Close
Enter your
text here

Email

Court Gives Plaintiff 21.5 Million Reasons for Not Spoliating Emails: eDiscovery Case Law

When you spoliate data, you can lose even after you’ve won…  :o)

In Hausman v. Holland America Line-U.S.A., et al., No. CV13-0937 BJR (W.D. Wa., Jan 5, 2016), Washington District Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein vacated a $21.5 million verdict awarded to a man injured by a closing cruise-ship door in 2011 and ordered a new trial, after the plaintiff’s former assistant alleged that he deleted emails that could hurt his case.

Case Background

The plaintiff sued the defendant in 2013, stating that he suffered dizziness and seizures after an automatic sliding glass door improperly closed and struck his head as the vessel approached Honolulu. After a two-week trial in October, a jury awarded him $21.5 million.

However, the matter did not end there. Approximately two weeks after the trial concluded, the defendants were approached by the plaintiff’s former personal assistant who informed them that the plaintiff had deliberately sabotaged the defendants’ pre-trial discovery efforts, alleging that he: (1) Deleted and/or failed to disclose the existence of emails that he knew were relevant to this lawsuit, (2) Tampered with witness testimony, (3) Fabricated and/or exaggerated the extent of his alleged injuries, and (4) Testified falsely at trial.

Through witness testimony and supporting documents from the personal assistant at an evidentiary hearing held in December, the following allegations were made:

  • The plaintiff panicked when he learned that he would have to produce emails responsive to certain terms and began searching for and deleting those emails over “several days”;
  • He instructed her to delete all email correspondence between the two of them from her computer and phone, which she proceeded to do;
  • He discussed hiring someone to “scrub” his computer and that claimed he had used a large magnet to damage his home office computer’s hard drive; and
  • He had a second personal email account that he used while she was employed as his personal assistant, but that he did not disclose this account to the defendants.

In support of her testimony, the defendants produced copies of 60 emails that she was able to recover from her computer and/or phone after she deleted them, approximately 1/3 of which contained search terms that should have triggered their production.  In one of the deleted emails, the plaintiff wrote to his assistant to say he was sore after spending most of the day on a 10-foot ladder using a fire ax to chop ice that had built up over the front porch of his house, contrary to his claim of vertigo after the incident.

The plaintiff conceded that he did not produce those emails and that nearly one-third of the emails contain the Court-ordered search terms, but claimed the failure to produce these emails was not the result of misconduct on his part, but simply as part of his routine practice of clearing out his inbox.

Judge’s Ruling

In making her ruling, Judge Rothstein stated that “the credibility of Ms. Mizeur and Mr. Hausman is at the heart of this motion: Ms. Mizeur charges that Mr. Hausman intentionally sabotaged Defendants’ discovery efforts and is lying to cover his misconduct; Mr. Hausman charges that Ms. Mizeur is a bitter ex-employee who is lying because she wants to wreak havoc on his life. Thus, this Court must assess the credibility of Ms. Mizeur and Mr. Hausman.”

Finding the former assistant’s explanation regarding a check that she wrote to herself from the plaintiff’s account as an approved expense as “credible”, Judge Rothstein stated “[i]n short, this Court finds Ms. Mizeur to be a truthful witness.”

As for the plaintiff, not so much.

“The same cannot be said for Mr. Hausman”, Judge Rothstein stated. “As a witness, he came across evasive and untrustworthy. He appeared to weigh each answer, not for its truthfulness, but to assess whether it would damage his case. Mr. Hausman also seemed to capitalize on his alleged brain injury when it was convenient for him. He was confused or claimed memory loss when confronted with a question or exhibit that appeared to undermine his claims, yet was animated and full of information when his testimony supported his case.”

Finding “that Plaintiff did not meet his burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the withheld information was inconsequential”, Judge Rothstein concluded “that a miscarriage of justice occurred in this case”, vacated the judgment entered in the case and ordered a new trial.

So, what do you think?  Was this sanction excessive?  Is it ever too late to sanction a party for intentional spoliation of data?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Thanks, as always, to Sharon Nelson’s excellent Ride the Lightning blog for the tip!

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.

Calling First 30(b)(6) Witness a “Waste of Time”, Court Orders a Second Deposition: eDiscovery Case Law

In Rembert v. Cheverko et. al., No. 12-9196 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 9, 2015), New York District Judge Katherine B. Forrest granted the plaintiff’s motion “in its entirety” to compel the defendants to provide a properly prepared 30(b)(6) witness to testify regarding the defendants’ preservation and production of emails, to provide copies of document retention/preservation notices issued and to reimburse plaintiff’s costs and fees associated with having to conduct an additional deposition.

Case Background

In this civil suit filed by an inmate in the Westchester County Department of Corrections system over failure to properly treat a fractured arm, the plaintiff sought documents including any email communications between prison staff about the plaintiff.  The defendants failed to respond to that request for over three months, at which time they simply stated that they were not in possession of any such communications.  At a conference two days later, when pressed, defendants’ counsel conceded that defendants had not performed any search for emails and committed to expeditiously search for electronic documents for their witnesses, but still failed to provide any additional emails, despite the fact that five defendants’ witnesses confirmed that they used email to communicate about their patients and that responsive documents about the plaintiff should exist.

