Close
Enter your
text here

eDiscovery

eDiscovery Year in Review: eDiscovery Case Law, Part 3
 

As we noted the past two days, eDiscovery Daily has published 65 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 50 unique cases!  Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to privilege & inadvertent disclosures, proportionality and eDiscovery service disputes, including the notable McDermott Will & Emery eDiscovery malpractice case.  But, we still have more cases to review.  So, let’s keep going!

We grouped those cases into common subject themes and will review them over the next few posts.  Perhaps you missed some of these?  Now is your chance to catch up!

SOCIAL MEDIA

Social media affects all aspects of litigation from the discovery of data from social media web sites to social media communication during trial.  You even have jurors trying to “friend” participants in the case!

Organizations now have to not only plan for preserving, collecting, reviewing and producing conventional data, but also posts, tweets, IMs and more.  You know that already.  What you may not know is that in nearly every case discussed in eDiscovery Daily this past year where social media data was requested, that request was granted.  Oh, and if you have text messages as evidence, you may have to provide corroborating evidence to verify authorship of those text messages for them to be admissible – at least in Pennsylvania.  Here are eight cases related to social media issues:

Jurors and Social Media Don’t Mix.  Discovery of social media is continuing to increase as a significant issue for organizations to address, with more and more cases addressing the topic. However, when it comes to social media, courts agree on one thing: jurors and social media don’t mix. Courts have consistently rejected attempts by jurors to use social technology to research or to communicate about a case, and have increasingly provided pre-trial and post-closing jury instructions to jurors to dissuade them from engaging in this practice.

Cut and Paste Makes the Cut as Evidence.  In this case, the defendant in a criminal case appealed his conviction and raised the issue of whether the prosecution properly authenticated instant messages cut-and-pasted into a Microsoft Word document.

Defendant Can’t Be Plaintiff’s Friend on Facebook.  In this case, Bucks County, Pa., Common Pleas Court Judge Albert J. Cepparulo denied the motion from the defendant requesting access to the photos of plaintiff Sara Piccolo posted in her Facebook account, rejecting McMillen v. Hummingbird Speedway, Inc., in which the court ordered the plaintiff to provide his username and password to the defendant’s attorney, as a precedent.

Social Media Posts Deemed Discoverable in Personal Injury Case.  A Pennsylvania court recently ordered the plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit to disclose social media passwords and usernames to the defendant for eDiscovery. Discoverability of social media continues to be a hot topic in eDiscovery, as eDiscovery Daily has noted in summaries of prior cases that reflect varied outcomes for requests to access social media data.

A Pennsylvania Court Conducts Its Own Social Media Relevancy Review.  Pennsylvania seems to be taking the lead in setting social media discovery precedents. In this case, a Pennsylvania court agreed to review a plaintiff's Facebook account in order to determine which information is subject to discovery in a case relating to the plaintiff's claim of injury in a motor vehicle accident.

Defendant Ordered to Re-Post Infringing Photograph to Facebook Profile.  In this case, a New Jersey court ordered the defendant to re-post a photograph displaying infringing trade dress to his Facebook profile for a brief period of time to allow the plaintiff to print copies, in a case involving trademark infringement.

Court Rules 'Circumstantial Evidence' Must Support Authorship of Text Messages for Admissibility.  When are text messages admissible in court? Which text messages qualify as evidence, and what does it take to prove authorship of a text message? A recent opinion from the Pennsylvania Superior Court addresses these very issues in an old yet new way, perhaps setting the precedent for future cases and opening what seems to be a potential Pandora's Box of obstacles to the use of text messages as legal evidence.

Facebook Content Discoverable Yet Again.  It seems most, if not all, of the cases these days where discoverability of social media is at issue are being decided by courts in favor of the parties seeking to discover this information. Here’s another example.

Tune in tomorrow for more key cases of 2011 and see the topic that continues to generate more case law related to eDiscovery than any other!  Yes, I know I said that yesterday, but I forgot that topic was planned for the big finish tomorrow.  Stay tuned!

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.

eDiscovery Year in Review: eDiscovery Case Law, Part 2
 

As we noted yesterday, eDiscovery Daily has published 65 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 50 unique cases!  Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to eDiscovery cost reimbursement, form of production and international discovery issues.  But, there’s many more cases to recap.  As Lt. Col Frank Slade would say, “I’m just getting warmed up”.  Whoo Ah!

We grouped those cases into common subject themes and will review them over the next few posts.  Perhaps you missed some of these?  Now is your chance to catch up!

PRIVILEGE / INADVERTENT DISCLOSURES

Decisions regarding what information is privileged and whether privilege is waived when inadvertent disclosures occur is always a hot issue for debate.  That was no different in 2011.  And, if you receive an inadvertent disclosure and don’t disclose it, you can get kicked off the case.  Here are five cases related to privilege and inadvertent disclosures:

Privilege Waived for Produced Servers.  Fontainebleau Resort, LLC (FRLLC) produced two servers without conducting any review of the materials, at least one of which had previously been produced to other banks involved in the underlying litigation.  Would they be required to waive privilege on those servers?

