Close
Enter your
text here

Electronic Discovery

2013 eDiscovery Year in Review: eDiscovery Case Law, Part 3

As we noted on Thursday and Friday, eDiscoveryDaily published 78 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 62 unique cases!  Friday, we looked back at cases related to production format disputes, search disputes and technology assisted review.  Today, let’s take a look back at cases related to proportionality and the first half of the cases related to sanctions (yes, there were that many).

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

PROPORTIONALITY / COOPERATION

There were certainly at least a handful of cases where proportionality of eDiscovery and cooperation between parties was at issue, including the most viewed post in the history of this blog.  Here are three such cases:

Is a Blended Document Review Rate of $466 Per Hour Excessive?  Remember when we raised the question as to whether it is time to ditch the per hour model for document review? One of the cases we highlighted for perceived overbilling was ruled upon last month. In the case In re Citigroup Inc. Securities Litigation, New York District Judge Sidney H. Stein rejected as unreasonable the plaintiffs’ lead counsel’s proffered blended rate of more than $400 for contract attorneys—more than the blended rate charged for associate attorneys—most of whom were tasked with routine document review work.

Court Rejects Defendants’ Claim of Undue Burden in ERISA Case.  In the case In re Coventry Healthcare, Inc.: ERISA Litigation, Maryland Magistrate Judge Jillyn K. Schulze rejected the defendants’ claim of undue burden where they failed to suggest alternatives to using the plaintiffs’ search terms and where they could enter a clawback order to eliminate the cost of reviewing the data for responsiveness and privilege.

Court Agrees with Defendant that Preserving 5 Terabytes of Data is Enough.  In United States ex rel. King v. Solvay, S.A., Texas District Judge Gray Miller granted the defendant’s request for a protective order where the plaintiffs only offered generalized, unsupported claims to support their request to extend and expand discovery.

SANCTIONS

Yes, once again, the topic with the largest number of case law decisions related to eDiscovery is those decisions related to sanctions.  Of the 62 cases we covered this past year, over 40% of them (26 total cases) related to sanctions, either due to spoliation issues or inadequate or untimely productions, many of which were granted, but some were denied.  Here are the first 13 cases:

Company Should Have Preserved Personal eMails, But No Sanctions (Yet).  In Puerto Rico Telephone Co. v. San Juan Cable LLC, Puerto Rico Magistrate Judge Bruce J. McGiverin found that “plaintiff has proffered sufficient evidence to establish that [the defendant] OneLink failed to preserve relevant emails within its control”, but denied the plaintiff’s request for sanctions at this time because of the “absence of bad faith” on the defendant’s part and the plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate prejudice.

The Ubiquitous Apple Samsung Case and “Patentgate”.  When something gets the “gate” suffix added to it, that’s not a good thing. It’s hard to believe that a case can get more intense than when a billion dollar verdict is awarded (later reduced to a measly $599 million, then increased back up to $930 million), but the Apple v. Samsung case seems to only be getting more intense, due to the disclosure of confidential agreements that Apple had with Nokia, Ericsson, Sharp and Philips – now widely referred to as “patentgate”.

Duty to Preserve Triggered When Litigation is “Imminent”, Not “Reasonably Foreseeable”.  In the case In re Pradaxa (Dabigatran Etexilate) Products Liability Litigation, Chief District Judge David R. Herndon ruled that at least in the Seventh Circuit, the duty to preserve is triggered not when litigation is “reasonably foreseeable” but when “a litigant knew or should have known that litigation was imminent.”

Leaving Your Hard Drives in a Rental House is Negligent, Court Rules.  In Net-Com Services, Inc. v. Eupen Cable USA, Inc., the plaintiff’s destruction of evidence was negligent where its principal failed to take steps to preserve evidence he had stored in a home he rented to nonaffiliated lessees.

Despite Missing and Scrambled Hard Drives, Court Denies Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions. In Anderson v. Sullivan, a Pennsylvania court found “that no sanctions are warranted” despite the disappearance of one hard drive, “scrambling” of another hard drive and failure to produce several e-mails because the evidence was not relevant to the underlying claims and because there was no showing the defendants intentionally destroyed evidence.

Court Awards Sanctions, But Declines to Order Defendants to Retain an eDiscovery Vendor – Yet.  In Logtale, Ltd. v. IKOR, Inc., California Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to discovery and awarded partial attorney’s fees as a result of defendants’ conduct. The judge did not grant the plaintiff’s request to order Defendants to retain an eDiscovery vendor to conduct a thorough and adequate search for responsive electronic documents, but did note that the court would do so “if there are continuing problems with their document productions”.

Imagine if the Zubulake Case Turned Out Like This.  You’ve got an employee suing her ex-employer for discrimination, hostile work environment and being forced to resign. During discovery, it was determined that a key email was deleted due to the employer’s routine auto-delete policy, so the plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions. Sound familiar? Yep. Was her motion granted? Nope.

Scheindlin Reverses Magistrate Judge Ruling, Orders Sanction for Spoliation of Data.  If you’re hoping to get away with failing to preserve data in eDiscovery, you might want to think again if your case appears in the docket for the Southern District of New York with Judge Shira Scheindlin presiding.

Permissive Adverse Inference Instruction Upheld on Appeal.  In Mali v. Federal Insurance Co., the Second Circuit explained the distinctions between two types of adverse inference instructions: a sanction for misconduct versus an explanatory instruction that details the jury’s fact-finding abilities. Because the lower court opted to give a permissive adverse inference instruction, which is not a punishment, the court did not err by not requiring the defendant to show that the plaintiffs acted with a culpable state of mind.

