Close
Enter your
text here

Email

Class Action Plaintiffs Required to Provide Social Media Passwords and Cell Phones – eDiscovery Case Law

We’ve seen several cases where social media data was requested – with some requests granted (including this one, this one and this one) and other requests denied (including this one, this one and this one).  Here is a recent case where the request was granted.

Considering proportionality and accessibility concerns in EEOC v. Original Honeybaked Ham Co. of Georgia, 11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH, 2012 U.S. Dist. (D. Colo. Nov. 7, 2012), Colorado Magistrate Judge Michael Hegarty held that where a party had showed certain of its adversaries’ social media content and text messages were relevant, the adversaries must produce usernames and passwords for their social media accounts, usernames and passwords for e-mail accounts and blogs, and cell phones used to send or receive text messages to be examined by a forensic expert as a special master in camera.

Case Background

This case began when the EEOC sued employer The Original Honeybaked Ham Company of Georgia (“HBH”) on behalf of a class alleging sexual harassment and retaliation. During discovery, HBH requested “numerous categories of documents designed to examine the class members’ damages—emotional and financial—as well as documents going to the credibility and bias of the class members,” and the company moved the court to compel their production.

Among the documents HBH requested were “full unredacted” social media content and text messages. HBH requested such electronically stored information (ESI) because “[m]any of the class members ha[d] utilized electronic media to communicate—with one another or with their respective insider groups—information about their employment with/separation from Defendant HBH, this lawsuit, their then-contemporaneous emotional state, and other topics and content that [HBH] contend[ed] may be admissible in this action.” For example, HBH had “obtained one affected former employee’s Facebook pages” and found that they “contain[ed] a significant variety of relevant information, and further, that other employees posted relevant comments on this Facebook account.”

Court Analysis of Document Request

Judge Hegarty noted that the variety of topics that class members discussed via electronic communications could be viewed “logically as though each class member had a file folder titled ‘Everything About Me,’ which they have voluntarily shared with others.” Therefore, because the documents—if they were in hard copy—would be discoverable if relevant, their existence in electronic form made them likewise discoverable: “The fact that [documents] exist[ ] in cyberspace on an electronic device is a logistical and, perhaps, financial problem, but not a circumstance that removes the information from accessibility by a party opponent in litigation.” Moreover, the fact that the “Everything About Me” folder was stored in this instance on Facebook made the documents perhaps more susceptible to discovery: “There is a strong argument that storing such information on Facebook and making it accessible to others presents an even stronger case for production, at least as it concerns any privacy objection. It was the claimants (or at least some of them) who, by their own volition, created relevant communications and shared them with others.”

As for their relevance, Judge Hegarty ticked through the categories of documents on the Facebook page that HBH had already obtained and noted that each were potentially relevant. Accordingly, and because “other employees posted relevant comments on this Facebook account,” Judge Hegarty required the production of each class member’s social media content.

Also driving Judge Hegarty’s decision was a concern for proportionality: “The cumulative exposure to the Defendant is most definitely well into the low-to-mid seven-figure range. This is important to note when addressing whether the potential cost of producing the discovery is commensurate with the dollar amount at issue.”

Judge’s Ruling

Ultimately, Judge Hegarty held that each class member should produce the following ESI and related devices: cell phones used to send or receive text messages during the relevant period, information necessary to access social media websites used during the relevant period, and information necessary to access “any e-mail account or web blog or similar/related electronically accessed internet or remote location used for communicating with others or posting communications or pictures” during the relevant period.

Protocol for Production Using a Special Master

Though the relevant information was discoverable, Judge Hegarty established a specific protocol for its production. First, the court would appoint a forensic expert to serve as a Special Master to review the produced ESI in camera. “[T]he parties [would] collaborate to create (1) a questionnaire to be given to the Claimants with the intent of identifying all such potential sources of discoverable information; and (2) instructions to be given to the Special Master defining the parameters of the information he will collect.” Judge Hegarty gave the parties specific procedures to follow in the instance of a disagreement during this process. The Special Master could then begin review.

