Close
Enter your
text here

Electronic Discovery

Unsure About How to Map Your Data for GDPR? Here are Several Templates to Get Started: Data Privacy Best Practices

Now that Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is in effect, all organizations out there have a good handle on all of their data, including which personally identifiable information (PII) they handle for European data subjects out there and clear policies for how they ensure protection of that PII.  Right?  OK, maybe not.  If your organization is still scrambling to comply with GDPR and still trying to get a handle on the data you’re managing and the flow of that data, here is a site with several templates to help you get started in that process.

The site Demplates has templates for all sorts of things, including SWOT analysis templates (we wrote about the benefits of a SWOT analysis here), Certificates of Appreciation for employees, even Pest Control Service Agreements.  A couple of months ago (on my birthday, no less), the site posted GDPR Data Mapping Template: 10+ Print-Ready Templates, with several useful templates to help organizations create data maps, data flow diagrams, GDPR Data Processing Notices, privacy policy and data protection policy statements, data protection impact assessments and data audits.  The template documents are in different formats, including Excel, Word and Visio.  Here are pictures of a couple of examples:

With the challenges these days stemming from the growth of big data, data mapping is not only a good organization practice to not only help get a handle on your organization’s big data, but also to document your organization’s handling of PII and compliance with GDPR on the handling of PII.  Tom O’Connor and I talked about the importance of data mapping in our webcast on GDPR back in February (you can check it out here).  Data mapping supports in compliance and adherence to critical GDPR factors such as:

  • Maintenance of the data lifecycle;
  • Documentation that records are kept in adherence to the rules of GDPR to submit to the regulatory and supervising authorities;
  • Maintaining Accountability of the data for the full data lifecycle;
  • Evidence for the organization that the data is protected in its full cycle.

If you’re still scrambling to comply with GDPR, perhaps one or more of these templates can help you document your compliance or help you discover one or more areas where you may be deficient in your compliance.

So, what do you think?  Is your organization still trying to comply with GDPR?  Does your organization have an organization data map?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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.

Collecting Responsive ESI from Difficult Places: eDiscovery Webcasts

Happy June!  I don’t normally promote webcasts twice in one week, but this month’s webcast is a little earlier than normal.  What can I say, it’s family vacation season and my family has plans the last week of this month… :o)

Believe it or not, there was a time when collecting potentially responsive ESI from email systems for discovery was once considered overly burdensome. Now, it’s commonplace and much of it can be automated. But, that’s not where all of the responsive ESI resides today – much of it is on your mobile device, in social media platforms and even in Internet of Things (IoT) devices. Are you ignoring this potentially important data? Do you have to hire a forensics professional to collect this data or can you do much of it on your own?  We will discuss these and other questions in a webcast in a few weeks.

Wednesday, June 20th at noon CST (1:00pm EST, 10:00am PST), CloudNine will conduct the webcast Collecting Responsive ESI from Difficult Places. In this one-hour webcast that’s CLE-approved in selected states, we will discuss what lawyers need to know about the various sources of ESI today, examples of how those sources of data can be responsive to litigations and investigations, and how lawyers may be able to collect much of this data today using intuitive applications and simple approaches. Topics include:

  • Challenges from Various Sources of ESI Data
  • Ethical Duties and Rules for Understanding Technology
  • Key Case Law Related to Mobile Devices, Social Media and IoT
  • Options and Examples for Collecting from Mobile Devices
  • Options and Examples for Collecting from Social Media
  • Examples of IoT Devices and Collection Strategies
  • Recommendations for Addressing Collection Requirements
  • Resources for More Information

As always, I’ll be presenting the webcast, along with Tom O’Connor.  To register for it, click here.  Even if you can’t make it, go ahead and register to get a link to the slides and to the recording of the webcast (if you want to check it out later).  If you want to know how to collect electronically stored information from difficult places, this is the webcast for you!