Default Judgment Sanction Upheld on Appeal.  In Stooksbury v. Ross, the Sixth Circuit upheld the entry of default judgment as a sanction against defendants that repeatedly failed to comply with discovery obligations, including producing a “document dump” of tens of thousands of pages of nonresponsive information that prejudiced the plaintiffs.

Spoliation Sanctions Can Apply to Audio Files Too.  In Hart v. Dillon Cos., Colorado Magistrate Judge David L. West granted the plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence for failing to preserve a tape recorded interview with the plaintiff and set a hearing and oral argument as to what sanctions should be imposed for October.

Printed Copies of Documents Not Enough, Spoliation Sanctions Upheld for Discarding Computer.  On May 30, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department upheld a spoliation sanction against a plaintiff that failed to preserve electronic files and discarded his computer containing those files.

Appellate Court Denies Sanctions for Routine Deletion of Text Messages.  In PTSI, Inc. v. Haley, the appellate court denied a motion for spoliation sanctions where the defendants routinely deleted text messages and other data to “clean up” their personal electronic devices: the volume of messages and limited amount of phone storage made it difficult to retain all data and still use the phone for messaging.

Tune in tomorrow for the remaining thirteen sanctions cases in 2013!

So, what do you think?  Did you miss any of these?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

2013 eDiscovery Year in Review: eDiscovery Case Law, Part 2

As we noted yesterday, eDiscoveryDaily published 78 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 62 unique cases!  Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to admissibility and eDiscovery cost reimbursement.  Today, let’s take a look back at cases related to production format disputes, search disputes and technology assisted review.

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

PRODUCTION FORMAT DISPUTES

Disputes regarding the form of production appear to be on the rise.  Typically, judges are instructing to provide searchable productions with metadata, but at least one judge ruled that “without Bates stamping and .tiff format, the plaintiff’s production was not reasonably usable”.  Go figure.  Here are the six cases involving production format disputes:

Court Declines to Impose Default Judgment, But Orders Searchable Production and Extends Deadlines. In Kwan Software Engineering, Inc. v. the defendant Technologies, LLC, California District Judge Susan Illston denied the plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions against the defendant for late, non-searchable productions, but did order the defendant to produce documents in a searchable format with metadata and extended the pretrial schedule so that the plaintiff would not be prejudiced by the late productions.

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Request for Native Production, Allows PDFs Instead. In Westdale Recap Props. v. Np/I&G Wakefield Commons, North Carolina Magistrate Judge James E. Gates upheld the plaintiff’s motion to compel the defendants to conduct supplemental searches and production, but denied the plaintiff’s motion with regard to requiring the defendant to produce ESI in native format, instead finding that “production in the form of searchable PDF’s is sufficient”.

Judge Sides with Both Parties in Form of Production Dispute. The opinion in Kwasniewski v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC suggests that producing parties can satisfy their obligation to produce documents in an organized manner by offering a table of contents, rendering text searchable, indicating which data responds to which request, and including certain metadata, such as Bates numbers.

Defendant Compelled by Court to Produce Metadata. In AtHome Care, Inc. v. The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, Idaho District Judge B. Lynn Winmill granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel documents, ordering the defendant to identify and produce metadata for the documents in this case.

Court Rules Production Must be TIFFs with Bates Numbers. In Branhaven, LLC v. Beeftek, Inc., Maryland Magistrate Judge Susan K. Gauvey sanctioned plaintiff’s attorneys for wrongfully certifying the completeness of their eDiscovery production and also ruled that defendants “demonstrated that without Bates stamping and .tiff format”, the plaintiff’s production “was not reasonably usable and therefore was insufficient under Rule 34”.

Waste Management Wants to Throw Away the Metadata. In the case In Re: Waste Management of Texas, Inc., a Texas appeals court refused to grant Waste Management’s petition for writ of mandamus to direct the trial court to withdraw its order to produce native, electronic format with all metadata.

SEARCH DISPUTES

Disputes regarding search terms, with regard to which terms to perform and also whether search terms should be disclosed, were also on the rise this year.  Believe it or not, one plaintiff referred to Boolean searching as “unprecedented”.  Here are the five cases we covered regarding search term disputes:

Court Orders Plaintiff to Perform Some Requested Searches Despite the Plaintiff’s Claim that they’re “Unprecedented”. In Swanson v. ALZA Corp., California Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s request to compel the plaintiff to apply its search terms to his ESI, ordering some of the search terms to be performed, despite the plaintiff’s assertion that the “the application of Boolean searches was unprecedented”.

Without Meet and Confer Approval of its “Triangulating” Approach to Discovery, Defendant Ordered to Supplement Production. In Banas v. Volcano Corp., California District Judge William H. Orrick determined that a defendant’s approach to discovery in which identifying the relevant documents by “triangulating” the defendant’s employees wasn’t discussed with the plaintiff beforehand in a meet and confer. Despite the fact that the court did “not find that defendant’s production technique was unreasonable”, the defendant was ordered to supplement its responses since the approach wasn’t discussed and it left out multiple deponents.

Use of Model Order Doesn’t Avoid Discovery Disputes. In MediaTek, Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., when the parties could not agree on search terms, California Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley ordered one party to run test searches before lodging objections and required both parties to meet and confer before approaching the court with further discovery disputes.

