Close
Enter your
text here

Email

eDiscovery Case Law: Bankruptcy Court Denies Foreign Access to Debtor's Emails

A Southern District of New York United States Bankruptcy Court denied access to a debtor’s emails on July 22, in a foreign request involving international eDiscovery.

In re Toft, No. 11-11049 (ALG), 2011 WL 3023544 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2011), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court determined that to permit a relief request from a German insolvency administrator would directly contravene the “fundamental principles” of U.S. public policy by undermining the right to privacy in electronic communications and the right of parties involved in any court order to receive notice of such proceedings and of their involvement.

  • Dr. Martin Prager, in his role as authorized insolvency administrator in a German bankruptcy proceeding, sought permission to access the mail and electronic correspondence of Dr. Jurgen Toft. Although the majority of such correspondence was located under European purview, two of the email accounts belonging to the debtor were found to be stored on servers owned by U.S. Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”).
  • The Munich District Insolvency Court had previously approved a Mail Interception Order, which had been granted recognition by the English High Court of Justice before being brought before the United States Bankruptcy Court.
  • Prager sought a U.S. court order that would grant comity to his German Mail Interception Order and compel the two American ISPs to provide him with “all of the Debtor’s e-mails currently stored on their servers and to deliver to Prager copies of all e-mails received by the Debtor in future,” without notice being provided to the debtor by either the court or the ISPs.
  • Despite the approval of the English High Court of Justice, the US Bankruptcy Court found that it could not grant relief to Prager’s request. The court determined that to grant access to emails as requested by Prager would be “banned under U.S. law, and it would seemingly result in criminal liability under the Wiretap Act and the Privacy Act for those who carried it out.”
  • In addition, the court observed that providing permission for access to emails without informing the debtor would also be contrary to U.S. law, which requires that all parties involved in any court order must receive notice.
  • As a result, the court concluded that the relief request was impossible to grant without running “manifestly contrary” to U.S. law and public policy, and did not honor Prager’s request.

So, what do you think? Was the court’s rejection of Prager’s request the only answer, or were there other routes that could have been taken in dealing with this international eDiscovery request? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Breaking News: News International to Suspend Deletion of Emails and Other Documents
 

According to The Independent, staff at Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers has been warned to stop deleting any documents that may be relevant to the current investigations, as a suspension of its usual policy about deletion of documents goes into effect.

Over the course of the 2011 investigation into illegal voicemail hacking by News International employees, there has been contention over the ongoing deletion of documents at the newspaper and its subsidiaries. But only during this past weekend did News International's parent company, News Corp, finally send an email to all of its employees instructing them to take measures preventing the deletion of documents that might be related to the investigation, including emails and other ESI.  Specifically, the email instructed employees to “Please suspend any automatic deletion or discarding of any documents, whether electronic or paper, including emails or drafts of documents… If you are uncertain whether a document is relevant… you should preserve it.”

Of course, the News Corp scandal has been not only significant eDiscovery news, but major world news as well.

  • Since January 2011, police have been investigating a list of roughly 4,000 potential targets whose voicemails may have been hacked as part of this scandal – including Hollywood celebrities, sports figures, politicians, and even members of the British Royal Family, most of whom were unaware of how easily their cell phone functions were hacked.
  • The newsroom at News of the World, the newspaper implicated in the systematic phone hacking, has been closed.
  • Sean Hoare, the whistle-blower who disclosed phone hacking at News of the World, was found dead in his home in Watford, Hertfordshire.  No cause of death has yet been identified.
  • During testimony to Parliament last week, Rupert Murdoch was attacked – by a pie wielding comedian, who was thwarted by Murdoch’s wife Wendi.

Although this email sends a positive message about News Corp's willingness to protect eDiscovery information from this point forward, the instruction arguably comes too late to protect the documents and other ESI that have potentially been destroyed in the months since the investigation into the paper's illegal phone hacking began as well as the years when News Corp faced numerous hacking claims during key periods associated with the those claims.  News International has acknowledged that some messages may be recoverable on backup disks, and the police are trying to recover that information now, said Tom Watson, a Labor Party member of Parliament.

From an eDiscovery perspective, this story may become “Enron-esque” before it’s all over.

So, what do you think? Is this instruction from News International a step toward greater openness and responsibility in this investigation, or is it simply a case of too little, too late? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Meet and Confer is Too Late for Preservation Hold

A US District court in Indiana ruled on June 28, 2011 in favor of a motion for an Order to Secure Evidence in an employment discrimination lawsuit.