So, what do you think?  Do you feel like you know when and how to collect ESI from mobile devices, social media and IoT devices?  If not, register for our webcast!  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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 Plaintiff Request for “Quick Peek” to Privilege Log, Proposing Special Master Review Instead: eDiscovery Case Law

In Winfield v. City of New York, No. 15-cv-05236, (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2018), New York Magistrate Judge Katherine H. Parker, ruling on a debate of what constitutes privileged ESI,  denied the plaintiff’s request for a “quick peek” at 3,300 documents listed on the defendant’s privilege log, opting to propose instead for a special master to conduct a privilege review of those documents.

Case Background

In June 2017, the defendant moved for return of an accidentally produced privileged document under the agreed-upon procedures set forth in their Clawback Agreement, which then led to further discussion between the parties about the defendant’s privilege designations, with the plaintiffs believing the defendant over-designated documents as privileged.

In July 2017, the court directed the plaintiffs to identify a subset of 80 documents from the defendant’s privilege log that had been withheld on the basis of the deliberative process privilege. The court also ruled that “the defendant would have an opportunity to rereview the 80-document subset identified by Plaintiffs and determine whether it intended to maintain its privilege claim as to each document.”

After this review, the defendant maintained a claim of privilege over only 27 documents and withdrew its privilege designation for 51 document and produced them.  The Court subsequently ordered the City to submit all 80 documents to this Court for in camera review for purposes of assessing the validity of the initial and remaining privilege designations.

The plaintiffs also contested some of the defendant’s refusal to answer at depositions on the basis of attorney-client, work product, and/or deliberative process privilege and submitted a letter to the court seeking privilege rulings on 20 questions to which the City’s witnesses were directed not to respond. The defendant subsequently withdrew its privilege objections six of these questions and provided the plaintiffs with responses.

In February 2018, the court issued a lengthy ruling granting the defendant’s Clawback Demand and granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of certain documents from the sample set of documents designated as privileged by the defendant on its privilege log. The court also granted in part the plaintiffs’ motion to compel answers to questions posed during depositions. At the same time, the court directed the defendant to re-review its privilege designations, after which, the defendant de-designated certain documents as privileged and produced them.

In April 2018, the plaintiffs raised a concern with the volume (3,300 documents) designated by the defendant as privileged. The court then directed the parties to meet and confer concerning a proposal to address the plaintiffs’ concerns. At that meeting, the plaintiffs proposed the Court order the defendant to turn over all 3,300 documents designated as privileged for a “quick peek” at them, promising to review them in only a few weeks. The defendant, which had already spent significant time reviewing documents for privilege prior to producing them, vigorously objected.

Judge’s Ruling

After taking into consideration FRCP 26 and FRE 502, as well as previous case law, Judge Parker ruled:

“The task of reviewing 3,300 documents is enormous and one that this Court cannot complete before the end of fact discovery on July 31, 2018 given other demands in this and other cases. Appointment of a Special Master to conduct the privilege review pursuant to Rule 53 is therefore warranted…. In accordance with Rule 53(b)(1), the parties may file a letter regarding their position on the appointment of a Special Master, whether they have identified any conflict-of-interest issues… and suggest other candidates for appointment if they so desire…. Given the costs of a Special Master, Plaintiffs are directed to evaluate whether they can narrow the documents for review so as to reduce the time and thus the costs of the review.”

Judge Parker proposed the appointment of the Honorable Frank Maas (Ret.) of JAMS, who recently retired as a Magistrate Judge in the District and was available to conduct a review (and was recently proposed for a privilege review in another high-profile case).  Judge Parker indicated that “the parties may file a letter regarding their position on the appointment of a Special Master, whether they have identified any conflict-of-interest issues that would preclude appointment of Judge Maas, and suggest other candidates for appointment if they so desire.”

So, what do you think? Is the appointment of a special master to perform the privilege review the right ruling? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Today is the Day for eDiscovery for the Rest of Us!: eDiscovery Webcasts

Does it seem like eDiscovery technology today is only for the “mega-firms” and “mega-cases”? What about for the “rest of us”? Are there solutions for the small firms and cases too? What does the average lawyer need to know about eDiscovery today and how to select a solution that’s right for them?  Find out in our webcast today!

