Close
Enter your
text here

Electronic Discovery

Confidence in eDiscovery Business is Still Strong: eDiscovery Trends

The results are in from Rob Robinson’s Spring 2016 eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey, which he conducted last month and the results are published on his terrific Complex Discovery site.  Are individuals working in the eDiscovery ecosystem still as confident in the business as they were in the first quarter?  Let’s see.

This time, there were 76 total respondents to the survey, which is almost the same number of respondents as the first survey back in February.  Here are some notable results:

  • Providers Were Still the Majority Respondents, But Not as Much: Of the types of respondents, 47 out of 76 were either Software and/or Services Provider (39.5%) or Consultancy (22.4%) for a total of 61.9% of respondents as some sort of outsourced provider (down from 68.8% last time). Law firm respondents were actually the second most represented group with 23.7%.
  • Even More Respondents Consider Business to Be Good: Over 60% (61.8%, to be exact) of respondents rated the current general business conditions for eDiscovery in their segment to be good, with only 3.9% rating business conditions as bad. Last time, those numbers were 58.8% and 10% respectively.
  • Almost Everyone Expects eDiscovery Business to be as Good or Better Six Months From Now: Almost all respondents (97.3%) expect business conditions will be in their segment to be the same or better six months from now, with 57.9% of respondents expecting higher revenue six months from now and 51.3% of respondents expecting higher profits six months from now. Only the revenue percentage shows a slight drop from the last survey (that time, 60% of respondents expected higher revenue in six months).
  • Budgetary Constraints and Increasing Volumes of Data are Expected to be Most Impact eDiscovery Business: A couple of issues that you feel will most impact the business of eDiscovery over the next six months swapped rankings. Budgetary Constraints (28.9%) still led the way, this time closely followed by Increasing Volumes of Data (26.3%), with Data Security (15.8%) dropping to third, Lack of Personnel (13.2%), Increasing Types of Data (10.5%) and finally, Inadequate Technology (5.3%), rounding out the field.  With recent stories such as the resolution of the Apple v FBI dispute (at least temporarily), the Verizon 2016 Data Breach Investigations Report and the “Panama Papers”, I was surprised that Data Security actually went down in the rankings.  The graph below illustrates the distribution.

Rob has published the results on his site here, which shows responses to additional questions not referenced here.  Check it out.  It will be interesting to see how these numbers trend over time.

So, what do you think?  What’s your state of confidence in the business of eDiscovery?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. 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 Limits Scope of Search Terms Requested by Plaintiff: eDiscovery Case Law

In AVM Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 15-00033 (D. Delaware, May 3, 2016), Delaware Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge granted in part the plaintiff’s request for the defendant to perform a database search of four terms and their synonyms, but limited the scope of that search to one specific defendant database, not the variety of sources requested by the plaintiff to be searched.

Case Background

In this patent infringement case where the plaintiff sued the defendant in connection with four of the defendant’s processors that the plaintiff alleged infringed upon its patent, a telephonic hearing was held in January 2016 to address a number of discovery issues.  One issue that they could not resolve was the plaintiff’s request for a database search by the defendant of the following terms: charge sharing, power race, contention and short circuits and their synonyms, which was opposed by the defendant.

Because the defendant indicated that circuits in its earlier products are the same as the circuits accused, the plaintiff argued it should not be limited to documents on which the defendant intended to rely, even though the plaintiff admitted its request would require a search from 1995 to the present and would include products that predate the patent-in-suit and are not accused of infringement.  The defendant indicated that it would take a “massive effort” required to complete the plaintiff’s requested search, indicating that it does not maintain a single or central document repository or index of its many different document repositories, does not have a single “standard” set of processor design documents nor a comprehensive text-searchable database for prior products.  However, the defendant did offer to search one database that “contains only the highest level documents relevant to a product”, indicating that it was transferring potentially searchable contents of this database to a search capable platform to perform the keyword searches requested and was working to complete this process shortly.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Thynge stated that “Nothing in AVM’s arguments suggest why the production by Intel to date is inadequate, such as how or what in that production indicates that Intel has culled or selected documents that only or primarily support its position on liability.  AVM’s contention that it is only requesting that Intel conduct a text search of the locations most likely to have relevant information is unpersuasive and does not address the significant concerns identified by Intel”, indicating that the plaintiff’s request “ignores the required balancing considerations under proportionality for discovery”.  Judge Thynge also indicated that she did not “find the four identified terms narrow as suggested by AVM and likely will result in numerous irrelevant documents.”