Following in camera review by the special master, Judge Hegarty stipulated that it would also “review the information in camera and require the production to Defendant of only that information which the Court determines is legally relevant under the applicable rules.” The court would then provide the material to the EEOC, which would have an opportunity to conduct a privilege review. The EEOC would then produce nonprivileged information to HBH along with a privilege log. The court would return irrelevant materials to the EEOC and provide a method for the EEOC to contest any relevancy determinations.

Regarding costs of the review, Judge Hegarty ordered the cost of forensic evaluation to be split equally between the parties. Judge Hegarty noted, “The information ordered to be produced is discoverable—information which, if it exists, was created by the Claimants.” However, the court reserved the option to revisit the allocation of costs and to relieve the Plaintiff/Claimants of monetary responsibility if the effort produced little or no relevant information.

So, what do you think?  Was the judge correct in requiring production of user names, passwords and cell phones for each class member?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).  For eDiscovery news and best practices, check out the Applied Discovery Blog here.

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.

Defendant Compelled to Produce Additional Discovery to Plaintiff – eDiscovery Case Law

During this Thanksgiving week, we at eDiscovery Daily thought it would be a good time to catch up on some cases we missed earlier in the year.  So, we will cover a different case each day this week.  Enjoy!

Where the facts of the case led a court to conclude that certain electronically stored information (ESI) could contain evidence relevant to the case, the court ordered a party to comply with its discovery obligations related to that ESI.

In Freeman v. Dal-Tile Corp., No. 5:10-CV-00522-BR, 2012 U.S. Dist. (E.D.N.C. Oct. 2, 2012), a case alleging harassment and discrimination, among other claims, against her former employer Dal-Tile Corporation, the plaintiff brought a motion to compel, asserting that some of the defendant’s discovery responses related to its search for ESI were deficient.

Specifically, the plaintiff sought to compel a keyword search of preserved e-mails belonging to certain individuals for a time frame that began two months after the plaintiff left Dal-Tile. The defendant objected, arguing that because the plaintiff had already left the company during the time frame for e-mails requested, any such e-mails “could not be relevant to Plaintiff’s harassment claims, because ‘the sole issue is whether Dal-Tile knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take appropriate steps to halt it.’”

North Carolina Magistrate Judge William A. Webb disagreed, stating that it was “reasonable to expect” that e-mails written or received during that time period “could contain historical e-mails, i.e., an e-mail chain, given that the requested search period begins only two months after Plaintiff resigned.” Moreover, the plaintiff’s request hit the mark for other reasons: “The custodians whose e-mail Plaintiff requests to have searched are . . . the human resource officer who investigated Plaintiff’s complaints, and . . . the regional vice-president to whom [the human resources officer] reported her investigation findings.” In addition, the search terms that the plaintiff requested were “appropriately limited in number and scope and, thus, reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

Moreover, Judge Webb noted, Dal-Tile did “not assert[ ] that it would be unduly burdensome to search the e-mail[s requested]” or the hard drive of the human resources officer, a search of which the plaintiff had included in her request.

Therefore, the plaintiff’s motion was granted.

So, what do you think?  Should the plaintiff’s motion have been granted?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

From All of Us at CloudNine Discovery and eDiscovery Daily, Happy Thanksgiving!  eDiscovery Daily will resume with new posts next Monday.

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).  For eDiscovery news and best practices, check out the Applied Discovery Blog here.

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.

Email Metadata Leads to Petraeus Resignation – eDiscovery Trends

As reported on by Megan Garber of The Atlantic, email location data led FBI investigators to discover CIA director David Petraeus’ affair with Paula Broadwell that led to his resignation.  The irony is that FBI investigators weren’t aware of, or looking for, information regarding the affair.  Here’s what happened, according to the article.

“Sometime in May, The New York Times reports, Broadwell apparently began sending emails to Jill Kelley, the Petraeus acquaintance (her precise connection to the family isn’t yet fully clear) — and those emails were “harassing,” according to Kelley. The messages were apparently sent from an anonymous (or, at least, pseudonymous) account. Kelley reported those emails to the FBI, which launched an investigation — not into Petraeus, but into the harassing emails.”