Today at noon CST (1:00pm EST, 10:00am PST), CloudNine will conduct the webcast eDiscovery for the Rest of Us. In this one-hour webcast that’s CLE-approved in selected states, we will discuss what lawyers need to know about eDiscovery, the various sources of data to consider, and the types of technology solutions to consider to make an informed decision and get started using technology to simplify the discovery process. Topics include:

  • How Automation is Affecting All Industries, including eDiscovery
  • Drivers for eDiscovery Automation Today
  • Challenges from Various Sources of ESI Data
  • Ethical Duties and Rules for Managing Discovery
  • Getting Data Through the Process Efficiently
  • Small Case Examples: Ernie and EDna
  • Key Components of an eDiscovery Solution
  • Types of Tools to Consider
  • Recommendations for Getting Started

As always, I’ll be presenting the webcast, along with Tom O’Connor, who wrote a four part blog post series that we have published on the blog in the past couple of weeks.  To register for it, click here.  Even if you can’t make it, go ahead and register to get a link to the slides and to the recording of the webcast (if you want to check it out later).  If you want to know what eDiscovery solution options there within an affordable budget, this is the webcast for you!

So, what do you think?  Do you feel like you can’t afford eDiscovery technology?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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 Grants Adverse Inference Sanction Against Infringing Author: eDiscovery Case Law

In Nunes v. Rushton, No. 2:14-cv-00627-JNP-DBP (D. Utah May 14, 2018), Utah District Judge Jill N. Parrish, ruling that the plaintiff was prejudiced by the deletion of one of the defendant’s Google “sock puppet” accounts, granted the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions in part, ordering an adverse instruction to the jury regarding the “bad faith” deletion of that account.  Judge Parrish denied the motion with regard to several other accounts, ruling that the plaintiff was not prejudiced by deletion of those accounts (as most of the information was still available or recoverable).

Case Background

In this case, the defendant infringed the plaintiff’s copyright in her novel by copying protected elements of the book and distributing copies of the infringing work to reviewers and bloggers for promotional purposes. Around this time, the defendant created a number of “sock puppet” accounts on Google and Yahoo by registering these accounts under usernames that did not identify her as the individual controlling the accounts and used these accounts to create several sock puppet accounts on Facebook, Goodreads, and Amazon. The defendant then used the Goodreads and Amazon sock puppet accounts to post positive reviews of her own books and negative reviews of the plaintiff’s books. The defendant also created a Twitter account and a Blogspot account under her pen name to promote her books.

In August 2014, the plaintiff became aware of the potential infringement, attempted to obtain an advance copy of the infringing novel and discover the true identity of the defendant’s pen name. The defendant used her sock puppet social media accounts to anonymously criticize the plaintiff’s efforts to investigate the infringing novel. Sometime in August or September of 2014, after the plaintiff had discovered the defendant’s identity, The defendant deleted most of her sock puppet accounts. The defendant also deleted her pen name Twitter and Blogspot accounts. The plaintiff filed this lawsuit on August 28, 2014.

During litigation, the plaintiff made a discovery request for documents stored on the defendant’s various Google and Yahoo accounts. On August 12, 2015, while this discovery request was pending, the defendant deleted one of her Google sock puppet accounts.  When the court granted a motion to compel the defendant to produce documents from her Google and Yahoo accounts, counsel for the defendant represented that she had lost the passwords to the accounts, leading to subpoenas to those services.  The defendant deleted all of the remaining accounts on March 21, 2016, asserting that she did so because she believed that all of the documents associated with the accounts had been or would be produced by Google and Yahoo pursuant to the subpoenas.  Google stated that the account deleted on August 12, 2015 could not be recovered because too much time had passed, but preserved the accounts that had been deleted on March 21, 2016.

Judge’s Ruling

In analyzing the defendants’ motion, Judge Parrish denied the motion for sanctions regarding most of the accounts, determining that the plaintiff suffered no prejudice because the information pertaining to those accounts either remained, was saved by the plaintiff before the accounts were deleted or could be recovered by Google and Yahoo.

