Close
Enter your
text here

Electronic Discovery

Former IT Administrator with “Keys to the Kingdom” Charged with Hacking into Former Employer: eDiscovery Trends

A former IT administrator pled not guilty earlier this month to federal charges of hacking into the computer system of Blue Stone Strategy Group – an Irvine-based company and the man’s former employer – and deleting files.

As announced by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in California, Nikishna Polequaptewa, 34, surrendered to federal employees after being indicted by a federal grand jury in March on one count of unauthorized impairment of a protected computer. At his arraignment, he entered a not guilty plea, was ordered released on a $25,000 bond and was ordered to stand trial on June 28.

“IT administrators often hold the ‘keys to the kingdom’ for companies,” said United States Attorney Eileen M. Decker. “Disgruntled IT administrators can therefore pose a grave threat to businesses, which must take measures to protect themselves when letting such an employee go.”

According to the indictment, Blue Stone provided consulting services to Native American tribal governments throughout the United States. Polequaptewa was responsible for information technology at Blue Stone until November 2014, when he was relieved of his duties, which led to his resignation. The indictment states that Polequaptewa repeatedly accessed the Blue Stone internal server, a desktop computer, and remote accounts held by Blue Stone immediately following his resignation, and allegedly deleted various files belonging to the company.  The computer hacking charge in the indictment carries a statutory maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison.

Of course, as the announcement notes, “[e]very defendant is presumed to be innocent until and unless proven guilty in court”.  Nonetheless, as US Attorney Decker points out, organizations need to have a plan in place for protecting themselves that at least includes closing accounts and changing credentials when key IT personnel leave the company.

So, what do you think?  Does your organization have a plan in place to lock down access when IT personnel leave?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Thanks to Peter S. Vogel’s Internet, Information Technology & e-Discovery Blog for the tip!

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.

The Number of Files in Each Gigabyte Can Vary Widely: eDiscovery Best Practices

Now and then, I am asked by clients how many documents (files) are typically contained in one gigabyte (GB) of data.  When trying to estimate the costs for review, having a good estimate of the number of files is important to provide a good estimate for review costs.  However, because the number of files per GB can vary widely, estimating review costs accurately can be a challenge.

About four years ago, I conducted a little (unscientific) experiment to show how the number of pages in each GB can vary widely, depending on the file formats that comprise that GB.  Since we now tend to think more about files per GB than pages, I have taken a fresh look using the updated estimate below.

Each GB of data is rarely just one type of file.  Many emails include attachments, which can be in any of a number of different file formats.  Collections of files from hard drives may include Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Adobe PDF and other file formats.  Even files within the same application can vary, depending on the version in which they are stored.  For example, newer versions of Office files (e.g., .docx, .xlsx) incorporate zip compression of the text, so the data sizes tend to be smaller than their older counterparts.  So, estimating file counts with any degree of precision can be somewhat difficult.

To illustrate this, I decided to put the content from yesterday’s case law blog post into several different file formats to illustrate how much the size can vary, even when the content is essentially the same.  Here are the results – rounded to the nearest kilobyte (KB):

  • Text File Format (TXT): Created by performing a “Save As” on the web page for the blog post to text – 4 KB, it would take 262,144 text files at 4 KB each to equal 1 GB;
  • HyperText Markup Language (HTML): Created by performing a “Save As” on the web page for the blog post to HTML – 57 KB, it would take 18,396 HTML files at 57 KB each to equal 1 GB;
  • Microsoft Excel 97-2003 Format (XLS): Created by copying the contents of the blog post and pasting it into a blank Excel XLS workbook – 325 KB, it would take 3,226 XLS files at 325 KB each to equal 1 GB;
  • Microsoft Excel 2010 Format (XLSX): Created by copying the contents of the blog post and pasting it into a blank Excel XLSX workbook – 296 KB, it would take 3,542 XLSX files at 296 KB each to equal 1 GB;
  • Microsoft Word 97-2003 Format (DOC): Created by copying the contents of the blog post and pasting it into a blank Word DOC document – 312 KB, it would take 3,361 DOC files at 312 KB each to equal 1 GB;
  • Microsoft Word 2010 Format (DOCX): Created by copying the contents of the blog post and pasting it into a blank Word DOCX document – 299 KB, it would take 3,507 DOCX files at 299 KB each to equal 1 GB;
  • Microsoft Outlook 2010 Message Format (MSG): Created by copying the contents of the blog post and pasting it into a blank Outlook message, then sending that message to myself, then saving the message out to my hard drive – 328 KB, it would take 3,197 MSG files at 328 KB each to equal 1
  • Adobe PDF Format (PDF): Created by printing the blog post to PDF file using the CutePDF printer driver – 1,550 KB, it would take 677 PDF files at 1,550 KB each to equal 1

