Close
Enter your
text here

Electronic Discovery

Google Goes 0 For 2 in its Request for Review of SCA Warrant Cases: eDiscovery Case Law

As Tom O’Connor and I discussed last week in our ACEDS webinar Key eDiscovery Case Law Review for First Half of 2017 (here’s a link if you missed it), Google was ordered earlier this year to produce foreign stored emails by judges in California and Pennsylvania in response to government warrants.  Last month, Google’s request for review on the two cases (and interpretation of Section 2703 of the Stored Communications Act of 1986) didn’t change the results.

With regard to In re Search Warrant No. 16-960-M-1 to Google; In re Search Warrant No. 16-1061-M to Google, MJ Nos. 16-960, 16-1061 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 17, 2017), Pennsylvania District Judge Juan R. Sànchez considered Pennsylvania Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter’s February ruling which ordered Google to comply with a search warrant to produce foreign-stored emails, disagreeing with the Second Circuit’s ruling in the Microsoft Ireland warrant case, where Microsoft was not ordered to provide access to emails in that ruling.  In considering Google’s request to review Judge Rueter’s order, Judge Sànchez stated:

“The issue in this case is whether enforcing the SCA warrants in question to require Google to produce communications and other subscriber data stored on servers located outside the United States constitutes an extraterritorial application of the statute. In analyzing this issue, the Court starts with the presumption against extraterritoriality, “a longstanding principle of American law ‘that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.’””

With that in mind, Judge Sànchez, in upholding the Magistrate Court decision, ruled that “Even if the steps taken by a provider to search for, access, and retrieve subscriber communications for eventual disclosure to the government were conduct relevant to § 2703’s focus, this Court has considerable difficulty with Google’s assertion that, where the communications in question are stored in foreign data centers, the ‘vast majority’ of this conduct occurs outside of the United States…By Google’s own account, the search and retrieval process consists of a series of queries initiated by Google personnel in the United States to which servers in the targeted data centers respond….While these queries may be run on servers in Google’s foreign data centers, it is difficult to see how this amounts to conduct by Google at the location of the data center, given that the United States-based employees direct the search and retrieval process remotely, without involvement by any personnel located abroad…That the subscriber’s communications are accessed only by—and can be accessed only by—Google personnel in the United States, and are produced by such personnel in the United States, reinforces the conclusion that the only conduct involved in the search and retrieval process occurs domestically.”

With regard to In the Matter of the Search of Content Stored at Premises Controlled by Google Inc. and as Further Described in Attachment A, No. 16-mc-80263-RS (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2017), Google moved for de novo review of California Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler ‘s determination “the disclosure is a domestic application of the SCA.”  California District Judge Richard Seeborg, in considering the same issues, ruled:

“As to the question of whether Google is undertaking essential aspects of compliance with section 2703 outside the United States, the answer is no. As a factual matter, the information sought by the government is easily and lawfully accessed in the United States, and disclosure of that content would likewise take place in the United States. Indeed, only personnel in Google’s Legal Investigations Support team are authorized to access the content of communications in order to produce it in response to legal process and all such Google personnel are located in the United States…Accordingly, the conduct relevant to the SCA’s focus occurs in the United States.”

I’m sure we haven’t heard the last of either of these cases yet, just like it appears we haven’t heard the last of the Microsoft Ireland warrant case yet either.

So, what do you think?  Should the location of the data or the location of the searches for the data determine whether it is subject to foreign data privacy considerations? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion links courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

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.

“Primed” to Learn About Rule 34 of the FRCP? Here’s a New Primer from The Sedona Conference: eDiscovery Best Practices

As Tom O’Connor and I discussed last week in our ACEDS webinar Key eDiscovery Case Law Review for First Half of 2017 (here’s a link if you missed it), we’re seeing lots of cases that relate to disputes associated with Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and disputes over things such as scope of production and proportionality, form of production and the handling of objections.  Now, The Sedona Conference® (TSC) Working Group on Electronic Document Retention & Production (WG1) has issued a public comment version of a new primer on Rule 34.