As for the August 12, 2015 deletion of one of the Google accounts, Judge Parrish stated: “At the time of the deletion, Rushton had a duty to preserve this account because litigation was pending. The court also finds that Nunes was prejudiced by the deletion because any documents or emails stored on this account were irretrievably lost… Given that litigation had been pending for almost a year, that Rushton was represented by counsel, and that Nunes had requested the production of documents associated with this Google account, the court infers that Rushton’s August 12, 2015 deletion of one of her Google accounts was done in bad faith.”

As a result, Judge Parrish ordering an adverse instruction to the jury regarding the “bad faith” deletion of that account.

So, what do you think?  Was an advance inference sanction a severe enough punishment?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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.

EDRM Needs Your Input on its TAR Guidelines: eDiscovery Best Practices

I’m here in Durham, NC at the annual EDRM Spring Workshop at Duke Law School and, as usual, the Workshop is a terrific opportunity to discuss the creation of standards and guidelines for the legal community, as well as network with like minded people on eDiscovery topics.  I’ll have more to report about this year’s Workshop next week.  But, one part of the Workshop that I will touch on now is the release of the public comment version of EDRM’s Technology Assisted Review (TAR) Guidelines.

Last Friday, EDRM released the preliminary draft of its TAR Guidelines for public comment (you can download it here).  EDRM and the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law are seeking comments from the bench, bar, and public on a preliminary draft of Technology Assisted Review (TAR) Guidelines. Nearly 50 volunteer lawyers, e-discovery experts, software developers, scholars and judges worked on this draft under the auspices of EDRM. A version of the document was presented at the Duke Distinguished Lawyers’ conference on Technology Assisted Review, held Sept. 7-8, 2017. At that event, 15 judges and nearly 100 lawyers and practitioners provided feedback and comments on the draft. The document was further revised based on discussions at that conference, additional review by judges and additional review by EDRM members over the past couple of months (which involved significant changes and a much tighter and briefer guideline document). With the assistance of four law student fellows of the Bolch Judicial Institute, this draft was finalized in May 2018 for public comment.

So, calling this a preliminary draft is a bit of a misnomer as it has already been through several iterations of review and edit.  Now, it’s the public’s turn.

EDRM states that “Comments on this preliminary draft will be carefully considered by the drafting team and an advisory group of judges as they finalize the document for publication. Please send comments on this draft, whether favorable, adverse, or otherwise, as soon as possible, but no later than Monday, July 16, 2018. Comments must be submitted in tracked edits (note: the guidelines are in a Word document for easy ability to track changes) and submitted via email to edrm@law.duke.edu. All comments will be made available to the public.”

That’s all well and good and EDRM will hopefully get a lot of useful feedback on the guideline document.  However, one thing I have observed about public comment periods is that the people who tend to provide comments (i.e., geeks like us who attend EDRM workshops) are people who already understand TAR (and think they know how best to explain it to others).  If the goal of the EDRM TAR guidelines is to help the general bench and bar better understand TAR, then it’s important for the average attorney to review the document and provide comments as to how useful it is.

So, if you’re an attorney or legal technology practitioner who doesn’t understand TAR, I encourage (even challenge) you to review these guidelines and provide feedback.  Point out what you learned from the document and what was confusing and whether or not you feel that you have a better understanding of TAR and the considerations for when to use it and where it can be used.  Ask yourself afterward if you have a better idea of how to get started using TAR and if you understand the difference between TAR approaches.  If these guidelines can help a lot of members of the legal profession better understand TAR, that will be the true measure of its effectiveness.

Oh, and by the way, Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation is now in effect!  Are you ready?  If not, you might want to check out this webcast.

So, what do you think?  Will these guidelines help the average attorney or judge better understand TAR?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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.

eDiscovery for the Rest of Us: eDiscovery Best Practices, Part Four

Editor’s Note: Tom O’Connor is a nationally known consultant, speaker, and writer in the field of computerized litigation support systems.  He has also been a great addition to our webinar program, participating with me on several recent webinars.  Tom has also written several terrific informational overview series for CloudNine, including eDiscovery and the GDPR: Ready or Not, Here it Comes (which we covered as a webcast), Understanding eDiscovery in Criminal Cases (which we also covered as a webcast), ALSP – Not Just Your Daddy’s LPO and Why Is TAR Like a Bag of M&M’s?. Now, Tom has written another terrific overview regarding eDiscovery for the smaller cases titled eDiscovery for the Rest of Us that we’re happy to share on the eDiscovery Daily blog (and will cover later this month in a webcast).  Enjoy! – Doug

Tom’s overview is split into four parts, so we’ll cover each part separately.  Part One was published last Tuesday, Part Two was published last Thursday and Part Three was published on Tuesday.  Here’s the final part, Part Four.