“From there, the dominoes began to fall. And they were helped along by the rich data that email providers include in every message they send and deliver — even on behalf of its pseudonymous users. Using the ‘metadata footprints left by the emails,’ the Wall Street Journal reports, ‘FBI agents were able to determine what locations they were sent from. They matched the places, including hotels, where Ms. Broadwell was during the times the emails were sent.’ From there, ‘FBI agents and federal prosecutors used the information as probable cause to seek a warrant to monitor Ms. Broadwell’s email accounts.’”

Once the investigators received that warrant, they “learned that Ms. Broadwell and Mr. Petraeus had set up private Gmail accounts to use for their communications, which included explicit details of a sexual nature, according to U.S. officials. But because Mr. Petraeus used a pseudonym, agents doing the monitoring didn’t immediately uncover that he was the one communicating with Ms. Broadwell.”

Ultimately, monitoring of Ms. Broadwell’s emails identified the link to Mr. Petraeus and the investigation escalated, despite the fact that the investigators “never monitored Mr. Petraeus’s email accounts”.

Needless to say, if the Director of the CIA can be tripped up by email metadata from an account other than his own, it could happen to anyone.  It certainly gives you an idea of the type of information that is discoverable not just from opposing parties, but third parties as well.

So, what do you think?  Have you ever identified additional sources of data through discovery of email metadata?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Thanks to Perry Segal’s e-Discovery Insights blog for the tip on this story!

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.

Defendant Claiming Not Reasonably Accessible Data Has Some ‘Splaining To Do – eDiscovery Case Law

In Murray v. Coleman, No. 08-CV-6383, 2012 U.S. Dist. (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2012), the plaintiff alleged harassment and retaliation in connection with his employment with the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS). This discovery dispute arose when the plaintiff requested access to certain electronic records, alleging that the defendants withheld them.

In his motion, the plaintiff asserted that the defendants “never provided a ‘chronological e-mail history of any kind.’” In response, defense counsel “simply aver[red] that after plaintiff filed this motion to compel, he provided plaintiff with…‘the documents sought’ and, therefore, plaintiff’s motion is ‘moot.’” The plaintiff responded to the defendant’s reply, asserting that “‘virtually no electronic records [were] included’ in defendant’s discovery responses.”

Because the defense counsel’s response to the plaintiff’s motion was “terse,” New York Magistrate Judge Jonathan Feldman stated that it was “difficult . . . to determine whether defendants have in fact produced all relevant electronic records and e-mails as demanded by plaintiff.” Lacking in defense counsel’s response were “details regarding how and where electronically stored information (“ESI”) is held, what efforts were made to preserve relevant ESI, and the method used by defendants to locate, search and produce relevant ESI.”

As such, Judge Feldman “construe[d the defendants’] response as a claim that ESI, including e-mails, [were] not . . . produced because the data demanded [was] destroyed or [was] not ‘reasonably accessible’” pursuant to Rule 26(b)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a producing party to “show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.”

Therefore, because the defendants had not sufficiently demonstrated that the ESI was not reasonably accessible, Judge Feldman ordered as follows:

“Defense counsel shall file an affidavit of a person with direct knowledge of DOCS’s document and e-mail retention system stating: (1) the document/e-mail retention policy used by DOCS currently and during the relevant time periods, (2) the dates of e-mails “reasonably accessible” for production in this litigation, (3) the back up or legacy system, if any, used by DOCS to preserve or archive e-mails that are no longer “reasonably accessible” and whether responsive documents or data may potentially be found on such back up or legacy systems, (4) whether accessing archived or back up e-mails would be unduly burdensome or costly and why, and (5) the date when a litigation hold or document preservation notice was put in place by DOCS regarding this matter and either a copy of or a description of the preservation or litigation hold utilized by DOCS.”  [emphasis added]

Judge Feldman ordered the defense to provide this affidavit within 30 days.