When is Attorney-Client Communication NOT Privileged? One answer: When it’s from your work email account, and your employer has a written policy that company email is not private and subject to audit. Oh, and you’re suing your employer.

Read Inadvertent Email, Get Disqualified from Case.  Lesson of the day: When you receive an inadvertently sent privileged email, read it and don’t disclose receipt of it, you can get kicked off the case. In this case, the court disqualified defendant's in-house and outside counsel for their handling of a disputed privileged email that was inadvertently sent by the plaintiffs' counsel to the defendant and shared with defendant’s outside counsel.

Defendants' Privilege Waived for "Completely Ineffective" Discovery Procedures.  In a case over purported building and zoning code violations, an Illinois District Court has found the defendants responsible for inadvertently producing several privileged documents during discovery and for a failure to correct the problem in a timely manner, and has ordered the privilege to be waived.

Court Rules Against Exclusion of Privileged Email. A District of Columbia court has ruled against exclusion of a privileged email that was inadvertently produced by the defendant, ruling that the defendant's actions before and after the discovery of the email's production pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B) were not sufficient to ensure protections under Federal Rule of Exclusion (FRE) 502(b)(3), in a case involving alleged violations of the District of Columbia Whistleblower Act.

PROPORTIONALITY

With the explosion of data in the world and rising costs for preserving, collecting, reviewing and producing that data, it’s not surprising that eDiscovery costs are spiraling upward, causing many to cry “uncle” and making the word “proportionality” become quite trendy, with parties and even courts.  Here are four cases where proportionality of eDiscovery was an issue.  Oh, and if you can’t complete production until after the trial is over, that’s probably too late.

Completing Production AFTER Trial is Too Late.  In this case, Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the defendant’s request for consideration that the District had waived all objections, including privileges, and ordered production within one week of the close of trial. In denying the motion, the court likened the proposed production to “a plane with landing gear that deploys just after touchdown, or a stick of dynamite with a unique fuse that ignites only after it explodes.”

KPMG Denied in Request for “Proportionality Test” to Preservation.  In this case, KPMG sought a protective order to narrow its preservation obligation scope to only a random sample of 100 hard drives from among those it had already preserved for this and other litigation or shift the cost of any preservation beyond that requested scope. With that request in hand, the court considered KPMG's request for proportionality as it applied to its preservation obligations.

Court Grants Adoption of Model Order for Patent Case.  Model orders to limit discovery for patent cases have gained popularity in various jurisdictions, including a recent order proposed in Texas. Here’s one patent case where the defendant sought to adopt such a model order.

Plaintiff Not Required to Review Millions of Pages of Unallocated Space.  In this case, the court affirmed the Magistrate Judge’s order which excused plaintiff from having to review and produce millions of pages of documents recovered from unallocated space files due to the extreme burden and cost to do so.

EDISCOVERY SERVICE DISPUTES

It’s a darn shame when law firms can’t get along with their corporate clients or with the vendors they hired.  Perhaps the most discussed case of the year was the eDiscovery malpractice case involving McDermott, Will & Emery, with posts in eDiscovery Daily here, here and here.  Here are two cases where the actual eDiscovery services being provided were in dispute:

eDiscovery Malpractice Case Highlights Expectation of Higher Standards.  Having noted in eDiscovery Daily that competency ethics are no longer just about the law and that competency in eDiscovery best practices is expected from the attorneys and any outside providers they retain, this case may be the first eDiscovery malpractice case ever filed against a law firm (McDermott Will & Emery) for allegedly failing to supervise contract attorneys that were hired to perform the client’s work and to protect privileged client records.

Sometimes the Vendor Sues the Law Firm – And Wins!  The eDiscovery malpractice case involving McDermott, Will & Emery associated with inadvertent production of 3,900 privileged documents has captured considerable interest in the industry and this blog.  Sometimes, the “shoe is on the other foot”, so to speak.

Tune in tomorrow for more key cases of 2011 and see the topic that continues to generate more case law related to eDiscovery than any other!

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.

eDiscovery Year in Review: eDiscovery Case Law, Part 1
 

Happy New Year from all of us at CloudNine Discovery and eDiscovery Daily!  If 2012 is like recent years, there should be plenty of interesting developments in the eDiscovery industry.

However, before we look ahead to the coming year, it’s worthwhile to look back at what transpired in 2011 to see what trends began to emerge last year.  And, there is no better way to do that than to review key cases during the year.  eDiscovery Daily has published 65 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 50 unique cases!  Needless to say, a lot happened in the courtroom that impacted the eDiscovery world.

We grouped those cases into common subject themes and will review them over the next few posts.  Perhaps you missed some of these?  Now is your chance to catch up!

