Close
Enter your
text here

Electronic Discovery

Court Orders Plaintiff to Re-Review 95% of its Production Classified as “Highly Confidential”: eDiscovery Case Law

In Procaps S.A. v. Patheon Inc., 12-24356-CIV-GOODMAN, 2014 U.S. Dist. (S.D. Fla. July 20, 2015), after the plaintiff designated 95% of its forensically-produced documents (141,525 of 148,636) as “highly confidential”, Florida District Judge Jonathan Goodman ordered the plaintiff to re-review and re-designate those documents within ten days, and also assessed a $25,000 fees award against the plaintiff’s outside counsel to compensate the defendant for its efforts in reviewing the documents.

Case Background

In this case, the parties entered into a stipulated confidentiality agreement whereby they designated confidential documents as either “Confidential Information” or “Highly Confidential Information”, with the parties agreeing that only counsel could view the “Highly Confidential Information”. The parties agreed to use the “Highly Confidential Information” category only for “information that truly requires highly sensitive protection.”

The defendant challenged both the plaintiff’s method of marking highly confidential documents and the number of documents marked.  The plaintiff marked each highly confidential document with the “highly confidential” legend but did so in a way which prevented the defendant from doing a computer search for the term “highly confidential.”  The defendant alleged that its inability to perform these searches significantly prejudiced its defense of the case.

Also, 148,636 documents were produced by the plaintiff in the forensic analysis, and the plaintiff designated 141,525 of them as “highly confidential” (95.2%).   The defendant also determined that 90.9% of the plaintiffs’ entire production (141,696 of 155,759 documents) was branded by the plaintiff as “highly confidential.”  The defendant’s statistical sample review of the branded “highly confidential” documents identified documents generated by the defendant itself, as well as SPAM emails – documents that would clearly not be “highly confidential”.  As a result, the defendant filed a motion for re-designation of highly confidential documents on July 13, 2015 and also sought fee reimbursement of $34,385.69.  The plaintiff ultimately acknowledged the “apparent over-designation of documents as Highly Confidential”, noting that it was performed by a third party vendor.

Judge’s Ruling

In a previous ruling in this case, Judge Goodman began his opinion by quoting both eighteenth century English writer Samuel Johnson and the recently departed B.B. King; in this ruling, he began by quoting song lyrics from a song by Christine McVie.  Judge Goodman, characterizing the plaintiff’s designations as “indiscriminate”, rejected the plaintiff’s proposed alternatives for the defendant or the special master to identify the documents to be re-reviewed, stating that “Procaps’ indiscriminate designation of documents as highly confidential should not lead to the “result of improperly shifting the cost of review of confidentiality” to Patheon.”

Instead, noting that “Procaps cannot avoid its discovery obligations by shifting blame to the third party it hired for the project” and observing that “Procaps’ attorneys presumably performed the final review, and one or more of its attorneys realized, or should have realized, that a 95% highly confidential, AEO (attorney’s eyes only) designation rate is problematic and questionable (or “absurd”) on its face”, Judge Goodman ordered the plaintiff to re-review and re-designate those documents within ten days.  He also awarded the defendant $25,000 of the $34,385.69 fees requested.

So, what do you think?  Was the court correct in ordering the plaintiff to re-review the documents in such a short period of time?  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 Has a “Beef” with Plaintiff’s Proportionality Argument: eDiscovery Case Law

In Cargill Meat Solutions Corp. v. Premium Beef Feeders, LLC, No. 13-cv-1168-EFM-TJJ (D. Kan. June 26, 2015), Kansas Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James granted the defendants’ motion to compel production of documents, overruling the plaintiffs’ objections to the discovery request in finding that “Plaintiff has not satisfied its burden to show that producing the requested documents would be unduly burdensome”.

Case Background

In this breach of contract case, the defendant requested in June 2014, among other production requests, “any and all Documents related to Your hedging and/or risk management strategies and/or policies for all cattle purchased pursuant to the Agreement”.   Subsequently, in April 2015, the defendant deposed a former employee of the plaintiff and learned for the first time of the existence of specific documents that the plaintiff had not produced relating to hedging and/or risk management activities of both cattle and grain pursuant to the Agreement.  After requesting those documents, the plaintiff’s lead counsel sent a letter declining to produce the requested documents as irrelevant.  She offered to schedule a time for the parties to meet and confer about the issue, but she had left the country the day before and fact discovery closed the following day, forcing the defendant to file its motion to compel.