As noted in the Preface, the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 Primer stems from the December 2015 changes to Rule 34, which were intended to address systemic problems in how discovery requests and responses traditionally were handled, and the observation that, over a year later, despite numerous articles, training programs, and conferences about the changes, their implementation had been mixed, at best. Along the way, several courts issued firmly-worded opinions admonishing practitioners against continuing to use overly-broad, non-particularized requests for production and unhelpful, boilerplate objections. These opinions made clear that there would be consequences for those who continue to rely on their pre-December 2015 practices, templates, boilerplate objections, and forms. In short, this Primer aims to meet the need for a framework and guidance on how to comply with the requirements of amended Rule 34.

WG1 has prepared this Rule 34 Primer with practice pointers on how to comply with the amended Rules, and it gathers advice and observations from: (1) requesting and responding parties who have successfully implemented them; and (2) legal decisions interpreting the amended Rules. Judicial opinions issued to date have given a clearer picture on how the amendments will be interpreted and implemented by the bench, and, as noted in the Introduction, any practitioner that does not adapt their practice to incorporate these amendments “does so at his or her own risk”.

After the Introduction, the Rule 34 Primer covers the 2015 Rules Amendments to Rule 34 and then the bulk of the document covers practice pointers for conferences by the parties, requests for production, responses to requests to production, court involvement and requesting and responding parties’ obligations under Rule 26(g).  The Rule 34 Primer also includes two appendices: Cases Interpreting the Specificity Requirements in Rule 34 and State Law Equivalents and Standing Orders, Guidelines, and Checklists Regarding Requests for Production and Responses to Those Requests.  The entire downloadable PDF file is a mere 29 pages, so it’s reasonably compact.

To download the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 Primer, click here.  As always, it’s free!

And, as this is a public comment edition, WG1 encourages Working Group Series members and others to spread the word and share this link so they can get comments in before the public comment period closes on November 15, 2017 (done! – you’re welcome…). Questions and comments regarding the Primer before then can be sent to comments@sedonaconference.org.

So, what do you think?  Have you encountered any cases recently with “overly-broad, non-particularized requests for production” or “unhelpful, boilerplate objections”? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Customer Snapshot: An Immediate International Compliance Challenge Met by CloudNine

An Immediate International Compliance Challenge Met by CloudNine

CloudNine, the eDiscovery Company (cloudnine.com) providing eDiscovery automation software and services for litigation, investigations, and audits, today highlighted a recent international law firm’s selection of CloudNine to provide simplified eDiscovery automation in support of its corporate compliance practice. This highlighting provides one example of how CloudNine is simplifying eDiscovery for law firms, corporations, and governmental organizations.

Customer Challenge

Our customer, a Latin America-based international law firm that advises local, regional, and international companies on country-specific corporate compliance, provides counsel and services in support of extraterritorial matters. These matters routinely range from white-collar Foreign Corruption Practices Act (FCPA) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) investigations to civil cross-border and multi-jurisdictional litigation and arbitration. With a law firm of more than 65 attorneys and 20 tax advisors and a sporadic but intense workflow requiring advanced legal discovery technology to support time-sensitive audits, investigations, and litigation, our customer was interested in evaluating an alternative eDiscovery platform to replace their current technology. Given the nature of the support and the irregular intervals of intensive discovery, our customer not only required advanced eDiscovery technology but also needed a pricing model that allowed for periodic usage without penalizing them for episodical engagements. The hope of the firm’s corporate compliance practice lead attorney was that the alternative eDiscovery technology could be utilized as an immediate replacement and serve as a permanent part of the firm’s discovery resources.

Needs Snapshot

+ Proven Provider with Compliance Expertise
+ Advanced eDiscovery Technology
+ Flexible Pricing Model
+ Immediate Implementation

CloudNine Solution

Upon being notified of the customer’s technology and business requirements for an advanced, cloud-based, SaaS-deployed eDiscovery platform that could support investigation and litigation needs while meeting business requirements, CloudNine’s customer support team immediately began working directly with the compliance practice’s lead attorney to provide a familiarization of CloudNine’s eDiscovery Platform to the firm’s multinational-focused multilingual associates. Key areas of interest to the customer highlighted during technology demonstrations included:

+ Ability of Any User to Immediately Upload, Process, Analyze, Review and Produce Electronically Stored Information (Speed)
+ Intuitive Interface for Comprehensive Capability (Simplicity)
+ Security of the Platform Based on its Private and Protected Cloud-Environment (Security)
+ Availability of A Full Suite of Professional Services to Support a Wide Range of Audit, Investigation, and Litigation Requirements (Services)

The CloudNine customer support team also developed a complete pricing strategy and model to support the customer’s business need of economical and predictable pricing without the requirement for long-term, subscription pricing commitments.  