The defendant in Haraburda v. Arcelor Mittal USA, Inc., No. 2:11 cv 93, 2011 WL 2600756 (N.D. Ind. June 28, 2011) had given the plaintiff reason to believe that emails and other relevant documents might be destroyed prior to Rule 26(f) meeting between the parties or Rule 16(b) discovery conference with the court. As a result, the plaintiff formally requested a litigation hold on all potentially relevant documents, which was approved by US Magistrate Judge Andrew Rodovich.

  • Shortly after filing a complaint of employment discrimination, the plaintiff, Marie A. Haraburda, became concerned that the defendant might destroy evidence that she intended to request in discovery. She emailed Sharon Stillman, a human resources manager of the defendant, Arcelor Mittal, about emails that had previously been deleted from her account and was informed that “files stored on company computers are company property and can be assessed and/or deleted as the company views appropriate”.
  • The defendant refused the plaintiff’s request that the defendant place a litigation hold on evidence or take other measures to protect potentially relevant documents, with the comment that such a request by the plaintiff was “premature”.
  • The plaintiff came to believe that the defendant would destroy relevant evidence before the Rule 26(f) discovery confidence, and, therefore, moved for an Order to Preserve Evidence.

In ruling, the court reminded all parties that they have “a duty to preserve evidence when [they know], or should have known, that litigation was imminent.” “Evidence” includes any materials that are relevant or could be deemed relevant during the litigation, including such emails as the plaintiff had brought to the defendant’s attention via Ms. Stillman. A large corporation, therefore, has a duty to not only create a “comprehensive” data protection plan to ensure that documents are preserved, but to inform its employees of that policy so that it will be scrupulously upheld, said the court.

The court also expressed the belief that given the plaintiff’s potential for difficulty if relevant materials were not protected, and in the absence of additional burden on the defendant to preserve existing evidence, the plaintiff’s motion was reasonable.  Accordingly, the court ordered a litigation hold placed “on any and all documents and information that may reasonably be related to the pending litigation”.

So, what do you think? Given previous case law examples, are you surprised that the defendant tried to delay the litigation hold? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: No Sanctions Ordered for Failure to Preserve Backups

A sanctions motion has been dismissed by the U.S. District Court of Texas in a recent case involving electronic backups and email records, on the grounds that there was no duty to preserve backup tapes and no bad faith in overwriting records.

The plaintiffs in Ajay Gaalla, et al v. Citizens Medical Center, et al, No. V-10-14, 2011 WL 2115670 (S.D. Tex. May 27, 2011) had made a motion for sanctions against the defendant for alleged damage to backup tapes, including emails and other electronic documentation. On May 27, the court denied the motion for sanctions against the defendant, although new instructions on maintaining copies of disaster recovery files have been imposed in this case.

  • Plaintiffs presented the argument that the “recycling” or overwriting of disaster recovery backup tapes by the defendant, performed on a 7- or 14-day cycle after the lawsuit was filed, represented spoliation. Accordingly, the plaintiffs requested the maximum sanctions against the defendant for “failure to preserve the backup tapes.”
  • Preservation of backup tapes was not previously been discussed in this case until this motion for sanctions on grounds of data spoliation, but plaintiffs alleged that the failure to preserve backups, coupled with the failure to take snapshots of particular email accounts and “evidence that certain CMC employees had deleted emails from their account at some point in the past”, warranted harsh sanctions.
  • The defendants argued that they had no duty to preserve backups of records, since disaster recovery systems are “rarely” backed up after litigation has begun. They also presented “snapshots” taken of email accounts to demonstrate that there was no intent to destroy information and that attempts had been made to record all relevant evidence.
  • The court referred to the ruling in Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. (S.D.N.Y. 2003), which states: “[A] litigation hold does not apply to inaccessible backup tapes (e.g., those typically maintained solely for the purpose of disaster recovery), which may continue to be recycled on the schedule set forth in the company’s policy.” Under this standard, the court found that the defendant was within its rights to overwrite the existing backups as often as such maintenance was normally scheduled.
  • The court also ruled that, with no prior discussion of the backup tapes and “in the context of this case,” there was no cause for sanctions against the defendant, lacking evidence that the defendant acted in bad faith in recycling the tapes used to make the recovery backups.
  • However, the court did order additional discovery efforts to be undertaken in the form of “disaster recovery first of the month” email files to be preserved in their current state and that plaintiffs’ expert be allowed to search them (at defendant’s expense) as well as a “journaling” process to retain email accounts of key parties in the case.