As a result, because the defendant offered to search one database for the four terms and synonyms, Judge Thynge ordered the defendant to “perform what is reasonably necessary to enable keyword searches” of that database for the four terms “and additional, limited synonyms for these terms of up to 12 total, as agreed to by the parties. If the parties cannot agree on the synonyms, they are to advise the court.”

So, what do you think?  Was the court correct to limit the scope of the plaintiff’s searches?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. 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.

Google Beats Oracle (Again): eDiscovery Trends

In a litigation that has been going on since 2010 (we started covering it in 2011), a federal jury concluded last Thursday that Google’s Android operating system does not infringe Oracle-owned copyrights because its re-implementation of 37 Java APIs is protected by “fair use.”

As reported by Ars Technica (Google beats Oracle—Android makes “fair use” of Java APIs, written by Joe Mullin), there was only one question on the special verdict form, asking if Google’s use of the Java APIs was a “fair use” under copyright law. The jury unanimously answered “yes,” in Google’s favor. The verdict ends the trial, which began earlier this month. If Oracle had won, the same jury would have gone into a “damages phase” to determine how much Google should pay. Because Google won, the trial is over – for now, at least.  Oracle vowed to appeal the decision as it did after the decision in 2012 where Google was found not to have infringed Oracle’s patents, despite inadvertent disclosures of draft emails (where recipients and the words “Attorney Work Product” hadn’t yet been added) in which a Google engineer discussed the need to negotiate terms with Oracle.

Oracle’s previous appeal was heard in December 2013 and the appellate court reversed the district court on the central issue in May 2014, holding that the “structure, sequence and organization” of an API was copyrightable.  The case was remanded to the district court for reconsideration only the basis of the fair use doctrine.

This time, prior to the trial starting earlier this month, U.S. District Judge William Alsup’s submitted an order urging both sides to respect the privacy of jurors after it became clear that both sides wanted that time to “scrub Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and other Internet sites to extract personal data” and when asked about it, “counsel admitted this.”  Ultimately, as a result of Judge Alsup’s order, both sides agreed not to mine the jurors’ social media data.  Maybe Oracle wishes they had?  It will be interesting to see if Oracle can obtain another reversal on appeal.

So, what do you think?  Is this case finally over?  Or, will it keep going and going and going?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. 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 Cloud is a “Rush” Project’s Best Friend: eDiscovery Best Practices

Today is Friday.  While many of you can look forward to a long, enjoyable Memorial Day weekend, chances are that at least a few of you will be making weekend plans when, late in the day, you will receive a CD, DVD, hard drive or link to data on a server somewhere that needs to be reviewed over the weekend.  There goes your weekend!

Not only that, good luck connecting with your in-house litigation support person or a vendor for assistance late on a Friday – you may play a game of “phone tag” or wait for email responses for a bit.  Lit support people and vendors have weekend plans too.  Even if you do get in touch with them, you then have to fill out a form and arrange to get the data to them, which can be tricky.  It’s a lot of time, hassle and cost to get started – especially if you’re at a small law firm that doesn’t already have an eDiscovery software application to support processing and review of the data.

When consumers quickly need to find that special item to buy, or that new cool song to download, or need to stream the new season of Bloodline (available starting today on Netflix) for binge watching, they turn to the cloud.  More than ever, attorneys are turning to the cloud as well to help them get their “rush” project started immediately.  And, you don’t even have to own the software or interact with anyone to get started.