The HTML and PDF examples weren’t exactly an “apples to apples” comparison to the other formats – they included other content from the web page as well.  Nonetheless, the examples above hopefully illustrate that, to estimate the number of files in a collection with any degree of accuracy, it’s not only important to understand the size of the data collection, but also the makeup of the collection as well.  Performing an Early Data Assessment on your data beforehand can provide those file counts you need to more accurately estimate your review costs.

So, what do you think?  Was the 2016 example useful, highly flawed or both?  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.

Plaintiffs Ordered to Produce a Copy of Access Database for Forensic Analysis: eDiscovery Case Law

In Thorne Research, Inc. et. al. v. Atlantic Pro-Nutrients, Inc., No. 13-784 (D. Utah, Mar. 22, 2016), Utah Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner determined that, because the parties had competing affidavits regarding whether a Microsoft Access database created by the plaintiffs’ co-inventor stores metadata and that metadata (if present) was clearly relevant, the defendant should be allowed the opportunity to conduct a forensic analysis as to whether or not the metadata exists in the native format of the Access database.

Case Background

In this case, the plaintiffs filed suit against the defendant for patent infringement and the defendant filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the patent.  To bolster its effort in obtaining its declaratory judgment, the defendant moved for an order compelling the plaintiffs to provide a complete copy of the Microsoft Access database that co-inventor Donald Steele utilized to input his formulas, seeking the metadata it alleged was contained in the Access database to independently determine the legitimacy of the plaintiffs’ claim that Mr. Steele and his co-inventor were the first inventors of the patent.  The defendant claimed that the plaintiffs tampered with the Access database to create a false early conception date of the invention.

The plaintiffs argued that Access databases do not maintain metadata like word processing or spreadsheet programs do and that the database was owned and maintained by a third party that kept all of its and its customers’ formulations in the Access database, not just the plaintiffs’ formulations and that giving the defendant access to the database would also be giving it access to the third party’s proprietary information. The plaintiffs also asserted that that there was no evidence of tampering with the database.  To address the concerns over third party information, the defendant indicated that the plaintiffs could provide the electronic copy of the database under the designation of “CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION — ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY” and argued that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that providing the database with the metadata intact would present an undue hardship or expense.

Judge’s Ruling

Because the parties had competing affidavits regarding whether the Microsoft Access database stores metadata, and because evidence regarding the date of the invention was clearly relevant to the case, Judge Warner ruled that “Defendant ought to be allowed the opportunity to conduct a forensic analysis as to whether or not the metadata exists in its native format.”  Regarding the plaintiffs’ concerns regarding disclosure of proprietary or confidential information, Judge Warner indicated that “an attorneys eyes only designation pursuant to the protective order should provide a sufficient safeguard against disclosure of confidential or proprietary information.”  As a result, he ordered the plaintiffs to produce a copy of the Microsoft Access database to the defendants within ten days of the date of the order.

So, what do you think?  Should the court have allowed a forensic analysis of the Access database?  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.

BakerHostetler’s New “Attorney” Doesn’t Carry a Briefcase: eDiscovery Trends

BakerHostetler has brought a new “attorney” into the fold named ROSS (not like “Ross” from the old TV show Friends, but “ROSS”).  They call ROSS “artificially intelligent”, which doesn’t sound like a very nice thing to say, but it’s entirely accurate.

As reported in The American Lawyer (AI Pioneer ROSS Intelligence Lands Its First Big Law Clients, written by Susan Beck), BakerHostetler became the first law firm to announce (earlier this month) that it has licensed the artificial intelligence product developed by ROSS Intelligence for bankruptcy matters.

The ROSS platform is built upon Watson, IBM’s cognitive computer, and it’s “a digital legal expert that helps you power through your legal research”.  According to the Ross Intelligence site, “You ask your questions in plain English, as you would a colleague, and ROSS then reads through the entire body of law and returns a cited answer and topical readings from legislation, case law and secondary sources to get you up-to-speed quickly.”  As the site states, ROSS will:

  1. Provide you a highly relevant answer, not 1000s of results, to your question posed in natural language, not keywords.
  2. Monitor the law for changes that can positively/negatively affect your case, instead of flooding you with legal news.
  3. Learn the more you and other lawyers use it.
  4. Offer a simple, consistent experience across all your devices and form factors.