The plaintiff argued that the defendants’ motion to compel should be denied because:

  1. Defendants failed to comply with the “meet and confer” (or was it “meat and confer”?) obligation imposed by Kan. R. 37.2;
  2. Plaintiff had already produced relevant information responsive to the request;
  3. Defendants’ motion was not proportional; and
  4. the Court should defer ruling on the motion until the presiding district judge rules on Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on risk management claims.

Judge’s Ruling

Noting that the “Defendants had a limited amount of time in which to file their motion to compel”, Judge James found that “Defendants have complied with their Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(1)(1) and D. Kan. R. 37.2 obligations to confer. Defendants acted in a timely fashion and contacted the only Plaintiff’s attorney available before their deadline. In addition, on May 4, 2015, Defendants’ counsel attempted to discuss the issue with Plaintiff’s counsel after she had returned to the country, but she declined to do so.”

Judge James also stated that, “When the discovery sought appears relevant, the party resisting discovery has the burden to establish the lack of relevancy by demonstrating that the requested discovery (1) does not come within the scope of relevancy as defined under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), or (2) is of such marginal relevancy that the potential harm occasioned by discovery would outweigh the ordinary presumption in favor of broad disclosure.”  Finding that “the relevancy of the documents is apparent on its face”, Judge James ruled that the documents were within the bounds of the production request.

Finally, with regard to the plaintiff’s proportionality argument, Judge James stated:

“The Court finds that Plaintiff has not satisfied its burden to show that producing the requested documents would be unduly burdensome. Although Plaintiff articulates the issue as one of proportionality, the only factor Plaintiff mentions is the cost of the discovery. Plaintiff does not set forth what the relative cost of production would be as compared to the amount in controversy. The Court notes that both parties seek damages/setoff in excess of $2,000,000. Plaintiff’s unsupported estimate of $4,000 to $5,000 per custodian in discovery costs does not lead the Court to find that ordering the requested discovery violates proportionality, particularly given the history, scope, and nature of this case.”

Judge James did, however, reject the defendants’ request for sanctions in the form of an award of their reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion.

So, what do you think?  Does the plaintiff have a valid “beef” with the verdict?  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.

Rules Amendments Are Not Just Being Approved WITHIN DC, But Also FOR DC As Well: eDiscovery Trends

We’ve been covering the progress of adoption of changes to the Federal Rules and the associated debate regarding the rules – especially Rule 37(e) – for over two years (with posts here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here).  Unless Congress introduces legislation to affect the timing or content of the rules, the rules will become effective on December 1 of this year.  But, did you know that there are new rules amendments for the District of Columbia, as well?

According to DCBar.org, on August 5, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia issued Rule Promulgation Order 15-02 amending Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure 16, 26, 33, 34, 36, 37, and 45.

The amendments, which take effect October 12, 2015, establish processes and procedures for electronic discovery, including the manner for requesting and producing electronically stored information, and for requesting and submitting certain discovery requests in an electronic format.  They also incorporate some stylistic changes based on guidelines established by the Style Subcommittee of the federal Standing Committee on the Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Including the one-page rule promulgation order, the amended rules (extensively edited with amendments to the rules in red and strikethrough of rule text that has been removed) is contained within this 38 page PDF file.  Happy reading!

So, what do you think?  Do you practice law in DC?  If so, are you happy about the rules changes?  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.

What’s Better than the Discovery Channel? The eDiscovery Channel!: eDiscovery Trends

Sometimes, I look for blog post ideas in different places, including performing searches for eDiscovery topics on Twitter, which yielded this gem.

If you’ve been a long time follower of this blog (or even not that long), you’re familiar with the thought leader interview series we conduct every year at LegalTech New York (LTNY).  Now, you can listen to podcasts from a couple of eDiscovery thought leaders from the comfort of your own computer!

The site ESI Bytes is a terrific resource for podcasts where top experts share their opinions and tips.  In their latest podcast, Craig Ball and Tom O’Connor about their new eDiscovery podcast series, the eDiscovery Channel.  Craig and Tom discuss various eDiscovery topics with the “sheriff”, the Honorable John Facciola, former United States Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and Karl Schieneman, Founder and President of Review Less.

On this podcast, the topics they discussed included the recent Lola v. Skadden Arps appellate court ruling where the Second Circuit court ruled that the plaintiff’s lawsuit demanding overtime pay from law firm Skadden, Arps and legal staffing agency Tower Legal Solutions can proceed and whether review attorneys are actually performing legal work.  In that vein, they also discussed the quality of manual review and the plight of the attorney reviewer today.  In addition, they also took a look at the case we covered on Monday, United States v. Louisiana, where the defendant originally submitted a 2,941 page privilege log.  Good stuff, from a knowledgeable panel!