EDISCOVERY COST REIMBURSEMENT

One of the emerging trends for 2011 was the growing number of cases where the prevailing party was awarded reimbursement of eDiscovery costs.  Maybe that will change the “preserve and produce everything” mentality of some attorneys?  Here are four cases where this issue was addressed:

Sue Me and Lose? Pay My Costs.  In a ruling that may give some plaintiffs' lawyers pause, a federal judge in Pittsburgh has ruled that the winning defendants in an antitrust case are entitled to reimbursement of more than $367,000 in eDiscovery costs.

Plaintiff Responsible for Taxation of eDiscovery Costs.  It appears that making plaintiffs responsible for eDiscovery costs when they lose is becoming a trend. For this case, the Pennsylvania District Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to eliminate or reduce many of the costs at issue related to electronic discovery but did disallow or reduce some costs, including those incurred for the convenience of counsel.

Another Losing Plaintiff Taxed for eDiscovery Costs.  As noted previously, prevailing defendants are becoming increasingly successful in obtaining awards against plaintiffs for reimbursement of eDiscovery costs. In this case, a California District Court granted the defendants summary judgment on non-infringement and dismissed their counterclaims. The judgment included eDiscovery costs as valid taxed costs against the plaintiff, based on Rule 54(d) which creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party.

Award for Database Costs Reversed Due to Cost Sharing Agreement.  In this case, Ricoh looked to have the district court’s award of costs to Synopsys reversed for the parties’ use of Stratify for the production of email. While the appellate court decided that the district court properly decided that costs related to the database could be recovered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4), it nonetheless reversed the lower court’s award due to the parties' agreement to split the costs.

FORM OF PRODUCTION

There were several cases related to the form and format of produced ESI, with a number of key issues being debated in the courtroom.  Here are eight cases where production format decisions were made.

Responses to FOIA Requests Must Be Searchable.  Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ruled that federal agencies must turn over documents that include "metadata", which allows them to be searched and indexed.  Indicating that "common sense dictates" that the handling of FOIA requests should be informed by "the spirit if not the letter" of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Scheindlin indicated the government offered "a lame excuse" for delivering non-searchable documents.

Never Mind! Judge Scheindlin Withdraws FOIA Requests Opinion.  Four months later, Judge Scheindlin withdrew that opinion.

Facebook Did Not Deduce That They Must Produce.  In this case, United States Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd of the Northern District of California compelled Facebook to produce ESI that was previously produced in a converted, non-searchable format and further ordered Facebook not to use a third-party vendor's online production software to merely “provide access” to it. The court’s order granting the plaintiff’s Motion To Compel Production addressed the importance of ESI Protocols, the requirement to produce ESI in native formats, and production of documents versus providing access to them.

Downloading Confidential Information Leads to Motion to Compel Production.  The North Dakota District Court has recently decided in favor of a motion to compel production of electronic evidence, requiring imaging of computer hard drives, in a case involving the possible electronic theft of trade secrets.

Are Attachments Part of the Email Or Are They Separate?  A Special Master recently investigated the legal standard concerning whether or not attachments must be produced with the emails to which they were attached in discovery proceedings, and determined that there is no certain answer to be found in case law precedent.

Court Says Lack of eDiscovery Rules for Criminal Cases is a Crime.  A New York district court recently ordered the United States Government to reproduce thousands of pages of electronic discovery materials in a criminal case involving the distribution of cocaine. In this case, the Government produced thousands of pages of electronic documents and a number of audio recordings, none of which were text searchable. The court ultimately decided that the onus of producing searchable materials for eDiscovery fell on the Government itself.

Produced ESI Doesn’t Need to be Categorized, Even When Voluminous.  In this case, the defendants sought to compel re-production by the Government of ESI in categorized batches relating to transactions with certain characteristics. Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern District of New York denied the defendants’ motion.

New York Supreme Court Requires Production of Software to Review Files.  In this case, the petitioner requested records from the Department of Taxation and Finance in New York that were responsive to petitioner's request under Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) for records related to sales tax audit. The petitioner then moved to compel production of the Department’s Audit Framework Extension software program in order to install it on his computer and view the electronic files. The petitioner's motion was denied, not once, but twice. Would a final appeal result in compelling production of the software?

INTERNATIONAL EDISCOVERY

As companies “go global” and more data is stored “in the cloud”, discoverability of ESI within international jurisdictions is becoming increasingly in dispute.  Here are two cases with global ramifications:

Bankruptcy Court Denies Foreign Access to Debtor's Emails.  A Southern District of New York United States Bankruptcy Court denied access to a debtor's emails on July 22, in a foreign request involving international eDiscovery. In this case, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court determined that to permit a relief request from a German insolvency administrator would directly contravene the "fundamental principles" of U.S. public policy by undermining the right to privacy in electronic communications and the right of parties involved in any court order to receive notice of such proceedings and of their involvement.

U.S. Court Rules on ECPA Protection of Emails in the Cloud.  An October 3 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals offers new clarity in defining and protecting the eDiscovery rights of non-U.S. nationals using U.S. services online, by ruling that emails stored on servers located within the U.S. are protected by national laws on ESI.

Tune in tomorrow for more key cases of 2011!