And, it’s not triskaidekaphobic, which would come in handy today.  Hey, does it write blog posts too?  Just asking… :o)

ROSS Intelligence CEO and co-founder Andrew Arruda said that, in addition to BakerHostetler, a few other firms have also signed licenses, and those announcements will come shortly.  “Our aim is to have ROSS on the legal team of every lawyer in the world,” he said.  Over the last year, ROSS Intelligence has been operating a pilot project with more than 20 law firms that enables the firms test the software for free.

In our thought leader interview at LegalTech New York (LTNY) earlier this year, Ralph Losey theorized about IBM someday making a big splash in the eDiscovery market and noted that “[w]hat they don’t have yet is ‘Watson, the review lawyer’.”  Perhaps not yet.  But, it will be interesting to see if ROSS (or some other technology) can eventually expand to certain discovery tasks and processes that will continue to automate the eDiscovery process as we know it.

So, what do you think?  Do you think ROSS will eventually become involved in the discovery process?  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 on 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!

Image © Bright/Kauffman/Crane Productions and Warner Bros. Television

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.

ACEDS Highlights CloudNine in EDNA Challenge Part II

Extract from ACEDS article by Jason Krause: This year’s ACEDS E-Discovery Conference hosted the EDna Challenge Part II. This was an update to a challenge 7 years ago, in which e-discovery forensics expert Craig Ball considered whether it was possible to manage a relatively small e-discovery matter on a $1000 budget. Given economic changes, the budget this year was increased to $5000, and the data challenges were made slightly more complex. Already, the challenge is revealing interesting truths about e-discovery.

EDna is the name of an imaginary small firm lawyer trying to search a collection of emails and documents. The hypothetical collection includes six .pst files, four Gmail MBOXes, and miscellaneous files from 10 custodians. All of it must be reviewed by three attorneys in less than 90 days and the data must also be stored for two years after review. Her team must process the metadata, de-duplicate the collection, and tag and code documents for under $5,000. Already, several vendors have provided viable options in response to the challenge.

See the Conference Panel Slides: EDna-2016

Source: EDna Part II – E-Discovery for Smaller Budgets

CloudsNine_400x400_Transparent

“Master” Your Knowledge of eDiscovery With This Conference in Chicago Later This Month: eDiscovery Trends

If you’re in the Chicago area or plan to be there on May 24, 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!

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 with Rob Robinson of Complex Discovery and Kevin Clark of Hire Counsel, who is also the Vice Chair of the E-Discovery Committee of the DC Bar, and Co-Chair of the EDRM Metrics Group, 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 and includes an overview of the attributes of fourth generation eDiscovery automation technology.  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 going to be in Chicago on May 24?  If so, come join us!  And, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. 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 Defendant to Re-Produce Selected Documents in Native Format: eDiscovery Case Law

In Spring v. Board of Trustees of Cape Fear Community College et. al., No. 7:15-CV-84-BO (E.D. N.C., Apr. 7, 2016), North Carolina Magistrate Judge James E. Gates, in ruling on several discovery disputes between the parties, granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel in part, ordering the plaintiff to identify documents to be re-produced in native format and for the defendant to re-produce those documents or move for appropriate relief after conferring with plaintiff if it deemed the number of documents identified to be unjustifiably large.

Case Background

In this breach of contract case over a forced resignation, the court entered a scheduling order in August 2015, adopting the parties’ proposed discovery plan which provided that “the requesting party is entitled to have electronic files produced in `native’ format, with accompanying metadata, upon request.”  After the defendant produced documents in response to the plaintiff’s requests for production, the plaintiff sent a letter to defendants’ counsel in December 2015 addressing perceived deficiencies in the defendant’s production.  The defendant produced some supplemental documents, but the plaintiff contended that the defendant’s production was still incomplete.  The plaintiff filed a motion to compel in February 2016, seeking further production, as well as re-production of the originally produced documents in native format.