Tom previously partnered with the late Browning Marean to co-host the podcast series called the e-Discovery Zone, so you may have enjoyed some of his podcasts in the past.  eDiscovery Channel appears to have been in existence for at least a year, with posts going back as far as last year’s ILTA show at least.  I hope that they will post regularly and get others involved as well, it could be a very unique and beneficial resource to hear unique perspectives directly from well-respected eDiscovery thought leaders!  And, you don’t have to be Naked and Afraid to enjoy it!

So, what do you think?  Are you familiar with ESI Bytes or the eDiscovery Channel?  If not, you should check them out!  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.

Here are a Few Common Myths About Technology Assisted Review: eDiscovery Best Practices

A couple of years ago, after my annual LegalTech New York interviews with various eDiscovery thought leaders (a list of which can be found here, with links to each interview), I wrote a post about some of the perceived myths that exist regarding Technology Assisted Review (TAR) and what it means to the review process.  After a recent discussion with a client where their misperceptions regarding TAR were evident, it seemed appropriate to revisit this topic and debunk a few myths that others may believe as well.

  1. TAR is New Technology

Actually, with all due respect to each of the various vendors that have their own custom algorithm for TAR, the technology for TAR as a whole is not new technology.  Ever heard of artificial intelligence?  TAR, in fact, applies artificial intelligence to the review process.  With all of the acronyms we use to describe TAR, here’s one more for consideration: “Artificial Intelligence for Review” or “AIR”.  May not catch on, but I like it. (much to my disappointment, it didn’t)…

Maybe attorneys would be more receptive to it if they understood as artificial intelligence?  As Laura Zubulake pointed out in my interview with her, “For years, algorithms have been used in government, law enforcement, and Wall Street.  It is not a new concept.”  With that in mind, Ralph Losey predicts that “The future is artificial intelligence leveraging your human intelligence and teaching a computer what you know about a particular case and then letting the computer do what it does best – which is read at 1 million miles per hour and be totally consistent.”

  1. TAR is Just Technology

Treating TAR as just the algorithm that “reviews” the documents is shortsighted.  TAR is a process that includes the algorithm.  Without a sound approach for identifying appropriate example documents for the collection, ensuring educated and knowledgeable reviewers to appropriately code those documents and testing and evaluating the results to confirm success, the algorithm alone would simply be another case of “garbage in, garbage out” and doomed to fail.  In a post from last week, we referenced Tom O’Connor’s recent post where he quoted Maura Grossman, probably the most recognized TAR expert, who stated that “TAR is a process, not a product.”  True that.

  1. TAR and Keyword Searching are Mutually Exclusive

I’ve talked to some people that think that TAR and key word searching are mutually exclusive, i.e., that you wouldn’t perform key word searching on a case where you plan to use TAR.  Not necessarily.  Ralph Losey continues to advocate a “multimodal” approach, noting it as: “more than one kind of search – using TAR, but also using keyword search, concept search, similarity search, all kinds of other methods that we have developed over the years to help train the machine.  The main goal is to train the machine.”

  1. TAR Eliminates Manual Review

Many people (including the New York Times) think of TAR as the death of manual review, with all attorney reviewers being replaced by machines.  Actually, manual review is a part of the TAR process in several aspects, including: 1) Subject matter knowledgeable reviewers are necessary to perform review to create a training set of documents for the technology, 2) After the process is performed, both sets (the included and excluded documents) are sampled and the samples are reviewed to determine the effectiveness of the process, and 3) The resulting responsive set is generally reviewed to confirm responsiveness and also to determine whether the documents are privileged.  Without manual review to train the technology and verify the results, the process would fail.

  1. TAR Has to Be Perfect to Be Useful

Detractors of TAR note that TAR can miss plenty of responsive documents and is nowhere near 100% accurate.  In one recent case, the producing party estimated as many as 31,000 relevant documents may have been missed by the TAR process.  However, they also estimated that a much more costly manual review would have missed as many as 62,000 relevant documents.

Craig Ball’s analogy about the two hikers that encounter the angry grizzly bear is appropriate – the one hiker doesn’t have to outrun the bear, just the other hiker.  Craig notes: “That is how I look at technology assisted review.  It does not have to be vastly superior to human review; it only has to outrun human review.  It just has to be as good or better while being faster and cheaper.”