As an eDiscovery provider that offers a no-risk free trial, CloudNine (shameless plug warning!) sees at least one or two clients a week that give our software a try (many of them with “rush” projects just like this).  The trend toward automation and the cloud in the industry has not only made eDiscovery more affordable than ever, it has also made it easier than ever to get a “rush” project off and running.

If you find yourself in that situation later today, here are three easy steps to get started:

  1. Sign up for a free account here. You will receive an email with your credentials (including temporary password), to get started.
  2. When you first log in, you’ll see a button to “Upload Data”. That will take you to a form to download the CloudNine Discovery client (which is a Windows based client application that resides on your desktop) for uploading data for processing.  Download and install the client to upload data.
  3. Once the client is downloaded and installed, launch the client, log in with your newly created credentials and simply follow the wizard prompts to upload the desired data set and put it into the project of your choice (which you can create if it doesn’t already exist). It’s that easy!

We can’t get you out of working this weekend.  But, we can take the hassle out of getting started.  You’re welcome.  :o)

So, what do you think?  Have you been faced with any “rush” eDiscovery projects lately?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Daily will return on Tuesday as we remember this Memorial Day the people who gave their lives while serving in our armed forces.

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.

Faster, Cheaper Better: How Automation is Revolutionizing eDiscovery: eDiscovery Trends

We had a terrific session on Tuesday discussing how automation is revolutionizing eDiscovery at The Masters Conference Windy City Cybersecurity, Social Media and eDiscovery event.  If you’re disappointed that you missed it, you’re in luck – there’s a recording of the session!

The Masters Conference brings together leading experts and professionals from law firms, corporations and the bench to develop strategies, practices and resources for managing the information life cycle.  There were a number of terrific sessions this Tuesday and a wonderful speech from (nearly 82 year old) Jesse White, the Illinois Secretary of State.  What an amazing life he has had – from being a paratrooper in the Army to playing minor league baseball with the Cubs to founding the Jesse White Tumbling Team to serve as a positive alternative for children to his time as a Chicago schoolteacher and his long tenure as Illinois Secretary of State.  He says he can still do a hand stand today.  I hope I have that much energy when I am his age.

Anyway, CloudNine sponsored the session Faster, Cheaper, Better: How Automation is Revolutionizing eDiscovery at 4:15 and the panelists, Rob Robinson, Managing Director of Complex Discovery, Kevin Clark, Executive Managing Director of Discovery Service for Hire Counsel, Jay Lieb, Founder and Managing Member of NexLP and I discussed a variety of current and emerging eDiscovery automation technologies.  The attendees were engaged and asked several good questions, so it was a very interesting free-form discussion regarding eDiscovery automation such as Technology Assisted Review, automated processing and pre-litigation artificial intelligence analysis.

Rob arranged for Kaylee Walstad of ACEDS to record the session and Rob has posted it on his Complex Discovery site here.  Thanks so much to Kaylee for recording the session!  Feel free to check it out.

The Masters Conference also has an event coming up in New York City in July and Washington DC in October.  Click here for more information on remaining scheduled events for the year.

So, what do you think?  Do you think that automation is revolutionizing eDiscovery?  As always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. 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 Rules Lack of Bad Faith in Denying Sanctions for Defendants’ Deletion of ESI: eDiscovery Case Law

In Martin v. Stoops Buick, Inc. et. al., No. 14-00298 (S.D. Ind., Apr. 25, 2016), Indiana Chief District Judge Richard L. Young ruled that the plaintiff did not carry her burden of proving that the defendants’ deliberately destroyed evidence in bad faith; therefore, he denied her Motion for Sanctions Against Defendants for the Spoliation of Evidence.

Case Background

In this wrongful termination case, the plaintiff worked for the defendants for nearly a year as a part-time employee before being offered full time employment in February 2013. However, two weeks after her full-time work began the defendants terminated the plaintiff’s employment stating that “she [was] not a good fit for [the] position” and replaced her with a new hire.  The plaintiff claimed that immediately after she was terminated, she informed the defendant’s General Manager that she was going to file a discrimination claim against the dealership, she filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) claim within two weeks and the defendants were notified three days later.  After hearing from both sides, EEOC dismissed the charge in Novermber 2013, after which the Plaintiff filed suit in February 2014.