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.

eDiscovery Case Law: Court Grants Adverse Inference Sanctions Against BOTH Sides
 

Have you ever seen the video where two boxers knock each other out at the same time?  That’s similar to what happened in this case.

In Patel v. Havana Bar, Restaurant & Catering, No. 10-1383, (E.D. Pa. Dec. 5, 2011), a case of dueling claims of spoliation, the court imposed sanctions against both parties for failing uphold their duty to preserve relevant evidence.

The plaintiff was attending an engagement party when he fell from a second floor loft overlooking the dance floor. Whether the plaintiff fell due to intoxication or whether he intentionally jumped was a matter in dispute. During discovery, the parties filed cross-motions seeking sanctions for discovery violations.

The bar's video system recorded the evening's events, but the bar owner failed to preserve the recording. He attempted to copy the video before the system's automatic overwriting erased it, but he did not have the right equipment to make a copy. In addition, the system allowed him to print images from the recording, but he failed to take advantage of this feature. Thus, the court found that spoliation had occurred: even though the defendant took some steps to preserve evidence, his steps were inadequate. Thus, the court imposed an adverse inference sanction against the bar.

Additionally, the defendant sought spoliation sanctions against the plaintiff for failing to preserve statements of witnesses who attended the party. In 2008, the plaintiff's sister-in-law sent a message over Facebook asking attendees to write statements supporting the plaintiff's case that he was not intoxicated and that he was merely jovial. However, in 2010, the sister-in-law again asked attendees for statements via Facebook, this time requesting confirmation that the bar recklessly served the plaintiff alcohol and explaining that she would not use statements that the plaintiff jumped from the second floor. The plaintiff did not share any of the statements with the defendant until defense counsel discovered their existence during a deposition. Then, the plaintiff's counsel turned the 2010 statements over one by one as depositions occurred. The plaintiff never produced any of the 2008 statements, and family members offered conflicting stories as to their whereabouts.

The court imposed a number of sanctions on the plaintiff, finding that his behavior "ran completely afoul of the goals of discovery." The sanctions included an adverse inference sanction for failing to provide the statements. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay for the costs of redeposing several witnesses. Finally, the court awarded the defendants fees and costs "for the time and effort they expended in attempting to obtain discovery that they were entitled to receive."

So, what do you think?  Did they both deserve what they got?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).

eDiscovery Daily will take a break for the New Years holiday and will return next Tuesday, January 3.  Happy New Year from all of us at Cloudnine Discovery and eDiscovery Daily!

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

eDiscovery Case Law: Plaintiff Not Required to Review Millions of Pages of Unallocated Space
 

While plaintiff “should have known better than to agree to search terms” that arguably resulted in recovery from unallocated space files of 65 million pages of documents for plaintiff to review for privilege, a magistrate judge in I-Med Pharma, Inc. v. Biomatrix, Inc., No. 03-3677 (DRD), (D.N.J. Dec. 9, 2011) properly excused plaintiff from its stipulation to produce such documents after reviewing them for privilege.

Plaintiff alleged that defendants breached a distribution agreement relating to eye-drops after one of the defendants was acquired by another defendant. A stipulation among the parties provided for a keyword search by defendants’ expert of plaintiff’s computer network, servers, and related storage devices using English and French terms, including “claim”, “revenue*”, and “profit*”. The search resulted in over 64 million hits just in unallocated space of plaintiff’s computer systems.

District Judge Dickinson Debevoise affirmed a magistrate judge’s order excusing plaintiff from a privilege review of the estimated equivalent of 65 million documents in the unallocated space that contained an agreed search term. Judge Debevoise stated its concern over the cost of such a review:

“A privilege review of 65 million documents is no small undertaking. Even if junior attorneys are engaged, heavily discounted rates are negotiated, and all parties work diligently and efficiently, even a cursory review of that many documents will consume large amounts of attorney time and cost millions of dollars.”

Judge Debevoise rejected defendant’s suggestion that plaintiff could simply review documents with the word “privileged” and produce everything else:

“Even when dealing with intact files, potentially privileged information may often be found in emails, memoranda, presentations, or other documents that are not explicitly flagged as privileged or confidential. And since the data searched here is likely to contain fragmented or otherwise incomplete documents, it is entirely possible for privileged material to be found without its original identifying information.”

Defendants had not shown that relevant, non-duplicate information likely would be found in the unallocated space, according to the court. Thus, plaintiff should have known better than to agree on the search terms, but requiring a privilege review of the results would not be fair or just. Judge Debevoise added a list of factors that parties should consider in evaluating reasonableness of search terms:

“In evaluating whether a set of search terms are reasonable, a party should consider a variety of factors, including: (1) the scope of documents searched and whether the search is restricted to specific computers, file systems, or document custodians; (2) any date restrictions imposed on the search; (3) whether the search terms contain proper names, uncommon abbreviations, or other terms unlikely to occur in irrelevant documents; (4) whether operators such as "and", "not", or "near" are used to restrict the universe of possible results; (5) whether the number of results obtained could be practically reviewed given the economics of the case and the amount of money at issue.”