The EDna Challenge, 2016

In 2016, Craig Ball revisited the Edna challenge with a new set of parameters and a panel at the annual ILTA conference on which I was privileged to be a participant. The panel sought what Craig called “… a re-examination of EDna options circa 2016 on a bigger budget.” https://craigball.net/2016/04/15/edna-still-cheap-and-challenged/ .

In this new challenge, Edna had a Zip file on a thumb drive containing collected ESI in various formats: 10 custodians with ESI PSTs for six of them, four MBOX take outs from Gmail for the other four and a combination of  word processed documents, spreadsheets, PowerPoint documents, PDFs and a few scanned paper documents for all ten. She estimated the contents will unzip to about 10-12 GB with somewhere between 50,000 to 100, 000 documents total.

The goal was to conduct a paperless privilege and responsiveness review of the material in-house, sharing the task with an associate and legal assistant.  All staff had high-end, big screen desktop PC running Windows 8.1 with MS Office 2016 and Adobe Acrobat 11 Pro installed and the office’s network file server had ample space for the document collection.

The specific goals were:

  • Efficient workflow
  • Robust search
  • Ability to process relevant metadata
  • Simple document tagging and production identification
  • Effective tracked deduplication
  • Review may take up to 90 days, and the case may not conclude for up to two years.  All review, hosting and production costs must be borne by the budget.

Edna didn’t own a review tool and was willing to spend up to $5,000.00 total for software, vendor services, SaaS, etc.  Craig’s only restrictions on responses were “She won’t spend a penny more.  You can’t loan her your systems or software.  You can’t talk her out of it.  Pricing must mirror real-world availability, not a special deal.”

The good news was that the increase in budget accompanied by the shift to Web based solutions made a dramatic change in the responses. As one independent analyst noted, if kept to 3 months hosting, more than 70% of the companies he worked with could meet the challenge. Brad Jenkins, CEO of CloudNine (the host of this article) noted that the CloudNine software would allow Edna  “… access to a complete eDiscovery platform for processing, review, and production. She can upload her data for automated native processing, review her data in CloudNine’s integrated review tool, and produce her data in almost any format.”  All for under the limit of the challenge.

What’s Next?

The next step in the market of technology for the rest of us is growth of Internet based tools.  We are now seeing even more budget conscious solutions in a SaaS environment, solutions that work with common native format files where you host your own data with programs installed locally that are able to accommodate smaller data collections.

Some of these are well-established companies such as Relativity or Ipro Tech and others are newer companies such as CloudNine, Digital War Room, Logikcull, CS Disco and Everlaw. Some of them also incorporate some form of front-end analytics to significantly reduce the amount of data to be processed as well as TAR or predictive coding technology to enable faster review of documents.

Conclusion

But the ultimate solution is more than just knowing the rules, avoiding e-jargon and understanding the technology. In our estimation, it is the process not the technology.

We are not alone in this appraisal. Technologist John Martin once commented, “It’s the archer not the arrow.” Craig Ball says, “The key consideration is workflow”.

The fact is that technology is not the key to successful management of e-discovery in small cases. Rather, the single most effective way to keep eDiscovery costs low is to work with your opposition in a cooperative manner so you can stipulate to the use of low cost solutions.

We all must change to the new paradigm of working in the digital world. In the words of The Hon. Lee Rosenthal, former Chair of the Standing Committee of the Judicial Conference, “Litigation habits and customs learned in the days of paper must be revisited and revised. The culture of bench and bar must adjust.”