So, what do you think? Do parties have an obligation to maintain copies of all backup tapes for litigation? Please share any comments you might have, or let us know if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: The Challenges of International eDiscovery
 

Litigation would be simpler if business never crossed international boundaries, but it often does. Global corporations have dozens of offices and thousands of employees scattered around the world, while smaller businesses may outsource call center work or manufacturing to China, India, or other countries that offer inexpensive labor.

As a result, eDiscovery can be complicated by international laws and the regulations regarding discovery across national borders, as well as the usual questions that affect legal discovery within the United States. Even if US courts have jurisdiction over entities from other countries and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to discovery requests, there are still several issues and challenges associated with international eDiscovery, including:

  • Location of Data: Thanks to the widespread use of cloud computing and other types of online storage, the physical location of ESI sought in eDiscovery is not always easy to pinpoint. Information transmitted electronically in an email or text message, can pass through any number of phone lines and routers, to many servers and client machines around the globe, so determining the location of a message can become virtually impossible. As a result, it can be difficult to know which nation's laws on eDiscovery should be applied, much less how to execute them.
  • Expense: Due to the complexity of requesting eDiscovery through foreign channels, and under the legal restrictions imposed by foreign governments, the cost of tracking information across international borders is much higher than eDiscovery conducted solely within the US.
  • International Law: Every nation has its own laws and regulations surrounding electronic data and discovery practices, so it's important to understand legislation in the relevant countries and, when appropriate, take measures to contact the proper authorities before moving forward. Discovery practices that are common and legal in the US can be considered criminal in some other countries, so it’s critical to have foreknowledge of the laws and rules you'll be facing.
  • Cultural Issues: Along with variations in international law comes the difficulty of rationalizing the need for eDiscovery to foreign countries who may have different views on privacy. In a country where pretrial discovery is not the norm, the request for eDiscovery may be a strange and unwelcome concept that can often result in misunderstandings and non-compliance. Explaining American laws and customs becomes a vital role of any attorney seeking international eDiscovery.

In future posts, we will be discussing international eDiscovery issues in more depth, including the Hague Convention, privacy protection laws, blocking statutes and other challenges to eDiscovery abroad.

So, what do you think? Have you experienced these same issues, or are there other challenges you've faced in international eDiscovery? Please share any comments you might have, or let us know if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: If You Use Auto-Delete, Know When to Turn It Off
 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(f), adopted in 2006, is known as the “safe harbor” rule.  It provides that “[a]bsent exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions under these rules on a party for failing to provide electronically stored information lost as a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.”

Let’s face it, every time we turn on our computers, we overwrite data.  And, the mere opening of files (without changing any data) can change the metadata of a file – for example, simply opening a Microsoft Access® database changes the last modified date of the Access file, even if no records are changed.  If there wasn’t some measure of “safe harbor” protection, an organization facing litigation might find it very difficult to conduct business during the case.

While it’s not always clear to what extent “safe harbor” protection extends, one case from a few years ago, Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington v. Washington Metrop. Trans. Auth., D.D.C. June 2007, seemed to indicate where it does NOT extend – auto-deletion of emails.  In this case, the defendant failed to suspend auto-delete on its email system when their preservation obligation commenced, resulting in emails only being available on back-up tapes.  Their argument that the tapes were “not reasonably accessible” was denied by the court, describing their request as “chutzpah”.

Of course, email, like any other type of ESI, should be subject to document retention and destruction policies and old emails should be purged when they reach the end of the retention period.  Microsoft Outlook® provides an option via its Auto Archive function to delete the emails instead of archiving them.  You can select this setting for all emails (via the Tools, Options menu, Other tab) or for selected folders (by right-clicking on them, selecting Properties and then selecting the AutoArchive tab).  That’s at the client level.

But, most organizations use Outlook through Exchange.  Exchange Manager enables administrators to set auto delete policies for the email user population to manage retention and destruction of emails, thus being able to disable  the auto delete function for users when the duty to preserve arises.  If your organization uses auto-delete, it’s important to have a policy in place for disabling auto-delete for litigation, whether at the Outlook client level, the Exchange level or with any other email system.

So, what do you think?  Does your organization use auto-deletion of emails?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Message Thread Review Saves Costs and Improves Consistency
 

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.  But, in ESI review, it can be even worse when you get a different result.