So, what do you think?  Did common sense prevail or should the plaintiff have been held to the agreement?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).

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

eDiscovery Case Law: Award for Database Costs Reversed Due to Cost Sharing Agreement
 

An award of costs of $938,957.72, including the winning party’s agreed half share of the cost of a database or $234,702.43, was reversed in Synopsys, Inc. v. Ricoh Co. (In re Ricoh Co. Patent Litigation), No. 2011-1199 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 23, 2011). While the cost of the database could have been taxed to the losing party, the agreement between the parties on cost sharing controlled the ultimate taxation of costs.

After almost seven years of litigation, Synopsys obtained summary judgment and a declaration in Ricoh’s action against seven Synopsys customers that a Ricoh software patent on integrated circuits had not been infringed. During the litigation, Ricoh and Synopsis were unable to agree on a form of production of Synopsis email with its customers, and Ricoh suggested using an electronic discovery company to compile and maintain a database of the email. Synopsis agreed to use of the company’s services and to pay half the cost of the database. After Synopsis obtained summary judgment, the district court approved items in the Synopsis bill of costs totaling $938,957.72, including $234,702.43 for Synopsis’ half share of the cost of the database and $234,702.43 for document production costs.

The court on appeal of the taxation of costs agreed that 28 U.S.C.S. § 1920 provided for recovery of the cost of the database, which was used to produce email in its native format. According to the court, “electronic production of documents can constitute ‘exemplification’ or ‘making copies’ under section 1920(4).” However, the parties had entered into an agreement on splitting the cost of the database and nothing in the 14-page agreement or communications regarding the agreement indicated that the agreement was anything other than a final agreement on the costs of the database. Faced with “scant authority from other circuits as to whether a cost-sharing agreement between parties to litigation is controlling as to the ultimate taxation of costs,” the court concluded the parties’ cost-sharing agreement was controlling. It reversed the district court’s award of $234,702.43 for Synopsis’ half share of the cost of the database.

The court also reversed and remanded the award of an additional $234,702.43 for document production costs because those costs were not adequately documented. For example, many of the invoices simply stated “document production” and did not indicate shipment to opposing counsel. The court stated that the “document production” phrase “does not automatically signify that the copies were produced to opposing counsel.”

So, what do you think?  Should the agreement between parties have superseded the award?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).

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

eDiscovery Trends: Joseph Collins
 

This is the fifth of our Holiday Thought Leader Interview series, originally scheduled to be published on Tuesday, but rescheduled to today.  I interviewed several thought leaders to get their perspectives on various eDiscovery topics.

Today’s thought leader is Joseph Collins.  Joseph is the co-founder and president of VaporStream, which provides recordless communications. Joseph previously worked in the energy marketplace, but has become an advocate for private communication in business, even within the legal community.

Your product is designed to provide email-like communications that leave no record after being read. How did you get interested in communications that do not leave records? Why is this a legitimate business need?

We got into recordless communications because of the basic lack of privacy and confidentially online.  When I got my first email account back in the day I was told to be very careful what I write because you have no control over that message; I had to write like what I was writing was going to be on the front page of the newspaper.  The problem is people just don’t communicate that way, people need privacy and email and text just do not allow for it.

There is a legitimate business need because businesses need privacy and confidentiality for their internal communications.  Many times employees need to have confidential discussions and VaporStream facilitates that.  Have frank and honest communications are paramount in any company, and it is very hard to have that when think that that email and conversation might be end up in the wrong place.

Businesses do not need to “keep everything,” in fact they need to be able to decide what is considered to be material business information and what is not.  VaporStream facilities this decision making process because the data creator is going to be much better at knowing what need to be retained then a record management person on the back end.

How do you address the concerns of the legal community about VaporStream communications? Lawyers have been trained to keep records of everything- why should they consider using a service like yours?

Most lawyers keep everything because they already get private communications via attorney privilege, but also because they bill by the hour and want the email to prove it.  So lawyers are not our target market, but their clients are, and lawyers understand the risk and liability in communications.  There is one set of lawyers that can and do use VaporStream: IP lawyers. Their email is discoverable as part of the patent process, so we find IP lawyers like to use it to have those private and confidential communications that they need to effectively do their job.

Does VaporStream enable law breaking? If the executives at Enron had used a product like this, would they have gotten away with conspiring to manipulate financial data?

VaporStream is a technology and any technology can be misused, just like a knife or a car, there are benefits and possible misuse. From a corporate prospective you can use our VaporStream Enterprise Server, which will allow you to use filters just like corporate email and give companies protection from misuse.

In no way would VaporStream have helped Enron. The guys at Enron got caught because they commit fraud, not because of some smoking gun in email discovery. It was the fraud that bankrupted Enron, not the communications around it.  

Do you think that organizations over-preserve electronic evidence? Is there an argument to be made for more data destruction and less retention?

Absolutely, but the question is how do you accomplish this task. Best practices for data preservation and destruction have been around for a while now, but are companies better off today? Looking at the headlines for newspapers and the mountains of eDiscovery, it is clear the answer is no.