If Production is Small, Does that Mean ESI is Being Withheld? In American Home Assurance Co. v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., Nebraska District Judge Lyle E. Strom ruled (among other things) that the defendants must disclose the sources it has searched (or intends to search) for electronically stored information (ESI) to the plaintiffs and, for each source, identify the search terms used.

Court Forces Defendant to Come to Terms with Plaintiff Search Request. In Robert Bosch LLC v. Snap-On, Inc., Michigan District Judge Robert H. Cleland granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel with regard to specific search terms requested for the defendant to perform. The judge denied the plaintiff’s request for sanctions to award attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in bringing its motion to compel.

TECHNOLOGY ASSISTED REVIEW

With technology assisted review having been approved in several cases in 2012, we started to see some results of that process last year and conclusion of the plaintiff’s efforts to recuse Judge Peck in DaSilva Moore.  We also saw the approval of a multi-modal approach in one case and asked the question whether 31,000 missed relevant documents is an acceptable outcome in another.  Here are six cases related to technology assisted review from 2013:

Plaintiffs’ Supreme Effort to Recuse Judge Peck in Da Silva Moore Denied. As we discussed back in July, attorneys representing lead plaintiff Monique Da Silva Moore and five other employees filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the US Supreme Court arguing that New York Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck, who approved an eDiscovery protocol agreed to by the parties that included predictive coding technology, should have recused himself given his previous public statements expressing strong support of predictive coding. On October 7, that petition was denied by the Supreme Court.

Judge Says “Dude, Where’s Your CAR?” Ralph Losey describes a unique case in his e-Discovery Team ® blog (Poor Plaintiff’s Counsel, Can’t Even Find a CAR, Much Less Drive One). In Northstar Marine, Inc. v. Huffman, the defendant’s motion to enforce the parties’ document production agreement was granted after Alabama Magistrate Judge William E. Cassady rejected the plaintiff’s excuse that “it is having difficulty locating an inexpensive provider of electronic search technology to assist with discovery”.

Is it OK for an eDiscovery Vendor to Work on Both Sides of a Case?  Back in June, we covered a case where the plaintiffs’ motion to compel the defendant to meet and confer to establish an agreed protocol for implementing the use of predictive coding software was dismissed (without prejudice) after the defendants stated that they were prepared to meet and confer with the plaintiffs and their non-disqualified ESI consultants regarding the defendants’ predictive coding process. The sticking point may be the ESI consultant in dispute.

Never Mind! Plaintiffs Not Required to Use Predictive Coding After All. Remember EORHB v. HOA Holdings, where, in a surprise ruling, both parties were instructed to use predictive coding by the judge? Well, the judge has changed his mind.

Plaintiffs’ Objections to Defendant’s Use of Keyword Search before Predictive Coding Rejected. In the case In Re: Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation (MDL 2391), the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in a Multi District Litigation objected to the defendant’s use of keyword searching prior to performing predictive coding and requested that the defendant go back to its original set of 19.5 million documents and repeat the predictive coding without performing keyword searching. Indiana District Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr. denied the request.

Is 31,000 Missed Relevant Documents an Acceptable Outcome?  It might be, if the alternative is 62,000 missed relevant documents. In January, we reported on the first case for technology assisted review to be completed, Global Aerospace Inc., et al, v. Landow Aviation, L.P. dba Dulles Jet Center, et al, in which predictive coding was approved last April by Virginia State Circuit Court Judge James H. Chamblin. Now, as reported by the ABA Journal (by way of the Wall Street Journal Law Blog), we have an idea of the results from the predictive coding exercise.

Tune in Monday for more key cases of 2013!

So, what do you think?  Did you miss any of these?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

2013 eDiscovery Year in Review: eDiscovery Case Law, Part 1

It’s time for our annual review of eDiscovery case law!  We had more than our share of sanctions granted and denied, as well as disputes over admissibility of electronically stored information (ESI), eDiscovery cost reimbursement, production formats and search parameters, among other things.  So, as we did last year and also the year before, let’s take a look back at 2013!

Last year, eDiscoveryDaily published 78 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 62 unique cases!  And, believe it or not, we still didn’t cover every case that had eDiscovery impact.  Sometimes, you want to cover other topics too.

Nonetheless, for the cases we did cover, we grouped them into common subject themes and will review them over the next few posts (a few of them could be categorized in more than one category, so we took our best shot).  Perhaps you missed some of these?  Now is your chance to catch up!

ADMISSIBILITY AND DUTY TO PRESERVE AND PRODUCE

Admissibility of ESI, and the duty to preserve and produce it, is more at issue than ever.  As always, there are numerous disputes about data being produced and not being produced.  Here are ten cases related to admissibility and the duty to preserve and produce ESI:

Court Rules Defendant Doesn’t Have Controls of PCs of Former Members, Denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel.  To require a party to produce evidence in discovery, the party must have “possession, custody, or control” of the evidence. In Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas v. Nemaha Brown Watershed Joint District No. 7, the defendant did not have control over the personal computers of its former members, employees, or staff; it did not have the legal right to obtain information from them “on demand.” Therefore, the court rejected the plaintiff’s motion to compel and refused to order the forensic examination of the personal computers of current or former members, employees, or staff.