In December 2015, the plaintiff filed an instant motion for sanctions against the defendants for spoliation of evidence, claiming they destroyed and/or replaced the plaintiff’s work computer, which precluded her from obtaining evidence in support of her claims, and that the plaintiff’s supervisor (Debra Trauner) deleted her e-mail communications with her replacement (Lisa Goodin) that allegedly occurred before she received her resume.

The defendant’s unwritten data retention policy called for the files of terminated employees to be preserved for at least 30 days. Shortly after the plaintiff was terminated, Trauner claimed she asked the IT department to preserve all of Plaintiff’s computer data and, according to Trauner, “they said they would.”  However, she later requested the plaintiff’s email files and work documents and IT said they had been deleted. Trauner also claimed she deleted her sent e-mail as a matter of course “whenever [her] computer would tell [her] that [she] can’t send e-mails anymore”, so the emails with the new employee were no longer available.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Young, referencing Malibu Media, LLC v. Tashiro, noted that “[t]he court’s determination of whether spoliation occurred requires a two-part inquiry… First, the court must determine whether the defendant was under a duty to preserve evidence; second, it must determine whether the defendant destroyed evidence in bad faith.”

Regarding the duty to preserve, Judge Young stated: “Although Trauner testified to placing a litigation hold on Plaintiff’s work e-mails, there is no evidence in the record to support her statement. There is no evidence of a ticket generated by the IT department regarding the request, and neither Prow, Nolan, Nelson, Jarvis, Stocking, nor Robinson could verify such a request. The court therefore finds Defendants breached their duty to preserve evidence.”

Regarding the determination as to whether the defendant destroyed the evidence in bad faith, Judge Young noted that the defendant “did produce those documents responsive to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents that were in its possession” and characterized Trautner’s testimony that she deleted the emails with Goodin to make room on the server as “credible”.  He also stated: “Lastly, and most significantly, Plaintiff’s own expert admitted that, after hearing all of the evidence, Stoops did not destroy evidence in bad faith. (Tr. at 110 (“Q: But you did not — it’s your opinion, based upon your background and experience, that what you’ve seen and heard and read and that’s been provided to you, that you do not find bad faith here? A: Right. Correct.”). Plaintiff, therefore, has failed to establish the required element of bad faith.”

As a result, Judge Young ruled that the plaintiff did not carry her burden of proving that the defendants’ deliberately destroyed evidence in bad faith and denied her Motion for Sanctions.

So, what do you think?  Was the court right to deny sanctions due to lack of bad faith?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. 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.

Today’s the Day to “Master” Your Knowledge of eDiscovery in Chicago!: eDiscovery Trends

Today’s the day!  If you’re in the Chicago area today, join me and other legal technology experts and professionals at The Masters Conference Windy City Cybersecurity, Social Media and eDiscovery event for a full day of educational sessions covering a wide range of topics!  It’s not too late to register and attend!

The Masters Conference brings together leading experts and professionals from law firms, corporations and the bench to develop strategies, practices and resources for managing the information life cycle.  This year’s Chicago event covers topics ranging from vendor selection to benefits and challenges associated with creating an Information Governance (IG) program to how to handle cross-border data in the wake of the Schrems decision and the new privacy shield.  The Internet of Things (IoT), cybersecurity and social media discovery are covered too.

The event will be held at the Metropolitan Club, 233 South Wacker Drive, 67th Floor, Chicago, IL 60606.  Registration begins at 8am, with sessions starting right after that, at 8:30am.

CloudNine will be sponsoring the session Faster, Cheaper, Better: How Automation is Revolutionizing eDiscovery at 4:15.  I will be moderating it with Rob Robinson, Managing Director of Complex Discovery, Kevin Clark, Executive Managing Director of Discovery Service for Hire Counsel and Jay Lieb, Founder and Managing Member of NexLP, as panelists.