In a time frame of fewer than two weeks from initial conversation to an agreement to go forward, CloudNine listened to the customer’s needs, developed a technology and business offering to meet the customer’s needs, and informed, educated, and instructed the customer on the use of the CloudNine eDiscovery Platform.

Results

Upon successful demonstration of the eDiscovery platform and presentation of a simplified pricing model that would meet the customer’s needs and provide cost savings over the customer’s previous eDiscovery offering, the law firm selected CloudNine in early 2017 to replace its previous technology and provide eDiscovery support for its international corporate compliance practice.

CloudNine then coordinated and deployed access to the CloudNine eDiscovery Platform to the customer’s Latin America-based associates. This seamless deployment consisted of the set-up, training, and the availability of professional services and technical support to meet the eDiscovery requirements. 

Ongoing Benefits

+ Associate Acceptance and Use of CloudNine as Primary eDiscovery Platform
+ Increased Flexibility Based on Platform Ease-of-Use
+ Decreased Costs Based on Appropriate Pricing Model

“CloudNine’s sensitivity to our compliance practice’s specific needs and ability to immediately deliver a comprehensive discovery offering has helped us better serve our international clientele who rely on us for timely advice and support on both white-collar and civil matters,” shared the Compliance Practice Lead Attorney. “They have saved us time, decreased our costs, and increased our ability to quickly and decisively to respond to critical information requirements.”

Try CloudNine at No Risk, Immediately

To sign up for a free trial of CloudNine, visit the CloudNine website (cloudnine.com), request your free account, and begin immediately to use the power and precision of simplified eDiscovery automation in your litigation, investigation, and audit efforts.

About CloudNine, The eDiscovery Company

Founded in 2002 and based in Houston, Texas, CloudNine is a legal intelligence technology company with deep expertise in the analysis, processing, and review of electronically stored information (ESI). Currently used by more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms as well as in many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine has been recognized in reports and surveys by Gartner, 451 Research, Blue Hill Research, Corporate Counsel Magazine, the New York Journal, and Texas Lawyer. CloudNine also publishes the eDiscovery Daily Blog, a trusted source of information for the legal industry. A leader in eDiscovery automation, you can learn more about CloudNine at 713.462.3885, info[at]cloudnine.com, or at cloudnine.com.

 

CloudsNine_400x400_Transparent

Court Grants Lesser Sanctions Against Defendant for Various Discovery Issues: eDiscovery Case Law

In New Mexico Oncology v. Presbyterian Healthcare Servs. No. 1:12-cv-00526 MV/GBW (D.N.M. Aug. 16, 2017), New Mexico Magistrate Judge Gregory B. Wormuth, detailing numerous defendant discovery deficiencies alleged by the plaintiff, ruled that the “harsh sanctions of default judgment or an adverse jury instruction” requested by the plaintiff “are not warranted” and instead opted to require the defendant to pay plaintiff costs related to activities resulting from defendants’ over-designation of documents as privileged and recommended that the defendants be ordered to pay the plaintiff 75% of the costs associated with its Motion for Sanctions including all fees paid to expert witnesses to prepare reports and testify at the motion hearing.

Case Background

In this case, the plaintiff, detailing numerous alleged defendant discovery deficiencies, filed a Motion for Sanctions, requesting that the Court sanction the defendants by ordering default judgment against them, or, alternatively that the Court sanction the defendants by ordering an adverse jury instruction.  The allegations included:

  • Defendants failed to issue a proper litigation hold. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants’ original May 2012 litigation hold was inadequate because (1) it did not account for the “email jail,” a function which required that employees delete or archive emails when they run out of inbox space; (2) it covered only thirty-five employees and improperly excluded several key witnesses; (3) it allowed employees to determine which emails were irrelevant to the lawsuit and could be deleted; and (4) it did not apply to Defendants’ Live Exchange Server (a.k.a., the Transport Dumpster) and therefore did not preserve documents deleted by individual employees.
  • Defendants intentionally deleted discoverable emails received or sent by Dr. Dava Gerard. The two primary pillars of the plaintiff’s case for intentional deletion were: (1) the data found within the “free space” of the Gerard PST file (the PST file was 2 GB in size, but only 128 MB of materials were readable by native software when opened), and (2) data was found in the unallocated space on the hard drive on which the Gerard PST file was saved.
  • Defendants used privilege designations for the purpose of concealing documents and information. After the defendants produced their original privilege and redaction logs, the plaintiff objected to 2,831 of the 4,143 entries to which Defendants included in the logs.  The defendants conducted a re-review and produced 1,095 documents which were originally listed on the privilege log and 864 documents which were originally listed on the redaction log.  The plaintiff then objected to all 1,312 remaining listings on the privilege and redaction logs, stating that it no longer had confidence in Defendants’ privilege designations, leading to a second re-review, which led to an additional 861 documents produced.  The plaintiff then filed a Motion to Compel and for Sanctions against Defendants, which included a request “that the Court appoint a Special Master to conduct an independent in camera review” of the remaining records withheld and redacted – that review led to 197 additional documents ordered to be produced.

The plaintiff also complained that the defendants failed to produce usable billing and claims data in a timely manner, produced ESI for the wrong custodian named Mike West and did not properly collect hard copy documents in discovery.  As Frank Costanza would say at the Airing of Grievances during Festivus, “I got a lot of problems with you people”.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Wormuth, reviewing the allegations in considerable detail, determined the following:

  • Improper litigation hold: Judge Wormuth acknowledged that “Without question, Plaintiff points out some imperfections with the litigation hold and its implementation” and he detailed several of those. However, he also explained that “Plaintiff failed to establish that these imperfections were a result of bad faith or that they resulted in the spoliation of evidence.”
  • Intentional deletion of emails: Noting that “the conclusion that data residing in the PST’s free space is only the result of deletion rests on the assumption that the export was conducted via the ‘client-side’ method, rather than the alternative ‘server-side’ method”, Judge Wormuth cited a lack of evidence that the collection specialist used a clean hard drive to conduct the collection and pointed to the presence of export logs to determine that the exports were conducted via the “server-side” method and concluded that “Plaintiff has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants intentionally deleted emails that should have been disclosed.”
  • Privilege designations: Judge Wormuth agreed with the Special Master’s report that the defendants “did not act in bad faith”. But, he did state “this does not mean that Defendants are free from blame. It is clear that Defendants over-designated documents as privileged, and that even their re-reviews were insufficient to fix their own errors. As a result, Plaintiff was required to repeatedly assert objections until the Special Master ultimately resolved the issue.”

As for the other issues, Judge Wormuth ruled that the “Plaintiff can demonstrate no prejudice resulting from any such delays” in receiving the billing and claims data, that the “collection of documents from the wrong Mike West was an inadvertent error and not done in bad faith” and that, because of the plaintiff’s failure to request that the Court allow additional depositions of the employees associated with the hard copy documents, “more severe sanctions are not warranted”.

Ultimately, Judge Wormuth ruled that the “harsh sanctions of default judgment or an adverse jury instruction” requested by the plaintiff “are not warranted” and instead opted to require the defendant to pay plaintiff costs related to activities resulting from defendants’ over-designation of documents as privileged and recommended that the defendants be ordered to pay the plaintiff 75% of the costs associated with its Motion for Sanctions including all fees paid to expert witnesses to prepare reports and testify at the motion hearing.

So, what do you think?  Was that an appropriate level of sanctions for the various discovery issues?  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.

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

Here’s a Factor That Can Reduce the Potential for Account Hacks: Cybersecurity Best Practices

The data breaches just keep coming.  Equifax is the latest hacking victim to a tune of 143 million US customers – approximately 44 percent of the population.  Perhaps if they, and other organizations recently breached, had added a factor to their authentication process, those breaches might not have occurred.

By “factor”, I mean two-factor authentication.  Two-factor authentication, also known as 2FA, two step verification or TFA (as an acronym), is an extra layer of security that requires not only a password and username but also something that only that user has on them, such as a piece of information only they should know or have immediately available to them (such as a physical token).  Using a username and password together with a piece of information that only the user knows makes it harder for potential intruders to gain access and hack into their system.

According to the latest Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR) (covered by us here), 81 percent of hacking-related breaches used stolen passwords and/or weak passwords.  Almost two-thirds of us use the same password for all applications that we access.  And, with best practice recommendations for establishing secure passwords changing, it’s clear many people have been doing it wrong all these years and that just a password may not be enough to secure many accounts anymore.