Court Rejects Defendant’s “Ultra-Broad” Request, Denies Motion to Compel Production.  In NOLA Spice Designs, LLC v. Haydel Enters., Inc., Louisiana Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr. denied a motion to compel a plaintiff and its principal (a third-party defendant) to produce their passwords and usernames for all websites with potentially relevant information and to compel a forensic examination of its computers.

Plaintiff Needs More Than “Mere Hope” to Discover Defendant’s Personal Info.  In Salvato v. Miley, a wrongful death action, Florida Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens denied the plaintiff’s motion to compel the defendant’s responses to discovery requests “based on Plaintiff’s very limited showing as to the relevance of the requested discovery and the broadly drafted discovery requests”.

Court Compels Discovery of Plaintiff’s Facebook Posts as Relevant.  In Moore v. Miller, Colorado Senior District Judge John L. Kane ruled (over the plaintiff’s privacy objections) that the plaintiff’s Facebook posts and activity log must be produced because they related to his claims of physical injury and emotional distress and because the plaintiff put his posts directly at issue by discussing the incident giving rise to the lawsuit online.

Court Rules that Stored Communications Act Applies to Former Employee Emails.  In Lazette v. Kulmatycki, the Stored Communications Act (SCA) applied when a supervisor reviewed his former employee’s Gmails through her company-issued smartphone; it covered emails the former employee had not yet opened, but not emails she had read but not yet deleted.

Google Compelled to Produce Search Terms in Apple v. Samsung.  In Apple v. Samsung, California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal granted Apple’s motion to compel third party Google to produce the search terms and custodians used to respond to discovery requests and ordered the parties to “meet and confer in person to discuss the lists and to attempt to resolve any remaining disputes regarding Google’s production.”

Plaintiff Granted Access to Defendant’s Database.  In Advanced Tactical Ordnance Systems, LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., Indiana Magistrate Judge Roger B. Cosbey took the unusual step of allowing the plaintiff direct access to a defendant company’s database under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 because the plaintiff made a specific showing that the information in the database was highly relevant to the plaintiff’s claims, the benefit of producing it substantially outweighed the burden of producing it, and there was no prejudice to the defendant.

Yet Another Request for Facebook Data Denied.  In Potts v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Tennessee District Judge William Haynes ruled that the defendant “lacks any evidentiary showing that Plaintiff’s public Facebook profile contains information that will reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” and, therefore, denied the defendant’s motion to compel regarding same.

Stored Communications Act Limits Production of Google Emails.  In Optiver Australia Pty. Ltd. & Anor. v. Tibra Trading Pty. Ltd. & Ors., California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal granted much of the defendant’s motion to quash subpoena of Google for electronic communications sent or received by certain Gmail accounts allegedly used by employees of the defendant because most of the request violated the terms of the Stored Communications Act.

Another Social Media Request Denied as a “Carte Blanche” Request.  In Keller v. National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co., the defendants filed a motion to compel the plaintiff’s to respond to various discovery requests. While Magistrate Judge Jeremiah Lynch granted their request to compel the plaintiffs to produce medical records, he denied the defendant’s request “to delve carte blanche into the nonpublic sections of Plaintiffs’ social networking accounts”.

EDISCOVERY COST REIMBURSEMENT

As usual, eDiscovery cost reimbursement was a “mixed bag” as the cases where the prevailing party was awarded reimbursement of eDiscovery costs and the cases where requests for reimbursement of eDiscovery costs was denied (or only partially granted) was about even.  Here are six cases, including one where the losing plaintiff was ordered to pay $2.8 million for predictive coding of one million documents(!):

Cost-Shifting Inappropriate when Data is Kept in an Accessible Format.  In Novick v. AXA Network, New York Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox ruled that cost-shifting was inappropriate where data was kept in an accessible format.

Apple Wins Case, But Loses its Bid to Have Most of its Costs Covered.  In Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., California District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted in part and denied in part Ancora’s Motion for Review of Clerks’ Order on the Bill of Costs of prevailing party Apple, reducing the awarded amount from $111,158.23 down to $20,875.48, including disallowing over $71,000 in storage and hosting costs.

Another Case where Reimbursement of eDiscovery Costs are Denied.  In The Country Vintner of North Carolina, LLC v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, Inc., when deciding which costs are taxable, the Fourth Circuit chose to follow the Third Circuit’s reasoning in Race Tires America, Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., which read 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) narrowly. Specifically, the court approved taxation of file conversion and transferring files onto CDs as “[f]ees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case” but no other tasks related to electronically stored information (ESI).

In False Claims Act Case, Reimbursement of eDiscovery Costs Awarded to Plaintiff.  In United States ex rel. Becker v. Tools & Metals, Inc., a qui tam False Claims Act litigation, the plaintiffs sought, and the court awarded, costs for, among other things, uploading ESI, creating a Relativity index, and processing data over the objection that expenses should be limited to “reasonable out-of-pocket expenses which are part of the costs normally charged to a fee-paying client.” The court also approved electronic hosting costs, rejecting a defendant’s claim that “reasonableness is determined based on the number of documents used in the litigation.” However, the court refused to award costs for project management and for extracting data from hard drives where the plaintiff could have used better means to conduct a “targeted extraction of information.”

Court Says Scanning Documents to TIFF and Loading into Database is Taxable.  In Amana Society, Inc. v. Excel Engineering, Inc., Iowa District Judge Linda R. Reade found that “scanning [to TIFF format] for Summation purposes qualifies as ‘making copies of materials’ and that these costs are recoverable”.