Our panel discussion will provide an overview of the evolution of electronic discovery technologies and also share with attendees ways that they can consider and compare technology offerings from the large ecosystem of providers supporting litigation, investigations, and audits.  It should be a very informative discussion with a very knowledgeable panel!  Hope you can join us!

Click here to register for the conference.  If you’re a non-vendor, the cost is only $100 to attend for the full day!

The Masters Conference also has an event coming up in New York City in July and Washington DC in October.  Click here for more information on remaining scheduled events for the year.

So, what do you think?  Are you attending today’s conference?  As always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. 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.

Rule Change Could Facilitate the Government’s Ability to Access ESI in Criminal Investigations: eDiscovery Trends

A rule modification adopted by the United States Supreme Court that significantly changes the way in which the government can obtain search warrants to access computer systems and electronically stored information (ESI) of suspected hackers could go into effect on December 1.

On April 28, the Supreme Court submitted the amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that were adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States pursuant to Section 2072 of Title 28, United States Code.  One of those proposed rule changes, to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41, would enable “a magistrate judge with authority in any district where activities related to a crime may have occurred has authority to issue a warrant to use remote access to search electronic storage media and to seize or copy electronically stored information located within or outside that district if:”

  • “the district where the media or information is located has been concealed through technological means; or”
  • “in an investigation of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5), the media are protected computers that have been damaged without authorization and are located in five or more districts.”

Currently, the government can only obtain a warrant to access ESI from a magistrate in the district where the computer with the stored information is physically located.

As reported in JD Supra Business Advisor (Come Back With a Warrant: Proposed Rule Change Expands the Government’s Ability to Access Electronically Stored Information in Criminal Investigations, written by Thomas Kurland and Peter Nelson), proponents of the rule change say it is necessary to allow the government to respond quickly to cyber-attacks of unknown origin – particularly malicious “botnets” – which are becoming increasingly common as hackers become ever more sophisticated.

However, others say the rule change will significantly expand the government’s power to search computers without their owners’ consent – regardless of whether those computers belong to criminals or even to the victims of a crime.  One US senator, Ron Wyden of Oregon, has called for Congress to reject the rules changes, indicating that they “will massively expand the government’s hacking and surveillance powers” and “will have significant consequences for Americans’ privacy”.  He has indicated a “plan to introduce legislation to reverse these amendments shortly, and to request details on the opaque process for the authorization and use of hacking techniques by the government”.

So, what do you think?  Will Congress reverse these amendments?  Should they?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Just a reminder that I will be moderating a panel at The Masters Conference Windy City Cybersecurity, Social Media and eDiscovery event tomorrow (we covered it here) as part of a full day of educational sessions covering a wide range of topics.  CloudNine will be sponsoring that session, titled Faster, Cheaper, Better: How Automation is Revolutionizing eDiscovery at 4:15.  Click here to register for the conference.  If you’re a non-vendor, the cost is only $100 to attend for the full day!

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.

Judge Scheindlin Speaks!: eDiscovery Trends

Kudos to Jason Krause at ACEDS for getting the first “post-bench retirement” (at least that I know of) interview with (now former) U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin!

In the interview (which is available here), Judge Scheindlin comments on everything from the significance of her landmark Zubulake and Pension Committee rulings to the differences between circuits in sanctioning spoliation of ESI to thoughts about the amended Rule 37 to issues that most need attention now to even the departure of Judge Paul Grewal from the bench to join Facebook (wow!).  While she is retired from the bench, it appears that she will still be quite actively involved in litigation via special master work and via work in arbitration and mediation.  It’s an interesting and enlightening discussion and write-up.  Great job, Jason!