Judge’s Ruling

After addressing the various requests for further production, allowing in part and denying in part the plaintiff’s requests, Judge Gates turned to the plaintiff’s request for production of electronically stored information in its native format, as stated in the terms of the discovery plan adopted by the Scheduling Order.  While the defendant’s initial production of 2,576 pages was not in native format, the defendant noted that, at the time, the plaintiff did not object to the non-native format of the production.  Since the time plaintiff raised the issue, the defendant stated that it had produced 2,084 documents in native format with metadata and offered to re-produce in native format with metadata specific documents identified by the plaintiff, but objected to re-producing all prior non-native format production.

Judge Gates stated:

“The court agrees with the Board that re-production of all documents at this point would be unduly burdensome. If there are documents, or categories of documents, for which plaintiff requests re-production in native form with metadata, plaintiff shall provide such identification to the Board as soon as practicable, but in no event later than 15 April 2016. The Board shall re-produce in native format with metadata the documents identified as soon as practicable, but in no event later than 28 April 2016, provided that the Board may move by that date pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(c), E.D.N.C. for appropriate relief after conferring with plaintiff if it deems the number of documents identified to be unjustifiably large. The portion of plaintiff’s motion to compel seeking re-production of the documents sought is accordingly ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED IN PART on the foregoing terms.”

So, what do you think?  Considering that it was agreed to in the discovery plan, should the judge have ordered all documents to be re-produced in native format?  Or was the order to re-produce selected documents sufficient?  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.

Time to Express Your Confidence Level in the eDiscovery Ecosystem (Again): eDiscovery Trends

After his inaugural eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey yielded some interesting results, Rob Robinson has made good on his plan to conduct the survey quarterly on his terrific Complex Discovery site with the Spring 2016 Survey.  Now is your chance to express your confidence in the eDiscovery ecosystem!

As he notes on the site, Rob’s eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey is a non-scientific survey designed to provide insight into the business confidence level of individuals working in the eDiscovery ecosystem. The term ‘business’ represents the economic factors that impact the creation, delivery, and consumption of eDiscovery products and services.

Like last quarter, Rob asks questions related to how you rate general business conditions for eDiscovery in your segment of the eDiscovery market, both current and six months from now, a general sense of where you think revenue and profits will be for your segment of the market in six months and which issue do you think will most impact the business of eDiscovery over the next six months, among other questions.  It’s a simple nine question survey that literally takes about a minute to complete.  Who hasn’t got a minute to provide useful information?

Individual answers are kept confidential, with the aggregate results to be published on Rob’s Complex Discovery site upon completion of the response period, which runs from May 1 through May 30.

Last time, there were 80 total respondents, which is not bad for the two weeks that the survey was open!  Looks like Rob decided to allow a full month to respond this time, which should allow for even more respondents.  Of course, last time over two-thirds of respondents were providers; hopefully, there will be a more even distribution this time around.  A majority of respondents last time considered business in eDiscovery to be good and most expected it to be as good or better six months later.  Our coverage of the last survey, with a link to the full survey, is here.

This time, with 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”, it will be interesting to see if a new issue becomes the issue that will most impact discovery over the next six months.

The more respondents there are, the more useful the results will be!  Click here to take the survey yourself.  Don’t forget!

So, what do you think?  Are you confident in the state of business within the eDiscovery industry?  Share your thoughts in the survey and, as always, please share any comments you might have with us or let us know 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.

At Litigation Time, the Cost of Data Storage May Not Be As Low As You Think: eDiscovery Best Practices

One of my favorite all-time graphics that we’ve posted on the blog (from one of our very first posts) is this ad from the early 1980s for a 10 MB disk drive – for $3,398!  That’s MB (megabytes), not GB (gigabytes) or TB (terabytes).  These days, the cost per GB for data storage is pennies on the dollar, which is a big reason why the total amount of data being captured and stored by industry doubles every 1.2 years.  But, at litigation time, all that data can cost you – big.

When I checked on prices for external hard drives back in 2010 (not network drives, which are still more expensive), prices for a 2 TB external drive at Best Buy were as low as $140 (roughly 7 cents per GB).  Now, they’re as low as $81.99 (roughly 4.1 cents per GB).  And, these days, you can go bigger – a 5 TB drive for as low as $129.99 (roughly 2.6 cents per GB).  I promise that I don’t have a side job at Best Buy and am not trying to sell you hard drives (even from the back of a van).

No wonder organizations are storing more and more data and managing Big Data in organizations has become such a challenge!