Must Losing Plaintiff Pay Defendant $2.8 Million for Predictive Coding of One Million Documents? Court Says Yes.  In Gabriel Technologies Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., District Judge Anthony J. Battaglia awarded the defendant over $12.4 million in attorneys’ fees to be paid by the losing plaintiff in the case. The amount included over $2.8 million for “computer-assisted, algorithm-driven document review” and nearly $392,000 for contract attorneys to review documents identified by the algorithm as responsive.

We’re just getting started!  Tomorrow, we will cover cases related to production format disputes, search disputes and technology assisted review.  Stay tuned!

So, what do you think?  Did you miss any of these?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Split Decision between Plaintiff and Defendant Regarding Search Terms – eDiscovery Case Law
 

In Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Giannoulias, No. 12 C 1665, 2013 U.S. Dist. (N.D. III Oct. 23, 2013), Illinois District Judge John F. Grady resolved several motions regarding discovery proceedings in a $114 million lawsuit. Two of the motions concerned search terms for documents and electronically stored information (ESI), in which the plaintiff opposed the defendants’ request for six additional terms to be included in retrieving discovery documents. The court ruled that four additional search terms would be added, while two would be excluded.

This discovery dispute arose in a lawsuit filed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) as a receiver for Broadway Bank, which alleges that several former officers and directors of the now-closed bank had “negligently approved” 20 commercial real estate loans, resulting in losses to the FDIC of $114 million. During the first phase of discovery, the defendants had served 242 requests for production, and in response the plaintiff produced 500,000 pages of documents that pertained to the loans in question.

The dispute occurred during the second phase of discovery concerning the ESI, which in this case consists of mostly emails. The plaintiff and defendant had cooperatively generated a list of around 250 unique search terms, which the plaintiff applied to the ESI and produced approximately 150,000 hits. The defendant then requested that six further search terms be included. Combined, the six terms produced around 16,800 additional hits.

The plaintiff disagreed with the addition of the search terms and both parties failed to reach an agreement regarding what, specifically, should be done with the data resulting from the finalized ESI search terms. A proposal from the defendants requested that the plaintiff be required to review the filtered ESI to determine which materials were responsive to the defendants’ request, and also that the plaintiff organize and label the production of filtered results.

However, the plaintiff contended that the proposed ESI Protocol would be “unduly burdensome,” and instead proposed to provide a database in Relativity to contain all documents generated by the finalized search terms. The defendants would then be allowed to search and review the database, identify the documents of interest, and subject the chosen documents to a review by the plaintiff for privilege before being furnished with any non-privileged documents.

Judge Grady’s ruling split the additional six search terms in question, allowing four specific and relevant terms to be added to the discovery, and disallowing two general terms: “capitalized” and “capitalization.” This decision was based on the nature of the plaintiff’s business, and the view that “the connection between the terms ‘capitalized’ and ‘capitalization’ and the complaint’s core negligence allegations is tenuous, and the likelihood of entirely irrelevant hits appears high.”

With regards to responsiveness review and organization of document production, the court ruled that while the plaintiff must filter the discovery documents according to the agreed-upon search terms by conducting “a diligent search, which involves developing a reasonably comprehensive search strategy,” the plaintiff is not obligated to “examine every scrap of paper in its potentially voluminous files” to comply with discovery obligations. Further, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff toward organizing and categorizing relevant ESI according to the numerous discovery requests by the defendants, agreeing that such a process would “impose a substantial burden” on the plaintiff.

So, what do you think?  Is the plaintiff meeting discovery obligations without a full responsiveness review? Should all of the requested search terms have been added? 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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Six eDiscovery Predictions for 2014, Part Two – eDiscovery Trends

It’s that time of year, where people make predictions for the coming year for all sorts of things, including electronic discovery trends for the coming year.  Friday, we covered my first three eDiscovery predictions for 2014.  Here are the remaining three predictions.

Prediction 4: Data security will be more of an emphasis than ever, yet we will continue to see more data breach stories than ever.

According to the 2013 survey entitled Security Snapshots: Threats and Opportunities that was conducted by the ABA’s Legal Technology Resource Center (available to members here), “Fully 70% of large firm respondents reported that they didn’t know if their firm had experienced a security breach”.  15% of survey respondents had experienced a security breach.

With notable security breaches happening at major corporations like Target, who recently provided an update to their holiday data breach issue that “the stolen information includes names, mailing addresses, phone numbers or email addresses for up to 70 million individuals”, and at our own Federal government, data security is becoming a major priority for everybody.

Law firms are no different.  As The American Lawyer’s 18th annual survey of law technology noted, eighty-six percent of respondents – technology directors and CTOs from 87 Am Law 200 firms – say they are more concerned about security threats now than they were two years ago.  To address the threat, law firms will have to be prepared to beef up their security infrastructure, either internally or via virtual resources.

Prediction 5: Small to medium sized law firms will need to leverage virtual resources more than ever to compete.

Speaking of virtual resources, it is becoming more difficult for law firms, especially small to medium sized firms, to keep up and compete.  Many small to mid-sized firms lack the project management expertise, the core competency, the infrastructure and the personnel in house to provide the full range of services that clients are demanding, especially for litigation support and discovery services.

Not only that, but maybe it’s not such a good idea for firms to handle all of their litigation support work in house?  “Why should you own and operate a nonlegal e-discovery business within your walls under the guise of a litigation support department?”  Collection, forensic analysis, processing, database creation and other related tasks are highly technical, nonlegal tasks that are the core competency of eDiscovery vendors, not law firms.  Through the use of virtual resources on a continual basis, “you can leverage your mass buying power and negotiate a low rate for all of your clients”.