The plaintiff issued a motion to compel, to which defense counsel responded by calling the allegations regarding email collection “reckless and, frankly, scurrilous.”  Nonetheless, counsel for defendants ultimately made a small production of several emails to plaintiff’s counsel just before a court conference in July, which the plaintiff’s counsel determined to be incomplete.  The Court then outlined several possible ways of proceeding to resolve this email issue including a 30(b)(6) deposition.  The defendant’s motion to strike the 30(b)(6) deposition was denied and the deposition proceeded on September 25.

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to the 30(b)(6) deposition that was conducted, Judge Forrest noted “it is clear from the transcript that the witness was not prepared to deal with even the most basic topics set forth in the notice. It was a pure waste of time.”  Continuing, she stated:

“The designated witness, Peter Gavin, the Director of Health Information, testified that he had met with defense counsel once, for “an hour, I think.”…This is in contrast to defense counsel’s representation in his response to this motion that he prepared Mr. Gavin over the course of two days….Someone’s recollection is incorrect. Mr. Gavin did not know the version of the email platform used, whether Correct Care maintains the emails on its own server or works with a third party to do that, whether the storage is cloud-based, whether there are any size constraints on the amount of email data that a user can retain, what deletion practices were employed automatically, periodically or specifically, he was unfamiliar with ways of archiving emails other than his own personal practice, whether emails and documents were stored on the hard drive of a user’s computer or on a network server, whether emails sent or received through cell-phones would go through a web-mail client, whether Correct Care backs-up email, etc.”

As a result, Judge Forrest granted the plaintiff’s motion, stating that “[a] properly prepared 30(b)(6) witness shall be made available not later than October 23, 2015. Counsel shall confer on the appropriate location to take the deposition. As plaintiff should not have to have made this motion given the Court’s prior rulings and warnings, defendants shall pay the costs plaintiff has incurred in bringing this motion including: reasonable attorney’s fees for attending the useless deposition of Mr. Gavin and bringing this motion, and court reporter fees for the deposition of Mr. Gavin. Such costs shall be paid to the Patterson Belknap firm within 30 days of this Order. Defendant shall also provide plaintiff and the Court with copies of any document retention/preservation notices issued in connection with this case and the recipients of such hold notice. Such production shall occur not later than October 16, 2015.”

So, what do you think?  Have you ever been involved in a case where a second 30(b)(6) witness had to be produced?  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.

Court Orders Defendant to Produce Metadata for Previously Produced Emails: eDiscovery Case Law

In Prezio Health, Inc. v. Schenk, et. al., No. 13-1463 (D. Conn., Sept. 9, 2015), after “a careful in camera review” of emails responsive to eighteen keyword search terms, Connecticut Magistrate Judge Joan Glazer Margolis ordered the defendant to produce metadata for eight specific emails which had already been produced to the plaintiff.

Case Background

In this dispute over a non-compete provision, the plaintiff provided a list of 18 search terms to be used in searching the defendants’ computers for emails sent and received by the individual defendant during an 8 month period in 2013. When the defendants produced no documents in response to the search request, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel, requesting that the defendants produce all computers or hard drives in their possession on which the individual defendant might have sent or received emails during the relevant timeframe.

In their brief in opposition, the defendants argued, inter alia, that defense counsel had conducted a search of the eighteen search terms and would produce all non-privileged documents that relate to the individual defendant’s employment with either plaintiff or the defendant company, all of which probably were previously produced in this litigation.  The defendants also suggested that they conduct a search of the individual defendant’s email account in an in camera setting for the Court.  In its reply brief, plaintiff countered, inter alia, that it was still entitled to the metadata from these documents.  Per their suggestion, in August, the court ordered the defendants to produce the items responsive to the eighteen search terms for in camera review, and both parties produced emails for the in camera review.

Judge’s Ruling

Regarding the plaintiff’s request for metadata, Judge Margolis stated: “After a careful in camera review, plaintiff is entitled to the metadata for the following eight emails: the two May 6, 2013 emails; the May 13, 2013 email; the two June 6, 2013 emails; the two October 16, 2012 emails; and the December 13, 2012 email. Unless counsel agree otherwise, defense counsel shall make the necessary arrangements and plaintiff promptly shall reimburse defendants for any expenses borne as a result.”

Judge Margolis also stated that “[t]his is not a Recommended Ruling, but a ruling on a non-dispositive motion… As such, it is an order of the Court unless reversed or modified by the District Judge upon timely made objection.”

So, what do you think?  Was an in camera review the best way to rule on the request for metadata?  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.

Is Your Outlook PST File Corrupt? All is Not Lost!: eDiscovery Best Practices

With our 5 year anniversary coming up this weekend and my having experienced this issue with a client recently, it seemed to make sense to revisit this topic.

Though we’d like to believe that there will never be any problems with the data that we preserve, collect and process for eDiscovery purposes, data is not perfect.  Sometimes the most critical data may be difficult or impossible to use.  For example, key files could be password protected from being opened or they could be corrupted.  If an Outlook Personal Storage Table (PST) file is corrupted, that file corruption could literally make tens of thousands of documents unavailable for discovery unless the file can be repaired.