So, what do you think?  Do you agree that these are myths?  Can you think of any others?  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.

If You’re Going to Submit a 2,941 Page Privilege Log, You’d Better Be Able to Demonstrate Privilege: eDiscovery Case Law

In United States v. Louisiana, 11-470-JWD-RLB. (M.D. La. July 31, 2015), Louisiana Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr., after reviewing 40 documents provided by the defendant for in-camera review, granted the plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Compel a Proper Privilege Log, after denying the original motion because the plaintiff only provided 13 examples of “insufficient descriptions” within the privilege log’s entries.

Case Background

In this enforcement action for declaratory and injunctive relief under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 filed by the plaintiff in 2011, the defendant submitted a 2,941 page privilege log on February 6, 2015 in response to the plaintiff’s second Requests for Production which listed email communications and their attachments, that the plaintiff claimed were protected from production by the attorney client privilege, the work product doctrine, and the joint defense/common interest privilege.

On February 23, the plaintiff informed the defendant that its privilege log did “not contain a sufficient amount of information for [the U.S.] or the Court to be able to make an independent privilege determination as to the applicability and validity of the asserted privilege”, complaining about the privilege log’s failure to include: (1) job titles of the listed recipients, including whether any recipient was acting in the capacity of an attorney; (2) descriptions for most of the listed email’s attachments; and (3) sufficiently detailed descriptions of the communications referenced.  Then, on April 17, the defendant gave the plaintiff an updated privilege log, which deleted “over 1500” communications and documents and also included brief descriptions of the email attachments listed in the log, reducing the overall privilege log to (a mere) 2,302 pages of entries.  Still, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel a Proper Privilege Log.

On May 22, Judge Bourgeois denied the motion to the extent that it sought an order compelling the defendant to produce an entirely revised Privilege Log, noting that the plaintiff “only provides 13 examples of ‘insufficient descriptions’ that apparently account for ‘hundreds if not thousands’ of the privilege log’s entries” and rejected the plaintiff’s “sweeping argument” to order the defendant to revise every entry of its privilege log.  Judge Bourgeois did rule that the plaintiff “may file a renewed Motion to Compel by Friday, May 29, 2015, citing up to 40 specific entries in DHH’s privilege log, which are exemplary of the entries it challenges as insufficient.”  The plaintiff did that, and the defendant then submitted for in-camera review the documents described in the 40 privilege log entries.

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to the defendant’s privilege log, Judge Bourgeois noted that the “challenged entries are not described with sufficient detail for either the Court or the United States to evaluate the applicability of the attorney client privilege or work product doctrine”, that, in several instances, “the privilege log includes some, but not all of the senders or recipients of a communication” and that it also “fails to sufficiently explain the role of each identified recipient and sender with respect to communications with in-house counsel”.

With the “benefit of being able to review (in-camera) the documents described in the 40 entries at issue”, Judge Bourgeois concluded that “many of these documents do not fall within the scope of the attorney client privilege or work product doctrine” and was “convinced that the overwhelming majority (if not all) of the withheld 40 documents, do not concern the legal advice of counsel as it relates to this litigation or counsel’s strategy for trial.”

As a result, Judge Bourgeois found that “DHH acted unreasonably in preparing the privilege log and asserting its claims of privilege”, but was “reluctant to find a complete waiver of privilege as to all of the documents described” in the log.  Instead, Judge Bourgeois ordered the defendant to reassess its claims of privilege and notify the plaintiff by August 17 of previously contested items for which it withdraws its claims of privilege and produce those documents OR provide the plaintiff with a supplemental privilege log containing sufficient information to allow the plaintiff to assess the defendant’s claims of privilege.

So, what do you think?  Was that the correct call?  Or should the court have waived privilege for all of the documents contained within the privilege log?  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.

Apparently, in Discovery, Delta is Not Ready When You Are and It Has Cost Them Millions: eDiscovery Case Law

A few years ago, we covered a case law decision in the Delta/Air Tran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litigation, where Delta was ordered to pay plaintiff attorney’s fees and costs for eDiscovery issues in that litigation.  Apparently, Delta’s difficulties in this case have continued, as they have been ordered this week to pay over $2.7 million in sanctions for failing to turn over ESI, to go along with more than $4.7 million in sanctions for earlier discovery violations.

