’s Lawyer’s Guide to Forms of Production discusses all of the format options available to attorneys, the pros and cons of each, how to address considerations such as Bates numbers and redactions, and it even includes a sample Request for Production to help guide attorneys on requesting ESI.  Check it out!

So, what do you think?  Do you prefer image-based productions or native file productions?  As always, 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 Ongoing Battle Over How ESI is Produced: eDiscovery Trends, Part Three

Editor’s Note: Tom O’Connor is a nationally known consultant, speaker, and writer in the field of computerized litigation support systems.  He has also been a great addition to our webinar program, participating with me on several recent webinars.  Tom has also written several terrific informational overview series for CloudNine, including his most recent one, Mobile Collection: It’s Not Just for iPhones Anymore.  Now, Tom has written another terrific overview regarding mobile device collection titled The Ongoing Battle Over How ESI is Produced that we’re happy to share on the eDiscovery Daily blog.  Enjoy! – Doug

Tom’s overview is split into four parts, so we’ll cover each part separately.  The first part was Tuesday and the second part was Wednesday, here’s the third part.

Objections to Native File Production and Counter-Arguments

So, what are the objections most commonly raised by producing parties? I’ll discuss the standard objections below and after that I’ll mention some counter arguments to those objections, including several that have been raised recently by renowned eDiscovery expert Craig Ball.

The objections to native file production we see most often are the following:

  1. The Defense has already created a database containing all documents to be produced (often in related litigation) and retrieval of native files would place an added cost on the producing party.
  2. Redaction is unduly costly and even impossible with some native files
  3. It is unduly burdensome and costly to require an entirely new review of relevant documents necessary to produce native files
  4. Native files cannot be Bates numbered, making them less useful for presentation activities like depositions and trial.
  5. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 does not specifically call for production in native format
  6. Image-based productions have been accepted in many courts
  7. Static images are equally useful for analysis purposes as native files

The response to most of these objections is first that they are not “specific” as required by Rule 34 and second that they are generally untrue. TIFF files are not as useful as native files in that they are not searchable, contain no metadata from the original files and are not at all conducive to the use of TAR or analytics software for searching.

And more specifically, the notes to the FRCP point out that:

[T]he option to produce in a reasonably usable form does not mean that a responding party is free to convert electronically stored information from the form in which it is ordinarily maintained to a different form that makes it more difficult or burdensome for the requesting party to use the information efficiently in the litigation. If the responding party ordinarily maintains the information it is producing in a way that makes it searchable by electronic means, the information should not be produced in a form that removes or significantly degrades this feature.

FRCP Rule 34, Committee Notes on Rules – 2006 Amendment

The latter objection was covered thoroughly by Craig Ball in a blog post of his entitled Degradation: How TIFF+ Disrupts Search. In brief, Craig notes that TIFF load file inaccuracies can reduce accurate searchability (and I routinely see problems in 2/3 of the load files I am asked to investigate, even from large experienced vendors) and further that the suppression of comments or their merger into other portions of text can also severely inhibit accurate searching.

Even more interesting is an analysis Craig performed on the difference in file sizes between TIFF and some standard native files which result in increased costs to requesting parties who will be hosting the documents in a web-based service. In a blog post entitled Don’t Let Plaintiffs’ Lawyers Read This!!, Craig noted that since TIFF images of native files are much larger than the native files and most most eDiscovery service providers are “In the Cloud” and charge by data volume, then a production format that increases data size 15, 20 or 25 times is a violation of the proportionality principle.

Seem far-fetched? Well as Craig notes in his post “let’s do the math” and the math is clear. So clear that one judge in one recent case agreed with him and ordered native file production despite the defendants raising a number of the objections above and disputing Craig’s testimony about file size.

With regard to the objection above raised by producing parties that native files cannot be Bates numbered, making them less useful for depositions, trial and other events where evidence is presented, there is an easy solution to that issue.  Most parties that produce native files generate a file level number for each document that is used to track productions at the document level (essentially a document-level Bates number).  When it comes time to use some of those documents in evidence, they can be converted to image form and the page numbers can be added as a prefix (e.g., PROD00000123-0001, PROD00000123-0002, etc., where “PROD00000123” references the document-level Bates number that was used to track the documents produced.  Keep in mind that only a fraction of the documents produced (often a very small fraction) are used in evidence presentation.  Native file productions don’t eliminate the ability to refer to specific pages within documents when presenting evidence.