VaporStream allows companies to keep the valuable business information in email and then automatically get rid of the non-material information that is created by the company. By keeping information you do not need, not only are you are wasting lots of money each year, but it is a tremendous legal liability. Again, most companies are not obligated to “keep everything,” so it’s crazy to do so.  

What does this mean for eDiscovery? Could parties get in trouble for a failure to preserve evidence if it's discovered they use a service like VaporStream to communicate information relevant to a case?

Well, the key to using VaporStream is to have sound user policy. Then users will know when to use VaporStream and when not to use it. If there is a situation where there is say, a legal hold, then it probably would not a good choice to use VaporStream at that situation. By having the proper user policy, the company is protected, and VaporStream is an extension of that policy.

What is the future of this kind of communication? How does recordless communication fit into a world of social media and mobile computing where people leave digital communications all over the place?

When we look at the communications landscape, there are lots of places to share, which is great, but there is no place to have a private conversation. It’s hard to have honest and frank discussions without having trust in the communications channel.  If you think about the online world as an extension of the real world there still needs to be a place to have a private chat.

Thanks, Joseph, 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!

Editor's Note: eDiscovery Daily will take a break for a couple of days to celebrate the holidays and will resume posts on Tuesday, December 27.  Happy Holidays from all of us at Cloudnine Discovery and eDiscovery Daily!

eDiscovery Trends: Sharon Nelson
 

This is the sixth and final installment of our Holiday Thought Leader Interview series. I interviewed several thought leaders to get their perspectives on various eDiscovery topics.

Today’s thought leader is Sharon Nelson.  Sharon is the President of Sensei Enterprises, where she has worked on the front lines of computer forensics and eDiscovery topics that are also discusses on her blog Ride the Lightning. She is a graduate of the Georgetown University Law Center and is the president elect of the Virginia Bar Association.

Last week, I interviewed Sharon’s husband, John Simek, who is vice president of Sensei. John is a technical computer forensics expert, while Sharon provides the legal perspective on eDiscovery issues. Together, they are frequent speakers and authors on computer forensic issues.

As a lawyer, how did you get into the world of computer forensics? What is the role of an attorney within a computer forensics firm?

I stumbled into computer forensics along with my partner John Simek. Peter Greenspun, one of the leading criminal attorneys in Virginia, had a case in 1999 involving electronic evidence and he asked if we could help as experts. That case is still taught by the FBI. It got me thinking that Sensei should expand from information technology to computer forensics – and I knew it was a field that only a true scientist could excel in, so the wannabes of the world would not be able to truly compete. The role of an attorney is to stay up with the law and the cases and render expert advice to both clients and employees – and act as corporate counsel of course.

How has your blogging at Ride the Lightning influenced your legal career?

Within the context of Sensei, I operate as an expert, not as a lawyer, although I retain a separate law office. Certainly Ride the Lightning has helped Sensei’s marketing enormously, which ultimately helps to attract clients. I was honored when RTL was named to the American Bar Association’s Blawg 100 for the second year in a row and also when the Library of Congress asked my permission to archive it and to make it available to scholars and researchers. And it is just plain fun writing it!

Have lawyers begun to grapple with social media issues or are many still in denial?

There are still some lawyers in denial but their numbers are declining. In fact, I organize a lot of CLEs and many of the social media sessions are standing room only. Many lawyers want to learn how to use social media and how to avoid the ethical pitfalls. Things simply go viral in this new e-world. It is amazing how far social media (which includes blogs) extends your reach. Blogs, in particular, tend to attract reporters, which can be really helpful to marketing a law practice.

I believe you are involved in a lot of family law cases and disputes involving individuals. How has social media changed these cases?

It’s a veritable gold mine. People are unbelievably foolish in what they put online. We had a case where the husband was discussing his latest hookup with his lover on his Facebook page. He knew his wife was not his “friend”, but he had forgotten that a mutual acquaintance was his friend and she simply printed out all his postings. It’s not just family law though – social media is particularly helpful in personal injury cases where the Plaintiff who is “wholly disabled” is using a chain saw and dancing a jig (and yes, that’s from a real case). I almost can’t think of an area of law where social media isn’t a treasure trove – law enforcement has wholly embraced it as evidence against criminals who post astonishing admissions online.

As people increasingly live their lives online, do digital records ever really go away? Are we going to be followed around by our digital selves forever?

Some digital records will certainly go away – the problem is that you’ll never know which ones. People forward your communications or preserve them for their own reasons. Your business competitor may be archiving your website and anything that is open on your social media sites. Social media sites let you deactivate your account or delete posts, but that doesn’t help if someone else already has the information. And, indeed, it does not appear that social media sites truly delete your information since law enforcement has been known to get data that was supposedly no longer online. Trusting social media sites to respect your privacy is foolhardy. The only privacy we have is in the sheer volume of data out there – but once someone lasers in on you, your privacy is gone.