So, what do you think?  Was this an appropriate ruling given the situation?  Or did the defendant deserve sanctions?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).  For eDiscovery news and best practices, check out the Applied Discovery Blog here.

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.

Government Document Productions Can Be Like Water Torture – eDiscovery Case Law

In Botell v. United States, 2012 U.S. Dist. (E.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2012), Magistrate Judge Gregory Hollows noted that the US Government’s “document production performance in these proceedings has been akin to a drop-by-drop water torture” and ordered a preclusion order prohibiting the US Government “from presenting evidence in its case that had been requested by plaintiffs in the Requests for Production, but which has not been produced” as of the date of the order.  The US was also still required to produce the documents, whether they planned to use them or not.  Judge Hollows also noted that the “Plaintiff has not waived any motion to seek further sanctions regarding non-production of documents, or spoliation of documents.”

In this wrongful death and personal injury action at Lassen Volcanic National Park when a mortared rock wall gave way killing one child and injuring another, the US Government produced over 7,000 pages of documents, yet, it was noted that “there is a glaring lack of production of emails from defendant’s agents and employees” with emails having only been produced from one custodian.  As five other custodians were referenced in the produced emails, the plaintiffs contended that emails should have been produced from them as well.  With regard to the back up of emails, one of the defendant declarations described the backup policy as follows: “[b]ack-up emails are retained for 30 days only, unless they are subject to a litigation hold notice or pertain to the BP Gulf Oil spill.”

Judge Hollows ordered the defendants to provide a declaration describing “searches conducted to locate physical and electronic copies of emails” responsive to production requests, noting the declaration “shall state the steps taken to locate these emails, whether any such emails exist, and if not, a definitive statement that they no longer exist. If further responsive documents are located, they shall be produced at the time declarations are filed.”

Summarizing the production issue in his order, Judge Hollows noted as follows:

“At this juncture, the United States has purportedly been looking for documents for months, yet the undersigned, to the date of the hearing, does not have confidence that an organized, thorough search has been performed. Rather, defendant’s document production performance in these proceedings has been akin to a drop-by-drop water torture. At some point, plaintiff must be protected from the United States’ further belated production of pertinent documents.”

As a result, Judge Hollows issued the preclusion order, with the possibility of more sanctions to come.

So, what do you think?  Was the ruling harsh enough?  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.

Are You Requesting the Best Production Format for Your Case? – eDiscovery Best Practices

One of the blogs I read regularly is Ball in your Court from Craig Ball, a previous thought leader interviewee on this blog.  His post from last Tuesday, Are They Trying to Screw Me?, is one that all attorneys that request ESI productions should read.

Ball describes a fairly typical proposed production format, as follows:

“Documents will be produced as single page TIFF files with multi-page extracted text or OCR.  We will furnish delimited IPRO or Opticon load files and will later identify fielded information we plan to exchange.”

Then, he asks the question: “Are they trying to screw you?”  Answer: “Probably not.”  But, “Are you screwing yourself by accepting the proposed form of production?  Yes, probably.”

With regard to producing TIFF files, Ball notes that “Converting a native document to TIFF images is lobotomizing the document.”  The TIFF image is devoid of any of the metadata that provides valuable information about the way in which the document was used, making analysis of the produced documents a much more difficult effort.  Ball sums up TIFF productions by saying “Think of a TIFF as a PDF’s retarded little brother.  I mean no offense by that, but TIFFs are not just differently abled; they are severely handicapped.  Not born that way, but lamed and maimed on purpose.  The other side downgrades what they give you, making it harder to use and stripping it of potentially-probative content.”

Opposing counsel isn’t trying to screw you with a TIFF production.  They just do it because they always provide it that way.  And, you accept it that way because you’ve always accepted it that way.  Ball notes that “You may accept the screwed up proposal because, even if the data is less useful and incomplete, you won’t have to evolve.  You’ll pull the TIFF images into your browser and painstakingly read them one-by-one, just like good ol’ paper; all-the-while telling yourself that what you didn’t get probably wasn’t that important and promising yourself that next time, you’ll hold out for the good stuff—the native stuff.”