We’ll publish Part 4 – Conclusions – next Monday.

So, what do you think?  Do you prefer image-based productions or native file productions? As always, 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 Denies Southwest Airlines’ Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions Against Plaintiff: eDiscovery Case Law

In Houston v. Southwest Airlines, No. 3:17-cv-02610-N-BT (N.D. Tex. Feb. 18, 2020), Texas Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford “decline[d] to impose sanctions under either Rule 11 or its inherent powers” against the plaintiff for statements she made regarding her response to the defendant’s interrogatories and requests for admission in her summary judgment response.

Case Background

The defendant served interrogatories and requests for admission on the plaintiff, and claimed that she did not respond. In her summary judgment response, however, the plaintiff asserted that she responded to the defendant’s interrogatories and requests for admission via email on April 20, 2019, and even followed up with counsel on May 1, 2019, to confirm defendant’s receipt of her answers.  The defendant objected that the plaintiff’s statements were “materially false” and contended that she made them for the improper purpose of avoiding summary judgment. As a result, the defendant sought sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and the Court’s inherent power in the form of an order: (1) striking the plaintiff’s summary judgment response without leave to amend; (2) granting the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) requiring that the plaintiff pay the defendant $1,015.00 in attorney’s fees.  The plaintiff did not respond to the defendant’s Motion for Sanctions.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Rutherford began her analysis by noting that “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 authorizes a court to impose sanctions on a party or an attorney who files a pleading for an improper purpose, such as to harass the opposing party, delay the proceedings, or increase the cost of litigation.”  She also noted that “[c]ourts also have inherent authority to impose sanctions on attorneys when they find that an attorney has ‘acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons’”, while also noting that “[c]ourts ‘exercise caution’ in invoking their inherent power and should ‘ordinarily’ rely on a rule or statute rather than their inherent power.”

In this case, Judge Rutherford stated: “Here, the Court declines to impose sanctions under either Rule 11 or its inherent powers. The record in this case does not clearly establish that Houston’s assertions that she responded to Southwest’s discovery requests were made for an improper purpose. Indeed, there is no evidence in the record regarding Houston’s intent. She may have honestly, but mistakenly, believed she properly answered Southwest’s discovery requests. Sanctions under the Court’s inherent authority are inappropriate for the same reason. Accordingly, Southwest’s Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.”

So, what do you think?  Should the court have expected some documentation from the plaintiff to support her claim that she responded via email to avoid Rule 11 sanctions?  Please let us know if 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.

The Ongoing Battle Over How ESI is Produced: eDiscovery Trends, Part Two

Editor’s Note: Tom O’Connor is a nationally known consultant, speaker, and writer in the field of computerized litigation support systems.  He has also been a great addition to our webinar program, participating with me on several recent webinars.  Tom has also written several terrific informational overview series for CloudNine, including his most recent one, Mobile Collection: It’s Not Just for iPhones Anymore.  Now, Tom has written another terrific overview regarding mobile device collection titled The Ongoing Battle Over How ESI is Produced that we’re happy to share on the eDiscovery Daily blog.  Enjoy! – Doug

Tom’s overview is split into four parts, so we’ll cover each part separately.  The first part was yesterday, here’s the second part.

Rule 34(b) and Form of Production

As I’ve said before, “read the rule book shankapotomous.”  So, let’s look at exactly what the rules say about this issue.  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 34, section (b) reads as follows:

(b) Procedure.

…..(1) Contents of the Request. The request:

……….(A) must describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected;

……….(B) must specify a reasonable time, place, and manner for the inspection and for performing the related acts; and

……….(C) may specify the form or forms in which electronically stored information is to be produced.

…..(2) Responses and Objections.