According to the Consumerist (Delta Hit With Another $2.7M In Sanctions In Years-Old Baggage-Fee Collusion Case, by Chris Morran), U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Batten imposed the sanction of $2,718,795.05 against Delta, which was higher than the $1.86 million sanction amount recommended by the Special Master in the case.

In his ruling, Judge Batten stated that: “Since discovery commenced in February 2010, this case has been plagued by a veritable deluge of discovery disputes and a corresponding succession of motions for discovery sanctions against Delta. It is not hyperbolic to say that this lawsuit has turned into litigation about litigation: the time, energy, and resources spent on discovery abuses equals or exceeds those that have been dedicated to litigating the merits of the case. Plaintiffs filed four sanctions motions in as many years, with each motion building on its predecessors.”  Judge Batten also noted that “Delta’s discovery practices have time and time again been shown to be ineffective, inefficient, and inept. Throughout this litigation, Delta’s left hand has not known what its right hand was doing, and ‘it often times appears that this litigation was conducted in an Inspector Clouseau-like fashion.’”

Delta had already been sanctioned $1.3 million for failing to turn over 60,000 pages of documents to the plaintiffs that were found in a box of previously undiscovered backup tapes and another $3.49 million, mostly to cover the cost of hiring an independent researcher to scan through and restore another batch of 29 backup tapes that was eventually discovered.

Summing up the lengthy and difficult discovery period to date, Judge Batten stated: “Without question, it is Delta’s ineptitude and missteps that have caused the vast majority of the excessive time, expenses, and energy that the parties have expended in discovery for the last five years…Delta’s discovery misconduct has rendered the Court’s attempts to manage this litigation and move it toward a resolution on the merits as futile and maddening as Sisyphus’s efforts to roll his boulder to the top of the hill.”

To make matters worse for Delta, Judge Batten also granted class-action status to the case this week.  Of course, as the article notes, Delta made more than $860 million off baggage fees in 2014 alone, so they can afford to fight.

So, what do you think?  Should Delta have received such severe sanctions?  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.

NIST Issues Draft Guide for “Securing Electronic Health Records on Mobile Devices”: eDiscovery Trends

As we’ve discussed previously, stolen health records are worth a lot in the black market and that was underscored when health insurance provider Anthem announced in early February that it had suffered what appears to be the largest breach ever in the health insurance industry, affecting about 80 million people.  Now, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has released a draft guide that might help, at least with regard to securing electronic health record on mobile devices.

On July 23, the National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence (NCCoE), a division of NIST, released a draft of its first cybersecurity practice guide – Special Publication 1800-1: “Securing Electronic Health Records on Mobile Devices”, designed for health IT professionals to use to bolster security for the use of mobile devices in the health care industry.  As discussed in the press release issued by NIST, “Medical identity theft already costs billions of dollars each year, and altered medical information can put a person’s health at risk through misdiagnosis, delayed treatment or incorrect prescriptions.  Yet, the use of mobile devices to store, access and transmit electronic health care records is outpacing the privacy and security protections on those devices.”

The draft guide was developed by industry and academic cybersecurity experts, with the input of health care providers who first identified the challenge. The center then invited technology providers with relevant commercial products to partner with NIST through cooperative research and development agreements and collected public feedback at multiple steps along the way.

The draft guide is comprised of five sections, as follows:

Each section is downloadable separately as a PDF, or you can download a .zip file of all volumes (4.82 MB), plus manifest and template files referred to in SP 1800-1c, from this page.

The comment period will run through September 25.  You can submit comments on the guide through the form on this page or download the spreadsheet template from that page to collect feedback and email the worksheet to HIT_NCCoE@nist.gov.

As I discussed on Monday, potential data breaches can still happen the old fashioned way, via stolen mobile devices.  I was glad my laptop was encrypted when it was stolen last year.  Hopefully, this new guide from NIST can help medical professionals to secure their mobile devices and protect against data breaches on those devices.

So, what do you think?  Do you think this new guide will reduce the number of data breaches within the medical profession?  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.

Keyword Searching Isn’t Dead, If It’s Done Correctly: eDiscovery Best Practices

In the latest post of the Advanced Discovery blog, Tom O’Connor (who is an industry thought leader and has been a thought leader interviewee on this blog several times) posed an interesting question: Is Keyword Searching Dead?