We recently ran a blog series called First Pass Review – Of Your Opponent’s Data.  In that series, we discussed how useful that Early Data Assessment/FirstPass Review applications can be in reviewing your opponent’s produced ESI.  At CloudNine Discovery, we use FirstPass®, powered by Venio FPR™ for first pass review – it provides a number of mechanisms that are useful in analyzing your opponent’s produced data.  Capabilities like email analytics and message thread analysis (where missing emails in threads can be identified), synonym searching, fuzzy searching and domain categorization are quite useful in developing an understanding of your opponents production.  However, these mechanisms are only as useful as the data they’re analyzing.  Email analytics, message thread analysis and domain categorization are driven by metadata, so they are useless on TIFF/OCR/data productions.  You can’t analyze what you don’t have.

It’s time to evolve.  To get the most information out of your opponent’s production, you need to request the production in native format.  Opponents are probably not trying to screw you by producing in TIFF format, but you are screwing yourself if you decide to accept it in that format.

So, what do you think?  Do you request native productions from your opponents?  If not, why not?  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.

When is a Billion Dollars Not Enough? – eDiscovery Case Law
 

When it’s Apple v. Samsung, of course!

According to the Huffington Post, Apple Inc. requested a court order for a permanent U.S. sales ban on Samsung Electronics products found to have violated its patents along with additional damages of $707 million on top of the $1.05 billion dollar verdict won by Apple last month, already one of the largest intellectual-property awards on record.

Back in August, a jury of nine found that Samsung infringed all but one of the seven patents at issue and found all seven of Apple's patents valid – despite Samsung's attempts to have them thrown out. They also determined that Apple didn't violate any of the five patents Samsung asserted in the case.  Apple had been requesting $2.5 billion in damages.  Trial Judge Lucy Koh could still also triple the damage award because the jury determined Samsung had acted willfully.

Interviewed after the trial, some of the jurors cited video testimony from Samsung executives and internal emails as key to the verdict, which was returned after just 22 hours of deliberation, despite the fact that the verdict form contained as many as 700 points the jury (including charges brought against different subsidiaries of the two companies addressing multiple patents and numerous products).

Role of Adverse Inference Sanction

As noted on this blog last month, Samsung received an adverse inference instruction from California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal just prior to the start of trial as failure to turn “off” the auto-delete function in Samsung’s proprietary “mySingle” email system resulted in spoliation of evidence as potentially responsive emails were deleted after the duty to preserve began.  As a result, Judge Grewal ordered instructions to the jury to indicate that Samsung had failed to preserve evidence and that evidence could be presumed relevant and favorable to Apple.  However, Judge Lucy Koh decided to modify the “adverse inference” verdict issued for the jury to include instructions that Apple had also failed to preserve evidence.  Therefore, it appears as though the adverse inference instruction was neutralized and did not have a significant impact in the verdict; evidently, enough damning evidence was discovered that doomed Samsung in this case.

Friday's Filings

In a motion filed on Friday, Apple sought approximately $400 million additional in damages for design infringement by Samsung; approximately $135 million for willful infringement of its utility patents; approximately $121 million in supplemental damages based on Samsung's product sales not covered in the jury's deliberation; and approximately $50 million of prejudgment interest on damages through December 31 – total of $707 million requested.  Apple also requested an injunction to cover "any of the infringing products or any other product with a feature or features not more than colorably different from any of the infringing feature or features in any of the Infringing Products."

Not surprisingly, Samsung submitted a filing on Friday, requesting a new trial “enabling adequate time and even-handed treatment of the parties”, stating “The Court's constraints on trial time, witnesses and exhibits were unprecedented for a patent case of this complexity and magnitude, and prevented Samsung from presenting a full and fair case in response to Apple's many claims.”

So, what do you think?  Will Apple get more money?  Will Samsung get a new trial?  If so, will there be more discovery sanctions?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine 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.

eDiscovery Daily is Two Years Old Today!
 