Those aren’t my words, they’re the words of eDiscovery thought leader Ralph Losey (a little over a year ago) talking about his own firm, Jackson Lewis, and their decision to outsource their litigation support work.  If a firm like Jackson Lewis decides it’s best to make use of dedicated virtual resources, maybe it makes sense for your firm?  Regardless, I expect that more firms will be forced to outsource and leverage virtual resources to compete with the big firms and the small to medium sized firms that already outsource.

Prediction 6: Educating attorneys on eDiscovery best practices will continue to be a slow, painful process.

When we started eDiscovery Daily three years ago, some of my friends questioned whether there would be enough topics to justify a daily blog about eDiscovery.  Not only have there been enough topics, we’ve had to choose which topics to cover regularly.  There is plenty of information out there regarding eDiscovery trends and best practices, not just from this blog, but numerous other sources as well.

And, there are numerous industry thought leaders who have spent considerable efforts to educate attorneys on eDiscovery basic concepts and best practices.  People like Craig Ball, Ralph Losey, George Socha and Tom Gelbmann, Tom O’Connor and others have spearheaded initiatives to help attorneys (and law students aspiring to become attorneys) to understand eDiscovery better (here is a link to last year’s thought leader interviews if you want to check out their thoughts about education).

Unfortunately, many of the attorneys that I talk to still understand very little about eDiscovery.  Most of those don’t think there is a need to learn about it – often, they’ll tell me that they “don’t have big enough cases” to need to know about it.  I’ve heard other industry professionals discuss similar experiences about the attorneys they meet.  So, while we’ve done a lot in the industry to educate lawyers about eDiscovery, it appears we still have a long way to go.

So, what do you think?  Do you have any eDiscovery predictions for 2014?  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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Six eDiscovery Predictions for 2014, Part One – eDiscovery Trends

It’s that time of year, where people make predictions for the coming year for all sorts of things, including electronic discovery trends for the coming year.  Though I have to say, I’ve seen fewer predictions this year than in past years.  Nonetheless, I feel compelled to offer some of my own predictions.  If they turn out right, you heard it here first!

Prediction 1: Predictive coding technologies will become more integrated into the discovery process, for more than just review.

Two or three years ago, predictive coding (a.k.a., technology assisted review or computer assisted review) was a promising technology that had yet to be officially accepted in the courts.  Then, in 2012, cases such as Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, Global Aerospace Inc., et al, v. Landow Aviation, L.P. dba Dulles Jet Center, et al and In re Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation, predictive coding was approved (and there was at least two other cases where it was contemplated).  So, it’s beginning to be used, though most attorneys still don’t fully understand how it works or understand that it’s not a “turn-key” software solution, it includes a managed process that uses the software.

It’s not going out on a limb to say that this year predictive coding technologies will be more widely used; however, I think those technologies will branch out beyond review to other phases of the eDiscovery life cycle, including Information Governance.  Predictive coding is not new technology, it’s basically artificial intelligence applied to the review process, so it’s logical that same technology can be applied to other areas of the discovery life cycle as well.

Prediction 2: The proposed amendments will be adopted, but it will be a struggle.

Changes to Federal Rules for eDiscovery have been drafted and have been approved for public comment.  However, several people have raised concerns about some of the new rules.  Judge Shira Scheindlin has criticized proposed Rule 37(e), intended to create a uniform national standard regarding the level of culpability required to justify severe sanctions for spoliation, for creating “perverse incentives” and encouraging “sloppy behavior.”

U.S. Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del.), who chairs the Subcommittee on Bankruptcy and the Courts, predicted that some proposed restrictions – such as reducing the number of depositions, interrogatories and requests for admission for each case – “would do nothing about the high-stakes, highly complex or highly contentious cases in which discovery costs are a problem.”  Senator Coons and Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., also expressed concerns that those limits would likely restrict plaintiffs in smaller cases in which discovery costs are not a problem.

Needless to say, not everybody is a fan of all of the new proposed rules, especially Rule 37(e).  But, the proposed rules have gotten this far and there are a number of lobbyists pushing for adoption.  So, I think they’ll be adopted, but not without some controversy and struggle.

Prediction 3: The eDiscovery industry will continue to consolidate and many remaining providers will need to continue to reinvent themselves.

Every year, I see several predictions that more eDiscovery vendors will fail and/or there will be more consolidation in the industry.  And, every year there is consolidation.  Here’s the latest updated list of mergers, acquisitions and investments since 2001, courtesy of Rob Robinson.  But, every year there also new players in the market, so the number of providers never seems to change dramatically.  Last year, by my count, there were 225 exhibitors at Legal Tech New York (LTNY), with many, if not most of them in the eDiscovery space.  This year, the partial list stands at 212.  Not a tremendous drop off, if any.

Nonetheless, there will be more pressure on eDiscovery providers than ever before to provide services at reasonable prices, yet turn a profit.  I’ve seen bold predictions, like this one from Albert Barsocchini at NightOwl Discovery in which he predicted the possible end of eDiscovery processing fees.  I’m not sure that I agree that they’re going away entirely, but I do see further commoditization of several eDiscovery services.  The providers that offer truly unique software offerings and/or expert services to complement any commodity-based services that they offer will be the ones best equipped to meet market demands, profitably.