On Ride the Lightning, you discuss sanctions and electronic evidence blunders. Is there a common reason why lawyers make mistakes with digital evidence? What are the keys to making the profession smarter about handling computer records?

Education is the key, and we’re slowly getting there, but it is very slow. Most lawyers are technophobic and find it difficult to understand electronic evidence. They really need to call in well-qualified experts early on – that saves the most money because good experts won’t let you spend your money foolishly. As an example, an order to “preserve everything” is nonsensical, but we hear it all the time. If the attorneys on both sides are reasonable and they have good experts, it’s amazing how fast they can come to a strategy that saves everyone time and money. And for heaven’s sake, why not go after the low-hanging fruit first? That might cause the case to settle early before vast sums of money have been expended. You can always go back and do more digging if necessary.

How have you and husband John Simek managed to make a career out of computer forensics and eDiscovery? You seem to be busy with speaking and professional engagements- how do you make it work?

That’s the new world – our offices are in our laptops, so we carry our offices with us as we travel. There is very little that we cannot do remotely. We have fine-tuned the art of entering a hotel room and bringing up the laptops while unpacking our suitcases. People ask us all the time how a husband and wife can run a business and not make each other crazy. We really have a bright line – John makes the technical decisions and I make the legal, business and marketing decisions. We talk across that line, but we respect the line. It works for us – that and being in love of course. We always say that we get paid to play – we don’t know anyone who enjoys coming to work as much as we do. The word retirement is anathema to both of us!

Thanks, Sharon, 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!

eDiscovery Case Law: Lilly Fails to Meet its eDiscovery Burden, Sanctions Ordered

In Nacco Materials Handling Group, Inc. v. Lilly Co., No. 11-2415 AV, (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 16, 2011), the court required the defendant to bear the costs of discovery where its preservation and collection efforts were “woefully inadequate.” Parties must cooperate and voluntarily preserve, search for, and collect ESI to avoid the imposition of sanctions.

In this case, Nacco, a manufacturer and seller of lift trucks and aftermarket parts, accused Lilly, a former Nacco dealer, of illegally accessing its proprietary, password-secured website on over 40,000 occasions. Nacco asserted a host of claims, including violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, computer trespass, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference with contract and business relations, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.

Nacco filed a motion seeking expedited discovery so that its forensic expert could search Lilly’s computers and determine which computers accessed Nacco’s proprietary information. The expert turned up evidence of inappropriate access on 17 of the 35 computers he examined.

As discovery continued, Nacco also requested the deposition of a 30(b)(6) witness. However, the witness Lilly offered was unprepared to answer questions on the topics outlined in the deposition notice. Based on the witness’s statements in the deposition and evidence found during the forensic examination, Nacco filed a motion to prevent the further spoliation of evidence and sought sanctions.

The court decided that Lilly’s attempts to preserve evidence were “woefully inadequate.” The company “failed to take reasonable steps to preserve, search for, and collect potentially relevant information, particularly electronic data, after its duty to preserve evidence was triggered by being served with the complaint.” Specifically, U.S. Magistrate Judge Diane Vescovo found that the company “failed to timely issue an effective written litigation hold, to take appropriate steps to preserve any existing electronic records, to suspend or alter automatic delete features and routine overwriting features, and to timely and effectively collect ESI.”

The court explained that Lilly sent the litigation hold to seven of its 160 employees without adequate instructions—and the seven did not include the “key players” to the litigation. The company made no further efforts to prevent the deletion of e-mail, data, or backup tapes. Finally, the company apparently “left collection efforts to its employees to search their own computers with no supervision or oversight from management. Lilly did not follow up with its employees to determine what efforts were taken to preserve and collect relevant evidence, and Lilly failed to document any of its search and collection efforts.” Therefore, the court found that Lilly breached its duty to preserve relevant evidence.

After finding the company negligent, the court imposed sanctions against Lilly that included the expense of additional discovery, including the cost of a second 30(b)(6) deposition, the forensic examinations and imaging already complete, the costs of additional analysis of computers of the nine employees who accessed Nacco’s website, and the costs of imaging the computers in its service department. In addition, the court ordered Lilly to pay monetary sanctions equal to plaintiff’s reasonable costs, including attorney’s fees, in bringing the motion.

Finally, the court ordered Lilly to provide an affidavit describing its preservation and collection efforts and certifying that it had suspended its automatic delete functions and preserved backup tapes.

So, what do you think?  Were the sanctions justified? If so, did the court go far enough?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).

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

eDiscovery Trends: Joshua Poje
 

This is the fourth of our Holiday Thought Leader Interview series. I interviewed several thought leaders to get their perspectives on various eDiscovery topics.

Today’s thought leader is Joshua Poje.  Joshua is a Research Specialist with the American Bar Association’s Legal Technology Resource Center, which publishes the Annual Legal Technology Survey. He is a graduate of DePaul University College of Law and Augustana College. 

Why does the American Bar Association produce an annual legal technology survey? Why does legal technology demand special attention?