It’s hard to believe that it has been two years ago today since we launched the eDiscoveryDaily blog.  Now that we’ve hit the “terrible twos”, is the blog going to start going off on rants about various eDiscovery topics, like Will McAvoy in The Newsroom?   Maybe.  Or maybe not.  Wouldn’t that be fun!

As we noted when recently acknowledging our 500th post, we have seen traffic on our site (from our first three months of existence to our most recent three months) grow an amazing 442%!  Our subscriber base has nearly doubled in the last year alone!  We now have nearly seven times the visitors to the site as we did when we first started.  We continue to appreciate the interest you’ve shown in the topics and will do our best to continue to provide interesting and useful eDiscovery news and analysis.  That’s what this blog is all about.  And, in each post, we like to ask for you to “please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic”, so we encourage you to do so to make this blog even more useful.

We also want to thank the blogs and publications that have linked to our posts and raised our public awareness, including Pinhawk, The Electronic Discovery Reading Room, Unfiltered Orange, Litigation Support Blog.com, Litigation Support Technology & News, Ride the Lightning, InfoGovernance Engagement Area, Learn About E-Discovery, Alltop, Law.com, Justia Blawg Search, Atkinson-Baker (depo.com), ABA Journal, Complex Discovery, Next Generation eDiscovery Law & Tech Blog and any other publication that has picked up at least one of our posts for reference (sorry if I missed any!).  We really appreciate it!

We like to take a look back every six months at some of the important stories and topics during that time.  So, here are some posts over the last six months you may have missed.  Enjoy!

We talked about best practices for issuing litigation holds and how issuing the litigation hold is just the beginning.

By the way, did you know that if you deleted a photo on Facebook three years ago, it may still be online?

We discussed states (Delaware, Pennsylvania and Florida) that have implemented new rules for eDiscovery in the past few months.

We talked about how to achieve success as a non-attorney in a law firm, providing quality eDiscovery services to your internal “clients” and how to be an eDiscovery consultant, and not just an order taker, for your clients.

We warned you that stop words can stop your searches from being effective, talked about how important it is to test your searches before the meet and confer and discussed the importance of the first 7 to 10 days once litigation hits in addressing eDiscovery issues.

We told you that, sometimes, you may need to collect from custodians that aren’t there, differentiated between quality assurance and quality control and discussed the importance of making sure that file counts add up to what was collected (with an example, no less).

By the way, did you know the number of pages in a gigabyte can vary widely and the same exact content in different file formats can vary by as much as 16 to 20 times in size?

We provided a book review on Zubulake’s e-Discovery and then interviewed the author, Laura Zubulake, as well.

BTW, eDiscovery Daily has had 150 posts related to eDiscovery Case Law since the blog began.  Fifty of them have been in the last six months.

P.S. – We still haven't missed a business day yet without a post.  Yes, we are crazy.

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.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Repairing a Corrupted Outlook PST File
 

We like to believe that there will never be any problems with the data that we preserve, collect and process for eDiscovery purposes.  Sometimes, however, critical data may be difficult or impossible to use.  Perhaps key files are password protected from being opened and the only way to open them is to “crack” the password.  Or, perhaps a key file may be corrupted.  If that file is an Outlook Personal Storage Table (PST) file, that file corruption could literally make tens of thousands of documents unavailable for discovery unless the file can be repaired.

I recently had a case where 40% of the collection was contained in 2 corrupt Outlook PST files.  Had we not been able to repair those files, we would have been unable to access nearly half of the collection that needed to be reviewed for responsiveness in the case.

Fortunately, there is a repair tool for Outlook designed to repair corrupted PST files.  It’s called SCANPST.EXE.  It’s an official repair tool that is included in Office 2010 (as well as Office 2007 before it).  As a very useful utility, you might think that SCANPST would be located in the Microsoft Office 2010 Tools folder within the Microsoft Office folder in Program files.  But, you’d be wrong.  Instead, you’ll have to open Windows Explorer and navigate to the C:Program FilesMicrosoft OfficeOffice14 folder (for Office 2010, at least) to find the SCANPST.EXE utility.