Because organizations are storing so much data (and in more diverse places than ever before), information governance within those organizations has become vitally important in keeping that data as manageable as possible.  And, when litigation or regulatory requests hit, the ability to quickly search and cull potentially responsive data is more important than ever.

Back in 2010, I illustrated how each additional GB that has to be reviewed can cost as much as $16,650 (even with fairly inexpensive contract reviewers).  And, that doesn’t even take into consideration the costs to identify, preserve, collect, and produce each additional GB.  Of course, that was before Da Silva Moore and several other cases that ushered in the era of technology assisted review (even though more cases are still not using it than are using it).  Regardless, that statistic illustrates how the cost of data storage may not be as low as you think at litigation time – each GB could cost hundreds or even thousands to manage (even in the era of eDiscovery automation and falling prices for eDiscovery software and services).

Equating the early 1980’s ad above to GB, that equates to about $330,000 per GB!  But, if you go all the way back to 1950, the cost of a 5 MB drive from IBM was $50,000, which equates to about $10 million per GB!  Check out this interactive chart of hard drive prices from 1950-2010, courtesy of That Data Dude (yes, that really is the name of the site) where you can click on different years and see how the price per GB has dropped over the years.  It’s way cool!

So, what do you think?  Do you track GB metrics for your cases?  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.

Merely Stating That ESI Request Is Not Relevant Or Proportional Is Not Sufficient, Court Rules: eDiscovery Case Law

In Digital Ally, Inc. v. Utility Associates, Inc., No. 14-2262-CM-GEB (D. Kan. Apr. 15, 2016), Kansas Magistrate Judge Gwynne E. Birzer granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, overruling the defendant’s objections that the request was neither relevant nor proportional to the issues in this case, because the defendant “has not expounded on its objections to relevance or proportionality under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)”.

Case Background

In this case for tortious interference stemming from the defendant’s hiring of a former sales manager of the plaintiff, the two parties were able to successfully resolve early disputes regarding discovery.  However, during the deposition of the defendant’s former vice president in November 2015, twelve categories of unproduced documents were identified which the plaintiff believed to be responsive to its First Requests for Production.  Communications between the parties resolved discussions regarding six of the categories, but when the parties could not agree on the other six categories, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel, seeking the remaining six categories of documents.  Subsequently, the plaintiff agreed to withdraw its motion regarding four of the requests, leaving requests for two categories for the court to address.

The defendant argued the motion to compel should be denied because it was filed more than ten months after the plaintiff served its initial Requests and was untimely under D. Kan. Rule 37.1(b). The defendant also maintained that the plaintiff failed to properly confer before filing its motion, as required by D. Kan. Rule 37.2.  With regard to the individual requests, the defendant argued the first request was “neither relevant nor proportional to the issues in this case” and also objected to the request as overbroad for failure to identify custodians of, and provide search terms for, any alleged e-mails as required by the Scheduling Order.  The defendant objected to the second request on the basis of relevance.

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to the defendant’s objection regarding the timeliness of the request, Judge Birzer disagreed, finding that, although the plaintiff failed to file its motion within 30 days after the defendant’s initial discovery responses, “the motion was filed within 30 days of the defendant’s final communication regarding production of the six categories of documents which became an issue after [the former VP’s] deposition”.  With regard to the defendant’s contention that the plaintiff failed to properly confer before filing its motion, Judge Birzer also disagreed with that, ruling that “[b]ecause the parties communicated both in writing and by phone regarding the disputed requests, the Court finds the duty to confer under Rule 37.2 is satisfied”.

With regard to the defendant’s objection to the first request, Judge Birzer stated:

“Aside from simply stating the terms, Defendant has not expounded on its objections to relevance or proportionality under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), and those objections are overruled. Because Plaintiff brings multiple claims of tortious interference with its business, the information sought by the request appears relevant on its face, and Defendant has not met its burden to demonstrate otherwise.  Additionally, any concerns regarding overbreadth or proportionality may be addressed by following the guidelines of the Scheduling Order.”

With regard to the defendant’s objection to the second request, Judge Birzer determined that the defendant “has not met its burden to demonstrate lack of relevance; therefore the objection is overruled.”  With all objections overruled, Judge Birzer granted the motion to compel with instructions for the plaintiff to resubmit the first request following the terms of the Scheduling Order.

So, what do you think?  Do you think we’ll see more cases where objections are overruled because they don’t provide specificity regarding the objections?  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.