One of the biggest challenges when reviewing ESI is identifying duplicates so that your reviewers aren’t reviewing the same files again and again.  Not only does that drive up costs unnecessarily, but it could lead to problems if the same file is categorized differently by different reviewers (for example, inadvertent production of a duplicate of a privileged file if it is not correctly categorized).

Of course, there are a number of ways to identify duplicates.  Exact duplicates (that contain the exact same content in the same file format) can be identified through hash values, which are a digital fingerprint of the content of the file.  MD5 and SHA-1 are the most popular hashing algorithms, which can identify exact duplicates of a file, so that they can be removed from the review population.  Since many of the same emails are emailed to multiple parties and the same files are stored on different drives, deduplication through hashing can save considerable review costs.

Sometimes, files are not exact duplicates but contain the same (or almost the same) information.  One example is a Word document published to an Adobe PDF file – the content is the same, but the file format is different, so the hash value will be different.  Near-deduplication can be used to identify files where most or all of the content matches so they can be verified as duplicates and eliminated from review.

Then, there is message thread analysis.  Of course, most email messages are part of a larger discussion, which could be just between two parties, or include a number of parties in the discussion.  To review each email in the discussion thread would result in much of the same information being reviewed over and over again.  Instead, message thread analysis pulls those messages together and enables them to be reviewed as an entire discussion.  That includes any side conversations within the discussion that may or may not be related to the original topic (e.g., a side discussion about lunch plans or did you see American Idol last night).

FirstPass®, powered by Venio FPR™, is one example of an application that provides a mechanism for message thread analysis of Outlook emails that pulls the entire thread into one conversation for review as one big “tree”.  The “tree” representation gives you the ability to see all of the conversations within the discussion and focus your review on the last emails in each conversation to see what is said without having to review each email.  Side conversations are “branches” of the tree and FirstPass enables you to tag individual messages, specific branches or the entire tree as responsive, non-responsive, privileged or some other designation.  Also, because of the way that Outlook tracks emails in the thread, FirstPass identifies messages that are missing from the collection with a red X, enabling you to investigate and determine if additional collection is needed and avoiding potential spoliation claims.

With message thread analysis, you can minimize review of duplicative information within emails, saving time and cost and ensuring consistency in the review.

So, what do you think?  Does your review tool support message thread analysis?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Think Before You Hit Send
 

It’s not the only instance of a one character typo possibly ending a career; instead, it may simply be the latest.

Unless you’re living under a rock, you’re probably aware of the “Twittergate” story involving Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), where he initially claimed that a lewd photo posted via Twitter was posted by a hacker to his account, then subsequently admitted this past Monday that he, in fact, posted that picture.  Many are calling for him to resign from his Congressional position after posting the picture, as well as sending other pictures, which have since been identified.  (If you have been living under a rock, you can click here for more on the story).

The irony is that a one-letter typo may turn out to be his undoing.  Weiner intended to send the “tweet” as a direct message to another Twitter user, but used the ‘@’ instead of the ‘d’ (to indicate a direct message) to reference that user.  As a result, the message was published to all his followers, not just the intended party.  In fairness, even if he had sent the direct message correctly, he used a public photo sharing service, yFrog, to share the photo, so anyone that chose to browse through all of his photos would have still seen the controversial photo.

It is easier to communicate than ever, with a myriad of options from which to choose, including voice, video, email, posts, texts and “tweets”.  Perhaps, it’s becoming too easy.  Courthouses are filled with cases where “informal” communications are key evidence in determining the outcome of the case.  The formal typed letter has given way to the informal media of email to the even more informal media of posts, texts and “tweets”.  Now, just as important as the adage “think before you speak” is the adage “think before you hit send”.

We’ve all been there, hopefully with much less disastrous consequences.  If you’ve never selected ‘Reply to All’ by accident instead of ‘Reply’ when intending to reply to only the sender, please call me and let me know your secret.  Or, maybe, you’ve sent an email when upset that you regretted later.  Once released, those mistakes are out there and are difficult (if not impossible) to recall.