In his post, Tom recapped the discussion of a session with the same name at the recent Today’s General Counsel Institute in New York City where Tom was a co-moderator of the session along with Maura Grossman, a recognized Technology Assisted Review (TAR) expert, who was recently appointed as Special Master in the Rio Tinto case.  Tom then went on to cover some of the arguments for and against keyword searching as discussed by the panelists and participants in the session, while also noting that numerous polls and client surveys show that the majority of people are NOT using TAR today.  So, they must be using keyword searching, right?

Should they be?  Is there still room for keyword searching in today’s eDiscovery landscape, given the advances that have been made in recent years in TAR technology?

There is, if it’s done correctly.  Tom quotes Maura in the article as stating that “TAR is a process, not a product.”  The same could be said for keyword searching.  If the process is flawed within which the keyword searches are being performed, you could either retrieve way more documents to be reviewed than necessary and drive up eDiscovery costs or leave yourself open to challenges in the courtroom regarding your approach.  Many lawyers at corporations and law firms identify search terms to be performed (and, in many cases, agree on those terms with opposing counsel) without any testing done to confirm the validity of those terms.

Way back in the first few months of this blog (over four years ago), I advocated an approach to searching that I called “STARR” – Search, Test, Analyze, Revise (if necessary) and Repeat (also, if necessary).  With an effective platform (using advanced search capabilities such as “fuzzy”, wildcard, synonym and proximity searching) and knowledge and experience of that platform and also knowledge of search best practices, you can start with a well-planned search that can be confirmed or adjusted using the “STARR” approach.

And, even when you’ve been searching databases for as long as I have (decades now), an effective process is key because you never know what you will find until you test the results.  The favorite example that I have used over recent years (and walked through in this earlier post) is the example where I was doing work for a petroleum (oil) company looking for documents that related to “oil rights” and retrieved almost every published and copyrighted document in the oil company with a search of “oil AND rights”.  Why?  Because almost every published and copyrighted document in the oil company had the phrase “All Rights Reserved”.  Testing and an iterative process eventually enabled me to find the search that offered the best balance of recall and precision.

Like TAR, keyword searching is a process, not a product.  And, you can quote me on that.  (-:

So, what do you think?  Is keyword searching dead?  And, 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 Denies Request for Sanctions for Routine Deletion of Files of Departed Employees: eDiscovery Case Law

In Charvat et. al. v. Valente et. al., 12-5746 (N.D. Ill. July 1, 2015), Illinois Magistrate Judge Mary M. Rowland denied the plaintiff’s request for spoliation sanctions for the defendant’s admitted destruction of computer files belonging to two departed employees, finding that the plaintiff did not provide any evidence that the defendant acted in bad faith.

Case Background

In this case about consumer complaints regarding alleged improper telemarketing activities by a company affiliated with Carnival Corporation, the defendant investigated the allegations and produced most of the documents relating to its investigation.  However, the defendant withheld 14 documents as privileged, because they “relate specifically to legal advice sought by Carnival from outside counsel”.  Judge Rowland conducted an in camera review of the documents described on the Privilege Log and ruled that the defendant must produce two of the documents, but determined that “[a]ll other documents on the Privilege Log are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine.”

The plaintiff also requested spoliation sanctions or instructions given the defendant’s admitted destruction of computer files belonging to two departed employees.  The defendant acknowledged deleting the computer files belonging to the two departed employees consistent with its routine business practices of deleting files 30 days following termination of employment. The two employees left in September and October 2011 and the defendant’s investigation into the consumer complaints concluded in July 2011, so the defendant asserted that “at the time of their respective departures from the company, Carnival had completed its investigation of RMG and did not anticipate any imminent litigation against the travel agency.”  The plaintiff countered by arguing that the defendant could not contend that certain documents authored by the two departed employees were “work product” created in “anticipation of litigation” while also asserting that it routinely deleted their computer files because it did not “anticipate any imminent litigation.”

Judge’s Ruling

Noting that “work product is exempt from mandatory disclosure regardless of the status of the anticipated litigation” and “work-product protection continues even after the prospect of anticipated litigation disappears”, Judge Rowland stated that “although Carnival was free to delete Morales’s and Hernandez’s files in September and October 2011 because there was no reasonably foreseeable litigation at that time, their emails prepared as part of the RMG investigation remain privileged.”  She also then stated that “[i]n any event, Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that Carnival acted in bad faith”, determining that “[t]here is no evidence that Carnival’s routine deletion of former employees’ files in accordance with an established document retention policy was done for the purpose of hiding adverse information.”  As a result, the plaintiff’s request for sanctions was denied.

So, what do you think?  Should the defendant have been able to delete the files of the departed employees?  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.