……….(A) Time to Respond. The party to whom the request is directed must respond in writing within 30 days after being served or — if the request was delivered under Rule 26(d)(2) — within 30 days after the parties’ first Rule 26(f) conference. A shorter or longer time may be stipulated to under Rule 29 or be ordered by the court.

……….(B) Responding to Each Item. For each item or category, the response must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons. The responding party may state that it will produce copies of documents or of electronically stored information instead of permitting inspection. The production must then be completed no later than the time for inspection specified in the request or another reasonable time specified in the response.

……….(C) Objections. An objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. An objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.

……….(D) Responding to a Request for Production of Electronically Stored Information. The response may state an objection to a requested form for producing electronically stored information. If the responding party objects to a requested form—or if no form was specified in the request—the party must state the form or forms it intends to use.

……….(E) Producing the Documents or Electronically Stored Information. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, these procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored information:

……………(i) A party must produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request;

……………(ii) If a request does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, a party must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms; and

……………(iii) A party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.

The Rule above seems to make clear three salient points:

  1. The requesting party gets to specify the form of the production
  2. The responding party gets to object and offer a different format IF they can offer a specific set of objections with the reasons why they need to use an alternate format
  3. If neither side specifies a format, the default format is native files.

We’ll publish Part 3 – Objections to Native File Production and Counter-Arguments – on Friday.

So, what do you think?  Do you prefer image-based productions or native file productions?  As always, 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 Ongoing Battle Over How ESI is Produced: eDiscovery Trends

Editor’s Note: Tom O’Connor is a nationally known consultant, speaker, and writer in the field of computerized litigation support systems.  He has also been a great addition to our webinar program, participating with me on several recent webinars.  Tom has also written several terrific informational overview series for CloudNine, including his most recent one, Mobile Collection: It’s Not Just for iPhones Anymore.  Now, Tom has written another terrific overview regarding mobile device collection titled The Ongoing Battle Over How ESI is Produced that we’re happy to share on the eDiscovery Daily blog.  Enjoy! – Doug

Tom’s overview is split into four parts, so we’ll cover each part separately.  Here’s the first part.

Introduction

Legal disputes in the civil arena typically succeed or fail these days as a result of the practice of eDiscovery.  FRCP Rule 26(f), which provides for a conference of the parties and planning for discovery. This conference was designed to speed up the discovery process but more and more it has become bogged down with disputes over one particular section in that rule, (3)(C), which states that the plan shall contain “any issues about disclosure, discovery, or preservation of electronically stored information, including the form or forms in which it should be produced;”.

One plaintiffs side commentator, Atty Robert Eisenberg, has been particularly strident in his criticism of the arguments on the forms of production.  Bob is well known in the eDiscovery community as a consultant and educator having been instrumental in forming the both the Georgetown Advanced Ediscovery Institute and the  Ediscovery Training Academy as well as currently being the Program Director at the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law’s (CMLaw) eDiscovery Professional Certificate Program.

Bob stated in an article from last year on my TechnoGumbo blog that defense firms

“ … in virtually every litigation (no matter how varied the types of ESI; no matter how limiting to plaintiffs) [strive] to assure that records produced in discovery are delivered by defendants to plaintiffs in an imaged-based format (Tiff or PDF) with load files for searchable text and metadata; and, practically never provided (except for a tiny proportion that are considered worthless as evidence in image format) as files produced in the manner in which they have been created and stored; that is, in their ultimately most utilizable incarnation; in native form.”

Why do so many producing parties offer load files with static images and text instead of native files?  Often it has to do with perceived, or at least argued, shortcomings of native files.  And defense firms commonly argue that image-based productions are actually cheaper than native file productions because they save plaintiffs the cost of processing and are comparable in utility to native files.

In this paper, we will take a look at the battle over how ESI is produced, including:

  1. Rule 34(b) and Form of Production
  2. Objections to Native File Production and Counter-Arguments
  3. Conclusions

We’ll publish Part 2 – Rule 34(b) and Form of Production – tomorrow.