Craig Ball described it as “throwing down the gauntlet in the Edna Challenge when he said, “So, how about it e-discovery industry? Can you divert your gaze from the golden calf long enough to see the future and recall the past? Sam Walton became the richest man of his era by selling to more for less. There’s a fast-growing need…and a huge emerging market.  The real Edna Challenge is waiting for the visionaries who will meet the need and serve this market.”

I think we’re very close to being there.

So, what do you think?  Do smaller litigation cases get shortchanged when it comes to eDiscovery technology?  As always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Judge’s Ruling on Scope Under Rule 26 Brings a Mixed Bag of Motions Granted and Denied: eDiscovery Case Law

In TMJ Grp., LLC v. IMCMV Holdings, No. 17-4677 (E.D. La. April 6, 2018), Louisiana Magistrate Judge Janis van Meerveld ruled on Motions to Compel by both parties, both of which were granted in part and denied in part.

Case Background

The plaintiff, TMJ, alleged that it had been fraudulently induced to invest in two Margaritaville restaurants (one in the Mall of America and one in New Orleans) by the defendants. An interesting aspect of the discovery motions is TMJ’s allegation that it sought and obtained financing for the investment at issue in this lawsuit from FNBC Bank and that IMCMV altered financial figures in the financial statements so that FNBC would approve the financing after initially rejecting it.

IMCMV’s Motion to Compel

The first item at issue was the defendant’s motion to compel the redacted communications between FNBC and the plaintiff, which were ordered for in-camera review, as well as several depositions given after the discovery deadline. As a result, issues arose around scope of discovery under FRCP Rule 26.

The plaintiff submitted much of their document production right before or on the discovery deadline (around 3,700 pages) and as a result, the defendant said it didn’t have all the relevant documents available for the depositions where some FNBC documents were discussed, and because it did not have sufficient time to review those documents prior to the deposition, they argue that they “had an incomplete picture of the relationship, agreements, and documents, exchanged between FNBC and TMJ.”

The defendant also sought to compel the deposition of one or more former FNBC representatives, pointing out that the FNBC representatives are listed on both parties’ witness lists. However, because they did not have all of the FNBC documents prior to the discovery deadline, they initially decided not to depose FNBC. The late production of documents caused them to revisit this decision.

The plaintiff opposed the deposition of any FNBC representatives, claiming the request is untimely, because they identified FNBC personnel in its initial disclosures and earlier document production and that the defendant had long had sufficient information to determine whether to take such depositions. The plaintiff insisted it would be prejudiced if the depositions were allowed, given that trial was imminent.

TMJ’s Motion to Compel

The plaintiff’s motion to compel sought certain financial documents, including tax returns and schedules, financial statements, and accounting ledgers for all of the defendant’s other Margaritaville restaurants, insisting the documents were relevant, because the defendant’s financial forecasts were based on comparable IMCMV owned restaurants, which influenced their decision to invest.

The defendant claimed these financials were irrelevant and disproportional as the other restaurants are not a part of this litigation. The defendant explained that this data was already produced in Excel files which was considered by their expert.

The plaintiff also demanded responses to its interrogatories regarding the reasoning behind changes to financial statements made while the investments at issue here were being negotiated, alleging that the defendant altered them to make the investment appear more attractive to the plaintiff and FNBC. The plaintiff makes note that their identical responses to the three requests aren’t “boilerplate,” but that they meaningfully explain how changes were made by stating that “in preparing financial projections, [IMCMV] takes into account planned seating capacity, estimated revenue per seat per year, the financial results of other Margaritaville-themed restaurants, the location, market competitors, and the labor market.”

The plaintiff also sought text messages between the parties, pointing out that they frequently corresponded in this manner. The defendant responded that their former chief development officer left the company, and they had not been able to access his iPhone. The defendant requested passcodes from the former CDO, but those didn’t work. Another individual who also was no longer working for IMCMV, had custody of the phone in the interim, but he had reset the phone and added a new passcode. The defendant then contacted Apple and its carrier, AT&T, who both indicated that the passcode could not be bypassed without resetting the phone.