On Monday, I predict I’ll have three more predictions to cover.  Hey, at least that’s one prediction that should come true!

So, what do you think?  Do you have any eDiscovery predictions for 2014?  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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

EDRM UTBMS eDiscovery Code Set Calculator – eDiscovery Best Practices

Last month, we discussed budget calculators available from the Metrics section of the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) web site.  So far, we have reviewed two of the budget calculators, beginning with the E-Discovery Cost Estimator for Processing and Review workbook provided by Julie Brown at Vorys law firm and the Doc Review Cost Calculator provided by an eDiscovery vendor.  Today, we will continue our review of the calculators with a look at the EDRM UTBMS eDiscovery Code Set Calculator provided by Browning Marean, DLA Piper law firm; and George Socha, Socha Consulting (and, of course, co-founder of EDRM).

As described on the site, this budget calculator uses the ABA’s Uniform Task Based Management System (UTBMS) eDiscovery codes as a starting point for calculating estimated eDiscovery expenses. Users enter anticipated average hour rates for:

  • Partners
  • Associates
  • Paralegals
  • Contract reviewers
  • In-house resources
  • Vendors

For each relevant L600-series UTMBS code, users enter (a) total estimated hours for each relevant group and (b) total estimated associated disbursements.  The spreadsheet then displays:

  • A summary of the estimated costs
  • Details of the estimated costs for each combination, such as estimated costs of time partners spend planning discovery (Partner and L601)
  • Totals by type of person, such as Partner
  • Totals by individual UTMBS code, such as L601
  • Totals by higher level UTBMS codes, such as L600

This spreadsheet is quite clear and easy to use.  It provides a summary section at the top of the sheet for the top level codes from L600 (Identification) to L690 (Project Management), which are fed by the enterable cells to the left and below.  All of the enterable cells are in yellow to make it easy to identify where the data needs to be entered (the hourly rates for each of the positions are top left and the total estimated hours are enterable for each position and subcode).

Based on the entered rates and hours within each subcode, costs are calculated and displayed in green for each position within each subcode, as well as a total for each subcode which rolls up to a total for the top level code displayed in blue at the top of the sheet.  There is also a column to enter associated disbursements for each code and subcode to reflect those disbursements that don’t tie to an hourly rate.  The sheet is protected to avoid inadvertent overwriting of formulas, but there is no password so that the user can tweak formulas if necessary.

This workbook would certainly be useful for tracking eDiscovery costs according to the UTBMS codes, especially for hourly billed activities.  It’s not a spreadsheet for estimating costs based on estimated data volumes but rather estimated hours spent by key staff on each phase of discovery.  You can download this calculator individually or a zip file containing all four calculators here.

So, what do you think?  How do you estimate eDiscovery costs?   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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Want to Avoid Unexpected Issues in Your eDiscovery Project? Conduct a "Pre-Mortem" – eDiscovery Best Practices

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result”.  To avoid that issue, experienced project managers know the value of conducting a “post-mortem” to discuss any problems encountered during the project and how to avoid repeating them in the future.  But, what if you could prevent them from happening in the first place?

That’s where a “pre-mortem” comes in.  Like a “post-mortem” enables you to correct problems encountered after the fact for the future, a “pre-mortem” enables you to anticipate problems in the first place and create a plan to prevent those problems from happening.  On many projects that I’ve worked on, we’ve conducted a “pre-mortem” to brainstorm what can go wrong (i.e., risks) and identify a plan for mitigating each of those risks up front, then revisit regularly (typically, weekly if not more frequently) to monitor the plan for proactively addressing each risk.  This exercise can avoid a lot of headaches during the project.

These potential problems can happen throughout the discovery life cycle, so the “pre-mortem” list of potential problems will often evolve over the course of the discovery process.  Here are a couple of examples:

  • Data anomalies and exception files will slow down processing and cause us to fall behind in preparing data for review: As we’ve noted before, exceptions are the rule and you will frequently encounter exception files that cannot be processed (or require considerable effort to process).  Some “pre-mortem” steps to address this issue are to: 1) proactively discuss (and hopefully agree) with opposing counsel on how to handle these files in a manner that minimizes the time to attempt to correct those files and 2) establish a procedure for setting aside these files (when possible) while loading the remaining problem-free data.  Removing these potential roadblocks to getting data ready for review will help keep the discovery process moving and on schedule.
  • Review will take longer than anticipated and we will miss the production deadline: There are several measures that can be utilized to avoid this issue, including: 1) obtaining as much information about your document collection as possible up front, including number of documents, number of pages per document (when available), types of files being reviewed (some take longer than others), etc.; 2) prepare complete  and clear review instructions for your attorney reviewers; 3) estimate the number of reviewers and expected throughput for review; 4) conduct a pilot review with a few reviewers to compare actual results to estimates and adjust estimates (and review instructions) accordingly; 5) exceed (at least slightly) the number of estimated reviewers to provide some leeway and 6) monitor progress daily and adjust quickly if productivity starts to fall behind.

By identifying what could go wrong up front, creating a plan to avoid those issues and monitoring the plan regularly to proactively address each risk, you can keep those problems from happening in the first place.