So, what do you think?  Do you prefer image-based productions or native file productions?  As always, 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 Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery in Loan Dispute: eDiscovery Case Law

In Grande v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, No. C19-333 MJP (W.D. Wash. Feb. 20, 2020), Washington District Judge Marsha J. Pechman granted the plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery, finding the policies requested were “relevant under the broad civil discovery standard” and that the defendants “ha[d] not demonstrated that the policies are confidential, proprietary, or trade secrets”.  Judge Pechman also granted the plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees in bringing the motion.

Case Background

In this case involving the plaintiffs’ allegations that the defendants breached a loan agreement (and violated several laws), the plaintiffs served written discovery on the defendants in July 2019 – to which the defendants responded in September 2019 with a production that the plaintiffs described as “completely deficient.”  The Parties held a discovery conference in October and the defendants served amended responses several weeks later, which the plaintiffs indexed and determined that large numbers were duplicative and the defendants’ production remained deficient.  After the plaintiffs drafted a Request for a Joint Submission to the Court pursuant to Local Rule 37, seeking assistance in resolving the discovery disputes, the defendants’ attorney declined to use the joint submission but claimed that the document provided him with “additional information” that clarified the alleged discovery deficiencies and asked for plaintiffs’ counsel to “work with him” to resolve the discovery dispute.

The plaintiffs held another discovery conference in November 2019 and the defendants agreed to supplement production with additional documents totaling 1,000 pages, voice recordings of four phone calls made by the Plaintiffs to Nationstar, a full life of loan history, and communications that had not been previously produced, all before November 28.  The defendants produced the 1,000 pages but none of the other material, with no explanation.  On January 11, 2020 the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel, seeking complete responses to a dozen Interrogatories and Requests for Production, as well as attorney’s fees.  Several weeks later, the defendants produced additional documents, a privilege log, and supplemental discovery responses, but still did not produce documents responsive to Request for Production No. 17.  The defendants argued that the loan modification guidelines requested in that request were not relevant and confidential, proprietary, and trade secrets.

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to the plaintiffs’ motion to compel and the defendants arguments, Judge Pechman stated: “First, the requested documents are relevant under the broad civil discovery standard, which allows litigants to ‘obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party.’…Here, Plaintiffs contend that documents responsive to this request provide ‘information about the policies, processes, and procedures Defendants used to make various decisions regarding the Grandes’ loan modification application.’…Where Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ evasive, shifting explanations for denying their loan modification were bad faith attempts to avoid their obligations, comparing Defendants’ policies to their behavior is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims.”

Continuing, Judge Pechman stated: “Second, Defendants have not demonstrated that the policies are confidential, proprietary, or trade secrets… Here, Defendants have not moved for a protective order or listed the documents on a privilege log…Nor have they explained how these policies are trade secrets that give them a competitive advantage over competitors… Further, the only two cases cited by Defendants concern a third-party subpoena where the movant failed to demonstrate relevance and a case concerning a motion for a protective order, neither of which support Defendants’ position… Because the Defendants here have not described any harm that would result from producing the guidelines and have not sought a protective order, the Court declines to find the documents so confidential that they cannot be produced. Defendants must therefore produce all documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 17 within seven days of the date of this Order.”

Judge Pechman also granted the plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees in bringing the motion, stating: “Here, Plaintiffs brought this Motion after several good faith attempts to obtain the requested discovery…and nothing before the Court suggests that Defendants’ delay was justified or that an award of expenses would be unjust. To the contrary, Defendants’ substantial delay in responding to the discovery requests has delayed the trial in this matter…and necessitated the present Motion”.

So, what do you think?  Was the court justified in granting the request for attorney’s fees or should it have been more patient since the defendants continued to supplement their production?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

By the way, there was some confusion about the list of EDRM Global Advisory Council members that I initially posted on Friday.  I had thought that was the entire list, but it was only a supplemental list to the list of Global Advisory Council members announced earlier this year.  I have updated my post to reflect the entire list of members — click here to view the post with the entire list this time.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant, which now is directly to the eDA site, enabling you to search within the case and see related cases (with eDA subscription).

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.