This is where two-factor authentication can help, by offering an extra layer of protection, in addition to just the password. It would be highly difficult for most cyber criminals to get the second authentication factor unless they are very close to you or right there with you when you’re attempting to sign into the application.  According to this infographic from Symantec, 80 percent of data breaches could have been eliminated with the use of two-factor authentication.

Probably the most common form of two-factor authentication is where the application sends you a code (via text or email – the means for sending may vary depending on the platform) once you provide your password that you have to enter to then be able to access the application.  Unless a hacker can also access your email account or see your texts, that second layer of security helps protect against hacking of your account via just your password.  Two-factor authentication is a terrific way to provide that extra layer of security and it’s important to consider whether your provider can support two-factor authentication when considering cloud providers (in general or when evaluating cloud eDiscovery platforms).

Also, if your organization has been affected by the recent hurricanes and you need the ability to access your data for a period of time while you rebuild, or to save costs in hosting for a case so that you can apply those savings to rebuilding your infrastructure, CloudNine can help.  Click here to find out more and also how to help out those who were affected.

So, what do you think?  Do your cloud providers support two-factor authentication?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Thanks to ACEDS, Today’s the Day to Learn How Recent Case Law Has Affected Your eDiscovery Practices: eDiscovery Best Practices

The best predictor of future behavior is relevant past behavior. Nowhere is that more true than with legal precedents set by past case law decisions, especially when it relates to eDiscovery best practices.  Are you aware of recent case law decisions related to eDiscovery best practices and what that those decisions mean to your organization?  Thanks to our friends at ACEDS, you can learn a lot about those case law decisions today.

Today’s ACEDS webinar at noon CT (1pm ET, 10am PT) is titled Key eDiscovery Case Law Review for First Half of 2017.  This one-hour webcast will cover key case law covered by the eDiscovery Daily blog related to eDiscovery for the first half of 2017, what the legal profession can learn from those rulings and whether any of the decisions run counter to expectations set by Federal and State rules for civil procedure. Topics include:

  • How should objections to production requests be handled?
  • Are you required to produce subpoenaed data stored internationally?
  • Should there be a limit to fees assessed for discovery misconduct?
  • When is data stored by a third party considered to be within your control?
  • Should courts dictate search terms to parties?
  • How can you make an effective proportionality argument to address burdensome requests?
  • Can the requesting party dictate the form of production?
  • Does storing data on a file share site waive privilege?
  • If data is intentionally deleted, should Rule 37(e) apply?
  • Is circumstantial evidence of intentional spoliation good enough to warrant sanctions?
  • Should keyword search be performed before Technology-Assisted Review?

I’ll be presenting the webcast, Tom O’Connor, who is now a Special Consultant to CloudNine!  To register for the webcast and get Tom’s and my unique takes on these cases, click here.  Hope you can make it!

Also, if your organization has been affected by the recent hurricanes and you need the ability to access your data for a period of time while you rebuild, or to save costs in hosting for a case so that you can apply those savings to rebuilding your infrastructure, CloudNine can help.  Click here to find out more and also how to help out those who were affected.

So, what do you think?  Do you think case law regarding eDiscovery issues affects how you manage discovery?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

If You’ve Been Affected by the Recent Storms, CloudNine Wants to Help

Mother Nature has dealt this part of the world a tough couple of weeks.  First, Hurricane Harvey hit the Gulf Coast, causing major damage and flooding in Houston and other areas.  Then, this past weekend, Hurricane Irma has caused major damage in the Caribbean and in Florida and is continuing to wreak havoc to other parts of the country as we speak.

In Houston, our CloudNine family was very fortunate and blessed.  None of our team members experienced any significant damage from Hurricane Harvey.  Our platform continued to be available to our clients throughout the storm and its aftermath and our office remained up and running; though, because there was so much flooding throughout the city and driving was discouraged, most of our team members worked remotely throughout that week.  Despite that, we were business as usual, providing software and services to our clients.

However, most (if not all) of our team members have family members or close friends who were affected – either by suffering damage in their homes and businesses or being evacuated (or both).  Many of us at CloudNine, like many others in the Houston area and elsewhere, have helped to pitch in and help our neighbors recover.