So, what do you think?  Do you perform “pre-mortems” at the beginning of your project?  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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Fee Request Slashed because they “Transformed what should Have Been a Simple Case into a Discovery Nightmare” – eDiscovery Case Law
 

In Fair Housing Center of Southwest Michigan v. Hunt, No. 1:09-cv-593, 2013 U.S. Dist. (W.D. Mich. Oct. 21, 2013), Michigan Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville ruled that the plaintiffs were prevailing parties in its settlement agreement with the defendants and were entitled to an award of attorney’s fees, but slashed the plaintiff’s fee request, “both because the hours devoted to this case were excessive and because the fee request makes no effort to account for the limited success that plaintiffs achieved in this case”.

In this housing discrimination case, the parties entered a settlement agreement that referred the question of attorney's fees and costs to magistrate Judge Scoville. The plaintiffs filed a motion seeking $605,507.92, consisting of $587,905.00 in attorneys’ fees and $17,602.92 in taxable costs. The defendants opposed the motion “on every possible ground”, contending that the plaintiffs did not enjoy “prevailing party” status entitling them to an award of attorney's fees and, if they were entitled to fees, that the amount sought was “grossly excessive”.

Noting that a prevailing party is one who achieves “a material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties”, Judge Scoville ruled that the plaintiffs are prevailing parties due to the court-approved Settlement Agreement, which awarded the plaintiffs a monetary award in the amount of $47,500.00.  Because the plaintiffs were ruled as prevailing parties, he also ruled that they were entitled to the full amount of the taxable costs because they were for transcript fees for depositions and hearings.

However, when it came to attorney’s fees of $587,905.00, Judge Scoville found that the “expenditure of 2,614 hours by three partners, two associates, and two paralegals” was “a truly extravagant expenditure of time and resources on what should have been a relatively simple case”.  He further noted:

“It is virtually impossible to see how the exercise of billing judgment would lead a law firm to invest 2,600 hours, by seven different billers, in the pursuit of such a simple case. A hardworking attorney lucky enough to bill 40 hours a week, 50 weeks per year, would bill only 2,000 hours per year. Thus, 2,600 hours represents significantly more than one year of attorney time, expended in pursuit of a single case, without distraction.”

Judge Scoville also noted that the plaintiff’s “single-minded focus on discovery of ESI engendered predictable disputes over discovery” and that it “appeared to this court on more than one occasion that plaintiffs were treating the case as a litigation workshop on discovery of ESI rather than a lawsuit.”

Judge Scoville stated that it “would be well within the court's discretion to deny plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees in its entirety. This approach, however, would be unduly harsh under the specific facts of this case because plaintiffs were clearly prevailing parties on some claims and counsel's reasonable efforts should be compensated, even though their overall approach to the case was clearly excessive.”  Therefore, he applied several reductions of partner, associate and paralegal hours, reducing the total awarded to $223,444.80.

So, what do you think?  Should the full attorney’s fees have been awarded?  Or perhaps denied entirely?  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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Cost Calculator for Document Review – eDiscovery Best Practices

A couple of weeks ago, we discussed budget calculators available from the Metrics section of the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) web site and, two days later, began a review of the budget calculators, beginning with the E-Discovery Cost Estimator for Processing and Review workbook provided by Julie Brown at Vorys law firm.  Today, we will continue our review of the calculators with a look at the Doc Review Cost Calculator.

As described on the site, this budget calculator focuses on review, which is universally considered to be the most expensive phase of the eDiscovery process (by far). From assumptions entered by users, it calculates per-document and per-hour (a) low and high price estimates, (b) low and high costs on a per page basis, and (c) low and high costs on a per document basis.

To use it, enter assumptions in the white and yellow cells in columns B, C, and D. Calculations are shown in columns D through T.

Assumptions that you can provide include: pages per document, low and high page counts in the collection, low and high time to complete the review project (in weeks) and reviewer hours per week, proposed rates for review (hourly and per document), low and high pages per hour rates for review (from which documents per hour rates are computed), proposed rates for review management (hourly and per document) and percentage of the collection to QC.

From the entered assumptions, the model will provide calculations to illustrate the low and high cost estimates for the low and high page count estimates, for both a per-document and a per-hour review billing structure.  It will also estimate a range of the number of reviewers needed to complete the project within the time frames specified, to help you plan on staffing necessary to meet proposed deadlines.  The detailed calculations are stored in a hidden sheet called “Calculations” – you can unhide it if you want to see how the review calculation “sausage” is made.

This model uses an “old school” assessment of a document collection based on page counts, so to use it with native file collections (where page counts aren’t known), you have to set the pages per document to 1 – your review rate then becomes documents (files) per hour.

Suggestions for improvement:

  • Some of the enterable assumption cells are in yellow and some in white (the same color as the computed cells), it would be easier and clearer to identify the assumptions fields if they were all yellow to differentiate them from the computed cells;
  • Protect the sheet and lock down the computed cells (at least in the main sheet) to avoid accidental overwriting of calculations (with the ability to unprotect the sheet if a formula requires tweaking);
  • Tie a line or bar graph to the numbers to represent the differences graphically;
  • Provide some notes to explain some of the cells (especially the assumption cells) in more detail.

Nonetheless, this workbook would certainly be useful for estimating review costs and number of reviewers needed to complete a large scale review, not only at the start, but also to provide updated estimates as review commences, so you can adjust cost estimates and staffing needs as you go.  You can download this calculator individually or a zip file containing all four calculators here.  In a few days, we will continue our review of the current EDRM budget calculators in more detail with the ESI Cost Budget calculator from Browning Marean of DLA Piper law firm.

So, what do you think?  How do you estimate eDiscovery costs?   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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.