Top Ten Tips for Working with eDiscovery: eDiscovery Best Practices

I stumbled across a post in our blog that Tom O’Connor did over a year ago to conclude his series titled Will Lawyers Ever Embrace Technology?  As usual, Tom did a great job and, in this post, he offered his top ten tips for working with eDiscovery.  Tom provided a top ten list terrific enough to make David Letterman proud, but I thought the list could use some additions – in the form of links to resources for the items.  Here goes!

As a reminder, here are the top ten tips from Tom’s post:

  1. Read the Rules
  2. Read the Decisions
  3. Know the Terms
  4. Know Where Your Data Is
  5. Talk to The IT Department
  6. Talk to The Records Management People
  7. Make a Records Management Policy
  8. Make A Litigation Hold Policy
  9. Enforce the Litigation Hold Policy
  10. Meet with Your Client’s Inside Counsel

Let’s take them one (or sometimes two) at a time.

Read the Rules: As Tom notes, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) lay out the framework for your obligations in handling eDiscovery, but many states have rules that may differ from the FRCP.  Not only that, but the FRCP is comprised of a lot of rules which don’t necessarily have to do with eDiscovery.  So, which ones do you need to know?  There are two notable Rules updates that have significant eDiscovery impact: the 2006 and 2015 updates.  Fortunately, we covered them both in our webcast titled What Every Attorney Should Know About eDiscovery in 2017, which (as you can tell by the title) is three years old now (but still relevant for this topic).  You can click on the webcast to get access to the slides (via the attachments link) if you don’t want to sit through the hour-long webcast.  As for states rules, K&L Gates has a listing of states that have enacted eDiscovery rules (not all of them have), so you can check your state (and other states) here.

Read the Decisions: To find decisions related to eDiscovery, you can find plenty of those right here on the eDiscovery Daily blog – for free!  We’re up to 734 lifetime case law related posts, covering 566 unique cases since our inception back in 2010.  You can see them all here or wind them down year by year here.  If you want even more decisions (1,500 to 2,000 a year, not to mention other terrific resources), you can find those at our go to site for case law – eDiscovery Assistant.

Know the Terms: Tom notes in his post the importance of knowing the terms and even provides a terrific resource – The Sedona Conference – for a great terms list, which was just updated and we covered it and how to get it here!

Know Where Your Data Is: When it comes to knowing where your data is, a data map comes in really handy.  And, with GDPR and other factors emphasizing data privacy, that’s more important than ever.  Here are several templates to get started.

Talk to The IT Department: Tom says “You’re Lewis and Clark, they’re Sacajawea. You cannot…absolutely cannot…navigate without them.”  Knowing the terms and understanding data maps (see previous two paragraphs) will help bridge the communication gap and help here too.

Talk to the Records Management People and Make a Records Management Policy: Records Management is a term that has been around for a long time.  A more recent term that has become synonymous is Information Governance.  eDiscovery Daily has over 200 posts related to Information Governance, including this seven blog post series from Tom here.  Enjoy!

Make A Litigation Hold Policy and Enforce the Litigation Hold Policy: We’ve covered the topic of litigation holds several times as well during the almost 9 1/2 years of the blog, including these two posts (recently updated) where we discuss several things you need to consider when implementing your own litigation hold.

Meet with Your Client’s Inside Counsel: With all of the info you learned above, you’re well equipped to (as Tom puts it) “discuss all of the above”.  One more thing that can help is understanding topics that can be covered during the meet and confer that will benefit both you and your client.  Here’s a webcast that will help – again, you can click on the webcast to get access to the slides (via the attachments link) if you don’t want to sit through the hour-long webcast.

One more thing that Tom notes in his post is that “eDiscovery is a process comprised of separate distinct stages, any one of which may have specific software available for that stage” and that’s very true.  Certainly, that’s true at CloudNine, where, in addition to our Review product mentioned above, we also have a product that collects data from O365 and One Drive (CloudNine Collection Manager™), an Early Data Assessment platform (CloudNine Explore™), a processing and production platform known as the “swiss-army knife of eDiscovery” (CloudNine LAW™) and a tried and true desktop review platform (CloudNine Concordance®).  There are as many workflows as there are organizations conducting eDiscovery and getting the most out of software products available from CloudNine or other providers to maximize your own workflow is key to succeeding at eDiscovery.  Work with your software provider (whoever they are) to enable them to help maximize your workflow.  Help us help you!  :o)

So, what do you think?  Are you familiar with all of these resources?  If not, now you can be!  As always, 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.