So, what do you think?  Will the retirement of influential judges like Judge Scheindlin and Judge Grewal adversely affect the judiciary’s handling of eDiscovery issues?  Or will other judges step up to continue their legacy?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Just a reminder that I will be moderating a panel at The Masters Conference Windy City Cybersecurity, Social Media and eDiscovery event next Tuesday, May 24 (we covered it here) as part of a full day of educational sessions covering a wide range of topics.  CloudNine will be sponsoring that session, titled Faster, Cheaper, Better: How Automation is Revolutionizing eDiscovery at 4:15.  Click here to register for the conference.  If you’re a non-vendor, the cost is only $100 to attend for the full day!

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 Orders Plaintiff to Perform a “Download Your Info” From Facebook: eDiscovery Case Law

In Rhone v. Schneider Nat’l Carriers, Inc., No. 4:15-cv-01096-NCC, (E.D. Mo. Apr. 21, 2016), Missouri Magistrate Judge Noelle C. Collins ordered the plaintiff to disclose a complete list of her social media accounts to the defendant and also provide a “Download Your Info” report from her Facebook account from June 2, 2014 to the present within fourteen days and ordered the defendant to disclose to the plaintiff any and all posts, photos or other media from the report it intends to use in support of its defense.

Case Background

In this case, the plaintiff asserted that she sustained “severe physical injuries” as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on June 2, 2014, when the vehicle driven by Third Party Defendant Charles Quinn, in which the plaintiff was a passenger, was struck from behind by Defendant Schneider National Carriers, Inc.’s (“Schneider”) vehicle driven by Defendant Dean Lilly.  The defendant requested production of any social media postings, photographs and/or videos posted by the plaintiff to any social media accounts since the date of the accident; in turn, the plaintiff objected and did not acknowledge the existence of any social media accounts.

However, according to Defendant Schneider, its own independent investigation uncovered that the plaintiff did have a Facebook account and may have also had a LinkedIn account and the information uncovered included “relevant information; specifically, comments and photos regarding physical activity such as dancing”.  The plaintiff initially objected to the defendant’s request for social media information as irrelevant, then provided a supplemental answer to the defendant’s request to indicate that no social media information was “related to this incident”.

As a result, the defendant requested that the plaintiff be required to provide a “Download Your Info” report from her Facebook account from the date of the accident, June 2, 2014, to the present. In the alternative, in the event the account or other social media content has been deleted, the defendant requested sanctions in the form of dismissal of the action with prejudice and attorney’s fees.  In response, the plaintiff indicated that the defendant had “failed to show that any evidence, whether relevant or irrelevant, has been deleted” and that the motion was moot as the defendant had already accessed the plaintiff’s Facebook account and printed at least 264 pages of Facebook postings; the defendant countered that sanctions are warranted because, although the plaintiff claimed not to have deleted any posts, its January 2016 download from the plaintiff’s Facebook account produced 441 pages of material whereas the same method in March 2016 retrieved only 226 pages of material.

Judge’s Ruling

In light of the information available, Judge Collins found that “Plaintiff has not fully and completely responded to Schneider’s production requests, even in light of her objections. Plaintiff did not initially disclose the existence of any social media accounts. However, Plaintiff does not deny that the Facebook account in question belongs to her. Furthermore, there is some indication that Plaintiff may have other social media accounts.  Accordingly, Plaintiff shall disclose to Schneider a complete list of Plaintiff’s social media accounts during the requested time periods.”

Judge Collins also ruled that “Plaintiff is directed to provide a ‘Download Your Info’ report from her Facebook account from the date of the accident, June 2, 2014 to the present. Plaintiff and Schneider shall consult regarding the process and the most effective means of disclosing this information. Thereafter, Schneider shall produce to Plaintiff, from this download, any and all posts, photographs, videos or other material that it intends to rely on for its case. However, the Court finds that, at this time, sanctions are unwarranted. Not only is it unclear whether Plaintiff has deleted any information, such a download from Facebook may afford Plaintiff the ability to recover any, even innocuous, information that may have been deleted.”

So, what do you think?  Should the court have required the plaintiff to download the info from her Facebook account?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. 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.