Technology is inescapable for lawyers today. It's integrated into most aspects of the profession, whether that's communicating with clients, interacting with the courts, or marketing a practice. At this point, if you want to understand how lawyers are practicing, you really have to understand how they're using technology.

That's what we're trying to measure with our survey and that's also the reason we direct our survey questionnaires to practicing attorneys rather than to IT staff or vendors. We aren't just interested in learning what tools are on the market or what technology firms are purchasing; we want to know what they're actually using.

How long have you been involved with the ABA Legal Technology Survey, and how has it changed in that time?

The 2011 ABA Legal Technology Survey Report is the fifth edition I've worked on personally, but the survey has been running in various forms for more than 15 years. Aside from moving to electronic publishing via PDF in 2008, the biggest change we've made in the time I've been here was adding a sixth volume–Technology Basics. That volume allowed us to take a deeper dive into basic questions about budgeting, training, and security.

Aside from that, most of the changes in the survey are evolutionary. We sit down every Fall and evaluate the questionnaire, sometimes adding a few questions about new technology and sometimes dropping questions about technology that's fallen out of use. We try to maintain a high level of consistency from year-to-year so that we can take a meaningful look at trends.

Lawyers have a reputation for being late adopters of technology and even technophobic in many respects. Is this an accurate assessment? Has that changed, or is there still an element of truth to the stereotype?

Lawyers are in a difficult position when it comes to new technology. Normal businesses and organizations have to deal with issues like cost, training, and implementation obstacles when they adopt new technology, and the biggest risk is usually just losing money. Lawyers share those challenges and risks, but also have to consider their obligations under their states' rules of professional conduct. A misstep under the rules can have serious and long-lasting professional consequences. So I think it's understandable that some lawyers take a cautious approach to new technology.

That said, lawyers have certainly become more comfortable with new technology over the last few years. Take Twitter, for example. A recent Pew study found that 13 percent of online adults use Twitter. That's right in line with our 2011 survey, where 14 percent of our lawyer respondents reported using Twitter for personal, non-professional purposes. Around 6 percent even use it for professional activities.

In some cases, lawyers actually seem to be leading on technology. A Nielsen study from May 2011 found that just 5 percent of US consumers own a tablet device like the iPad. In our survey, 20 percent of our respondents reported having tablets available at their firms with 12 percent reporting that they personally use the devices.

There seems to be a new trend or buzzword ever few years that dominates the legal technology conversation. At one point it was all about knowledge management and now it seems to be cloud computing, and then whatever comes next. Do you get the sense legal technologists are prone to getting taken in by hype? Or are they generally practical consumers of technology?

The endless hype cycle is just a reality of the technology sector, legal or otherwise. I think our challenge as legal technology professionals is to navigate the hype to identify the useful, practical tools and strategies that lawyers and other legal professionals can put to good use. We also have to be on alert for the technology that might be problematic for lawyers, given the rules of professional conduct.

There are certainly times when the technology we love doesn't catch on with practicing attorneys. Technology experts have been pushing RSS for years, and yet in 2011 we still had 64 percent of our respondents report that they never use it. But on the other hand, "paperless" was the hot buzzword five or six years ago, and now it's a standard strategy at many law firms of all sizes.

Have the demands of eDiscovery forced the profession to come to grips with their own technology use? Are lawyers more savvy about managing their data?

EDiscovery has certainly been influential for some attorneys, but it's worth noting that 42 percent of our respondents in 2011 reported that they never receive eDiscovery requests on behalf of their clients, and 49 percent reported that they never make eDiscovery requests. Those numbers have barely moved over the last few years.

As you might expect, electronically stored information (ESI) has generally been a bigger concern at the large law firms. In 2011, 77 percent of respondents at firms with 500+ attorneys reported that their firm had been involved in a case requiring processing/review of ESI, compared to just 19 percent of solo practitioners. Those large firms, however, outsource a significant amount of their eDiscovery processing. In 2011, 62 percent reported outsourcing eDiscovery processing to eDiscovery consultants, 50 percent outsourced to computer forensics specialists, and 35 percent outsourced to other lawyers in the U.S.

What trends and technologies are you most interested in following in the next survey?

Cloud computing is definitely a topic to keep an eye on. In 2011, 76 percent of our respondents reported that they had never used a cloud-based tool for legal tasks. Of those, 63 percent cited unfamiliarity with the technology as a reason. A lot of attention has been focused on the cloud this year, though, particularly after Apple's iCloud announcement. It'll be interesting to see how those numbers move in 2012.

Mobile technology should be another interesting area. BlackBerry held onto the overall lead for smartphones in 2011, but iOS and Android made substantial gains. Among our solo and small firm respondents, the iPhone actually led the BlackBerry. Will that carry over to the larger firms in 2012? And on the tablet front, it should be interesting to see how the market shifts. In 2011, 96 percent of the respondents who reported having a tablet available specified the iPad. Apple now has competition from Motorola, Samsung, RIM, HP and others, so it's possible we could see movement in the numbers.

Thanks, Joshua, 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!