If you’re not in the habit of doing so already, it’s a good idea to take a deep breath before each email sent or each post made and review what you’re about to send out into the world.  Think before you hit send.  If you don’t, you just might be the topic on a future ‘eDiscovery Case Law’ post on eDiscoveryDaily!  😉

So, what do you think?  Do you have any cases that are driven by informal communications?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Completing Production AFTER Trial is Too Late

In DL v. District of Columbia, No. 05-1437 (RCL) (D.D.C. May 9, 2011), repeated, flagrant, and unrepentant failures of the District of Columbia to comply with discovery orders, failure to supplement discovery responses, and eventual production of thousands of e-mails—some more than two years old—after the date of trial resulted in a sanction of waiver of privilege over documents sought by plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs filed an action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief for the failure of the District of Columbia Government to provide them with a free appropriate public education as required under the Individuals with Disabilities and Education Act. On the first day of trial six years later, counsel for the District acknowledged that the District several days earlier had begun a rolling production of thousands of emails per day that was expected to continue through the end of trial. Counsel for the District stated that the court had not been informed of production problems because it had been hoped review of the documents for relevance and privilege and thus production of the documents could have been completed earlier. From the bench, the court ordered the District to produce all of the email without objection and with privilege waived within one week of the end of the trial so that plaintiffs could seek to supplement the trial record if necessary. The District sought reconsideration of the order.

Likening the District’s posture to an airplane with landing gear that deploys only after touchdown, the court denied the District’s motion. Waiver of privilege was an appropriate sanction because it was just and was proportional between offense and sanction, considering the District’s violation of multiple discovery orders and failure to meet its obligation to supplement its discovery responses. The court concluded that its sanction was justified considering prejudice to plaintiffs, prejudice to the judicial system, and the need to deter similar misconduct in the future. Since the District chose not to bring the situation to the court’s attention until the day of trial, the court “had no practical alternative short of entering a default.”

The court held that whether the District had acted in good faith and whether plaintiffs also had committed discovery violations was irrelevant:

Whether the District made a good-faith effort to produce all responsive e-mails before the trial is irrelevant. As explained above, it was not sanctioned for failing to make a good-faith effort. It was sanctioned for openly, continuously, and repeatedly violating multiple Court orders, failing to adhere to or even acknowledge the existence of the Federal Rules’ discovery framework, and committing a discovery abuse so extreme as to be literally unheard of in this Court. The Rules require more than simply making a good-faith effort to produce documents. They require adherence to a very precise framework for navigating the discovery process. Moreover, the duty to adhere to clear Court orders is among a lawyer’s most basic. Were it not for those two directives—the Federal Rules’ discovery framework and Court orders regarding discovery — discovery would devolve into pure bedlam. Disciplined adherence to those Rules and Orders on the part of courts as well as parties is the only tool our system has to wrangle the whirlwind as it were and tame an otherwise unmanageable part of the litigation process. A good-faith effort to produce documents in the absence of adherence to Court orders and the Federal Rules is useless.

So, what do you think?  Have you ever had opposing counsel try to produce documents at the beginning of trial – or even after?  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.

eDiscovery Trends: Email Footers Give Privilege Searches the Boot
 

This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the intended recipient(s) only and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or legally protected.  Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail message and delete all copies of the original communication. Thank you for your cooperation.

This is an example of a standard email disclaimer often automated to appear in the footer of outgoing emails to disclaim liability.  Many organizations choose to add disclaimers to their emails for legal protection to attempt to protect themselves from legal threats such as breach of confidentiality or accidental breach of privilege.

However, when it comes time to collect and search email collections for confidentiality and privilege, these email footers can wreak havoc with those searches.  Searches for the words “confidential” or “privileged” will essentially be rendered useless as they will literally retrieve every email with the email disclaimer footer in it.

So, what to do?

One way to address the issue is to identify any other variations of words and phrases that might imply privilege.  Searching for phrases like “attorney client” or “attorney work product” – provided those phrases are not in the footer – may identify many of the privileged files.

Another way is to shift your search focus to names of individuals likely to conduct privileged communications, such as the names of the attorneys communicating with the organization.  Sometimes you may not know the names of all of the attorneys, so a search for domains associated with the outside counsel firms should identify the names of the individuals sending from or receiving to those domains.

If searching for the term "privileged" is still the best way to ensure that you find all of the potentially privileged files, one of our readers, Mark Lyon, actually identified a better way to search for the term “privileged” that I sheepishly admit I did not think of late last night when I wrote this, so I had to amend this post to include it (a first!).   Identifying the various footers at use within at least the main companies included in the collection, then excluding those entire footers from the index will remove those footers from filling up your search results.  Another reader, Joe Howie, has discussed in more detail an approach for removing those footers from the index.  Thanks to both Mark and Joe for keeping me on my toes!  🙂

So, what do you think?  Are email disclaimer footers making your privileged searches more complicated?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.