As Craig Ball noted in his recent blog post regarding the disaster in Houston, the loss of property for law firms and other organizations extends to digital devices and media and potential loss of data on that media.  When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans years ago, Tom O’Connor coordinated an effort to help firms in that area and others (such as Craig and Rob Robinson) assisted in that effort.  Both Tom and Craig have discussed plans to undertake a similar effort to help those affected this time and I will certainly be happy to help in any way I can, including to help get the word out as more information is known about that effort.

Recovering the data is one challenge (and several organizations are offering to help there), recovering an organization’s IT infrastructure is another.  Many firms will have to replace workstations, servers and networks.  Doing so won’t be cheap and may not happen overnight.  With that in mind, CloudNine is offering to host data for firms and organizations affected by the recent hurricanes for FREE for up to six months to enable those firms and organizations to be able to access that data while they rebuild.  If your organization has been affected by these storms and you need the ability to access your data for a period of time while you rebuild, or to save costs in hosting for a case so that you can apply those savings to rebuilding your infrastructure, CloudNine can help.

To learn more, please contact us at salessupport@cloudnine.com and mention the FREE six month hosting offer.

And, if you’re interested in helping those affected by the hurricanes, here are a couple of resources to do that:

  • Houston Texans football player J.J. Watt has established the Houston Flood Relief Fund for victims of Hurricane Harvey, which is (as of Monday morning) up over $31 million in donations. To donate, click here.
  • Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner has also established the Hurricane Harvey Relief Fund, which accepts donations for flood relief victims. The organization will accept checks, money orders, bank wire transfers, stock, corporate bonds and other marketable securities. For donation instructions, click here.
  • GlobalGiving’s Irma Relief Fund is accepting donations here. It vets the local organizations it helps fund and, according to The New York Times, is well-regarded by charity watchdogs.

Our thoughts and prayers are with all of those affected by the recent storms.

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.

Sometimes, the Data You Receive Isn’t Ready to Rock and Roll: eDiscovery Best Practices

Having just encountered a similar situation with one of my clients, I thought this was a topic worth revisiting.  Just because data is produced to you, it doesn’t mean that data is ready to “rock and roll”.

Here’s a case in point: I once worked with a client that received a multi-part production from the other side (via another party involved in the litigation, per agreement between the parties) that included image files, OCR text files and metadata (yes, the dreaded “load file” production).  The files that my client received were produced over several months to several other parties in the litigation.  The production contained numerous emails, each of which (of course) included an email sent date.  Can you guess which format the email sent date was provided in?  Here are some choices (using today’s date and 1:00 PM as an example):

  • 09/11/2017 13:00:00
  • 9/11/2017 1:00 PM
  • September 11, 2017 1:00 PM
  • Sep-17-2017 1:00 PM
  • 2013/09/11 13:00:00

The answer: all of them.

Because there were several productions to different parties with (apparently) different format agreements, my client didn’t have the option to request the data to be reproduced in a standard format.  Not only that, the name of the produced metadata field wasn’t consistent between productions – in about 15 percent of the documents the producing party named the field email_date_sent, in the rest of them, it was simply named date_sent.

What a mess, right?

If you know how to fix this issue, then – congrats! – you can probably stop reading.  Our client (both then and recently), didn’t know how.  Fortunately, at CloudNine, there are plenty of computer “geeks” to address problems like this (including me).

In the example above, we had to standardize the format of the dates into one standard format in one field.  We used a combination of SQL queries to get the data into one field and string commands and regular expressions to manipulate dates that didn’t fit a standard SQL date format by re-parsing them into a correct date format.  For example, the date 2017/09/11 was reparsed into 09/11/2017.

Getting the dates into a standard format in a single field not only enabled us to load that data successfully into the CloudNine platform, it also enabled us to then identify (in combination with other standard email metadata fields) duplicates in the collection based on those metadata fields.  As a result, we were able to exclude a significant percentage of the emails as duplicates, which wouldn’t have been possible before the data was converted and standardized.

Over the years, I’ve seen many examples where data (either from our side or the other side) needs to be converted.  It happens more than you think.  When that happens, it’s good to work with a solutions provider that has several “geeks” on their team that can provide that service.  Sometimes, having data that’s ready to “rock and roll” takes some work.

So, what do you think?  Have you received productions that needed conversion?  If so, what did you do?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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