Judge’s Ruling

Regarding IMCMV’s motions, there was no real dispute that a deposition of an FNBC representative is within the scope of discovery. Judge van Meerveld ruled that “a second deposition of Motwani [an FNBC Bank representative] is appropriate here in light of the documents produced after his deposition. The scope of the deposition shall be limited to the documents produced after Motwani’s deposition, and any other documents or issues required to give context to, provide clarification of, to contrast with, or explain discrepancies with the documents produced after Motwani’s deposition. This could, therefore, permit reference to earlier produced documents.” Accordingly, an extension of the discovery deadline was provided, and the defendant “may proceed with a deposition of one FNBC representative and, if necessary due to that representative’s inability to provide complete answers, a second FNBC representative.”

In regard to the plaintiff’s motions, Judge van Meerwald agreed that “the financial documents for the other Margaritaville restaurants are not relevant or proportional to the needs of this case. TMJ already has the key performance indicators extracted from those financials for the purpose of creating the business cases and pro formas for the proposed investment. The relevance of the financial statements of the other restaurants is too tangential to justify the burden of production.” As to these documents, the motion to compel was denied.

As to the plaintiff’s demand that certain financial documents be produced in Excel rather than PDF format, the court found the burden to the defendant “too great to justify IMCMV undertaking that endeavor here. However, the Court has ordered the parties to work together to provide the documents in their native format. If this is unsuccessful, the parties may contact the chambers of the undersigned to set up a telephone conference to discuss.”

So, what do you think? Did the judge interpret the idea of scope under Rule 26 correctly?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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.

Fourth Circuit Rules that Warrantless Cell Phone is Warranted: Data Privacy Trends

Don’t let my cute title confuse you.  In this case, the Fourth Circuit issued an interesting decision regarding whether a warrant is required to search an individual’s cell phone.

According to Sharon Nelson’s terrific Ride the Lightning blog (4th Circuit Says Border Search of Phones Requires Individualized Suspicion (But Not a Warrant)), on May 9th, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in US v. Kolsuz, ruling that in light of the immense privacy concerns, forensic searches of electronic devices seized at the border must be justified by individualized suspicion, or some reason to believe that a particular traveler had committed a crime.  But not a warrant.

The appeals court said border patrol officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct a forensic search of Hamza Kolsuz’s cellphone, and they were entitled to rely on that standard based on case law that suggested it was, at most, all that was required. The officers had seized Kolsuz’s phone after they found firearms parts that required an export license in his checked luggage. It was the third time weapons parts were found in his luggage.  That certainly seems like reasonable suspicion to me.

The forensic search of Kolsuz’s phone produced information that included personal contact lists, e-mails, messenger conversations, photographs, videos, calendar, web browsing history, call logs and GPS tracking history. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison after a conviction for violating the Arms Export Control Act and conspiracy.

The federal government had contended that searches of electronic devices require no warrant or individualized suspicion under an exception that allows searches of suitcases at the border.  Tom O’Connor discussed the Border Entry exception as part of his Understanding eDiscovery in Criminal Cases on our blog here.

The decision is the first federal appellate ruling to require individualized suspicion in a border search of a cellphone since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Riley v. California in 2014 (which Tom O’Connor also discussed on our blog here) that police generally can’t search the contents of a cellphone seized during an arrest, unless they get a warrant, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

Under Riley’s recognition of the extensive information stored on cellphones, the Fourth Circuit said, the forensic search of Kolsuz’s phone should be considered a nonroutine border search that requires some measure of individualized suspicion.

The EFF and the ACLU had filed amicus briefs urging the Fourth Circuit to go further and hold that probable cause is needed before a search of electronic devices, whether it’s a manual search or one using forensic software.

After arguments in the case, the Department of Homeland Security adopted a policy that treats forensic searches of digital devices as nonroutine border searches requiring reasonable suspicion of activity that violates the customs laws or in cases raising national security concerns, according to the opinion.

The ACLU and the EFF have filed a separate lawsuit that challenges warrantless searches of electronic devices at the border.  In her blog, Sharon notes that she “remain(s) on their side.”  We can agree to disagree on this one… :o)

So, what do you think?  Should cell phone and other electronic device searches at the border require a warrant?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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.