Plaintiff Tells Defendant “File Motion to Compel”, Defendant Does and Wins: eDiscovery Case Law

In White v. Relay Res. & Gen. Servs. Admin., NO. C19-0284-JCC (W.D. Wash. Feb. 14, 2020), Washington District Judge John C. Coughenour granted the defendant’s motion to compel, requiring the plaintiff to provide documents responsive to the defendant’s requests for production, provide the information requested in each interrogatory and provide initial disclosures and that “[f]ailing to provide this information may result in sanctions under Rule 37, including dismissal of the matter.”

Case Background

In this employment discrimination claim against the defendant where the plaintiff alleged the defendant discriminated against her because she is deaf, the defendant served 31 requests for production and 13 interrogatories on the plaintiff in November 2019.  The plaintiff responded to these requests about a month later, objecting to the requests for production on various grounds and failing to indicate whether she was withholding responsive documents.  In response to the interrogatories, the plaintiff raised broad objections and did not provide any of the requested information, indicating in each response that she would later provide the requested information if it was “relevant” to responding the interrogatory.  The defendant also claimed that the plaintiff did not produce initial disclosures.

The defendant attempted to meet and confer with the plaintiff two days after receiving her responses, expressing concern with sufficiency of her responses and offering an extension for the plaintiff to supplement her responses.  The defendant also requested an in-person meeting to attempt to resolve the discovery dispute, but the plaintiff refused to meet outside the State of Virginia and also refused a teleconference, stating that she did “not have any line of communication open except emails and written communication.”  So, the defendant proceeded to email the plaintiff specific examples of its “serious concerns regarding the insufficiency of [her] responses.” The plaintiff then supplemented her responses to the requests for production with three screenshots of email correspondence between the plaintiff and the defendant’s employees about benefits, as well as a scanned page from a yearbook.  In response, the defendant informed the plaintiff that if she did not provide responsive documents or answers to its interrogatories by the extended deadline, it had no choice but to file a motion to compel with the Court.  Instead of further supplementing her responses, the plaintiff replied, “Ok. File Motion to Compel.”

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Coughenour first noted that “although the parties did not meet in person or have a telephone conference, Defendant made a good faith effort to satisfy the meet-and-confer requirement before filing the instant motion to compel. Defendant made multiple attempts to resolve its discovery dispute before reaching a genuine impasse on December 30, 2019, when Plaintiff told Defendant to ‘File Motion to Compel.’…Consequently, Defendant has satisfied the meet-and-confer requirement.”

With regard to the requests for production, Judge Coughenour stated: “the Court has reviewed Defendant’s requests for production, and they appear to be relevant and proportional to the case… The Court acknowledges Plaintiff is not represented by counsel and that she may be responding to and cooperating with Defendant to the best of her ability…Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s perfunctory objections do not reflect a good faith effort to comply with discovery rules. Plaintiff must make reasonable efforts to provide documents responsive to Defendant’s requests for production. Failure to do comply may result in sanctions, including dismissal of the present action.”

With regard to the interrogatories, Judge Coughenour found “Defendant’s interrogatories to be facially relevant and proportional to the needs of the case.”  He also stated: “Here, Plaintiff raised vague, broad objections to each of Defendant’s 13 interrogatories and did not provide any of the requested information…Within 30 days, Plaintiff must provide Defendant with the information requested in each interrogatory. Failing to make reasonable efforts to respond to Defendant’s interrogatories may result in sanctions under Rule 37, including dismissal of the matter.”

Judge Coughenour also stated, in fully granting the motion to compel: “Plaintiff is ordered to provide Defendant with initial disclosures at this time. Failing to provide this information may result in sanctions under Rule 37, including dismissal of the matter.”

So, what do you think?  Is the plaintiff’s failure to obtain counsel representation jeopardizing her case before it even gets going?  Please let us know if 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.