Double-click this file to open Microsoft Outlook Inbox Repair Tool.  The utility will prompt for the path and name of the PST file (with a Browse button to browse to the corrupted PST file).  There is also an Options button to enable you to log activity to a new log file, append to an existing log file or choose not to write to a log file.  Before you start, you’ll need to close Outlook and all mail-enabled applications. 

Once ready, press the Start button and the application will begin checking for errors. When the process is complete, it should indicate that it found errors on the corrupted PST file, along with a count of folders and items found in the file.  The utility will also provide a check box to make a backup of the scanned file before repairing.  ALWAYS make a backup – you never know what might happen during the repair process.  Click the Repair button when ready and the utility will hopefully repair the corrupted PST file.

If SCANPST.EXE fails to repair the file, then there are some third party utilities available that may succeed where SCANPST failed.  If all else fails, you can hire a data recovery expert, but that can get very expensive.  Hopefully, you don’t have to resort to that.

By repairing the PST file, you are technically changing the file, so if the PST file is discoverable, it will probably be necessary to disclose the corruption to opposing counsel and the intent to attempt to repair the file to avoid potential spoliation claims.

So, what do you think?  Have you encountered corrupted PST files in 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 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.

eDiscovery Case Law: Social Media Is No Different than eMail for Discovery Purposes
 

In Robinson v. Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-00127-PK (D. Or. Aug. 29, 2012), Oregon Magistrate Judge Paul Papak found that social media is just another form of electronically stored information (ESI), stating “I see no principled reason to articulate different standards for the discoverability of communications through email, text message, or social media platforms. I therefore fashion a single order covering all these communications.”

In this employment discrimination case, the defendants sought discovery from the plaintiff, including “all of Robinson's email and text message communications with current and former Jones Lang employees” and, most notably “all social media content involving Robinson since July 1, 2008, including photographs, videos, and blogs, as well as Facebook, linkedIn, and MySpace content that reveals or relates to Robinson's. "emotion, feeling, or mental state," to "events that could be reasonably expected to produce a significant emotion, feeling, or mental state," or to allegations in Robinson's complaint”.

In rendering his decision, Judge Papak referenced “[t]he most frequently cited and well-reasoned case addressing the discoverability of social media communications involving emotional distress” (E.E. O. C. v. Simply Storage Mgmt., LLC, 270 F.R.D. 430, 432 (S.D. Ind. 2010)).  In that case, Judge Papak noted that “the court recognized that social media can provide information inconsistent with a plaintiffs allegation that defendant's conduct caused her emotional distress, whether by revealing alternate sources of that emotional distress or undermining plaintiff s allegations of the severity of that distress.”

With the principles of the Simply Storage case in mind, Judge Papak ordered the plaintiff to produce:

“(I) any:

(a) email or text messages that plaintiff sent to, received from, or exchanged with any current and former employee of defendant, as well as messages forwarding such messages; or

(b) online social media communications by plaintiff, including profiles, postings, messages, status updates, wall comments, causes joined, groups joined, activity streams, applications, blog entries, photographs, or media clips, as well as third-party online social media communications that place plaintiff's own communications in context;

(2) from July 1, 2008 to the present;

(3) that reveal, refer, or relate to:

(a) any significant emotion, feeling, or mental state allegedly caused by defendant's conduct; or

(b) events or communications that could reasonably be expected to produce a significant emotion, feeling, or mental state allegedly caused by defendant's conduct.”

Understanding the difficulty of establishing an appropriate level of discovery, Judge Papak stated “As Simply Storage recognized, it is impossible for the court to define the limits of discover in such cases with enough precision to satisfy the litigant who is called upon to make a responsive production…Nevertheless, the court expects counsel to determine what information falls within the scope of this court's order in good faith and consistent with their obligations as officers of the court. Defendant may, of course, inquire about what "has and has not been produced and can challenge the production if it believes the production falls short of the requirements of this order."…Moreover, the parties may ask the court to revise this order in the future based on the results of plaintiffs deposition or other discovery.”

So, what do you think?  Should all media be handled the same in discovery, or should there be differences?  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.