I have a client who regularly sends us PST files to be processed and loaded via CloudNine’s Discovery Client processing application into our CloudNine review platform (double shameless plug warning!).  But, sometimes, the PST files that we have received have been corrupted.  Once, I had a case where 40% of the collection was contained in 2 corrupt Outlook PST files.  Without the ability to repair those files, we would have been unable to access key portions of the collections in these cases that needed to be processed and reviewed.

Fortunately, there is a repair tool for Outlook designed to repair corrupted PST files.  It’s called SCANPST.  It’s an official repair tool that has been included since Office 2007.  Despite the fact that it’s a “tool”, you won’t find SCANPST in the Microsoft Office Tools folder within the Microsoft Office folder in Program files.  Instead, you’ll have to navigate to the C:Program FilesMicrosoft OfficeOffice14 folder (for Office 2010) or C:Program FilesMicrosoft OfficeOffice15 (for Office 2013) 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 file, along with a count of folders and items found in the PST 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 (like us).  Of course, sometimes files are beyond repair, regardless of the utility.

By repairing the PST file, you are technically changing the file, so if the PST file is discoverable, it may 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. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Rules that State Agency is Not Responsible for Emails Deleted via the Retention Policy of Another State Agency: eDiscovery Case Law

In Wandering Dago, Inc. v. N.Y. State Office of Gen. Servs., No. 1:13-CV-1053 (MAD/RFT), (N.D.N.Y. May 29, 2015), New York Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece denied the plaintiff’s request for sanctions, stating that “that neither the individual Defendants nor their Attorney had a duty to preserve” the emails of the Deputy Secretary of Gaming and Racing to the President of the New York Racing Authority (“NYRA”).

Case Background

In this First Amendment case where the plaintiff contended that a set of NYRA Defendants and another set of state actors violated the First (Free Speech Clause) and Fourteenth (Equal Protection Clause) Amendments of the United States Constitution for denying its food trucks to provide services at the Saratoga Race Course and an outdoor lunch program based on the plaintiff company’s name.  The plaintiff’s exclusion from the race track occurred after several complaints were received, including an email from the Deputy Secretary at the NYRA, concerned that “the fallout from authorizing this truck will inevitably land on NYRA”.

After the media reported that “an unidentified state official” complained, the Deputy Secretary emailed the Governor’s Executive Chamber identifying himself as that official and he was eventually identified in court as that “unidentified state official”. However, the NYRA eventually settled and the Deputy Secretary was never named as a defendant, leaving the employees of the Office of General Services (“OGS”), who had denied the plaintiff’s applications for the outdoor lunch program, as the remaining defendants.

During discovery, the plaintiff requested production of the non-party Deputy Secretary’s emails, but they had been automatically destroyed pursuant to New York State’s Email Retention Policy. As a result, the plaintiff thereafter sought an adverse inference (as well as further discovery, costs and attorneys’ fees) against the remaining OGS defendants and their litigation counsel – an Assistant Attorney General – for the deletion of the Deputy Secretary’s emails.  The defendants objected, citing that they had no control over the Deputy Secretary’s emails and litigation counsel did not represent the nonparty Deputy Secretary at the time of the automatic deletions and had no legal authority to direct a preservation hold.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Treece, agreeing with the defendants, stated that “the individual Defendants correctly assert that they have no control over {the Deputy Secretary’s} emails, the Executive Chamber’s emails, or over other emails pertaining to NYRA. Instead, when litigation was commenced against them, they and their agency, OGS, met their obligation by preserving those documents that were within their control and possession, and ultimately disclosed 1000 pages of documents relevant to the Empire Plaza Summer Program, including emails.”

Continuing, Judge Treece stated that the “Plaintiff suffers under the erroneous notion that when a governmental agency and its officials are defendants in any litigation, they and their counsel are required to preserve and produce documents belonging to another governmental agency.”  He also stated that “[c]onsidering that hundreds of lawsuits are filed daily against New York State,” that “requiring each agency and thousands of officials to institute a litigation hold every time a party contemplates or even commences litigation against another agency would paralyze the State.”  Finding that the plaintiff had also failed to prove a culpable state of mind and also failed to prove that the missing evidence would have been favorable to it, Judge Treece found that the plaintiff had failed to meet its burden and denied its request for sanctions, as well as its request for additional discovery and costs and attorney fees.

So, what do you think?  Should each state agency have its own separate duty to preserve or should the entire state be responsible to preserve data?  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.

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Request for Spoliation Sanctions, as Most Documents Destroyed Before Duty to Preserve: eDiscovery Case Law

In Giuliani v. Springfield Township, et al., Civil Action No. 10-7518 (E.D.Penn. June 9, 2015), Pennsylvania District Judge Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr. denied the plaintiffs’ motion for spoliation sanctions, finding that the duty to preserve began when the case was filed and finding that “plaintiffs have not shown that defendants had any ill motive or bad intent in failing to retain the documents which plaintiffs seek”.

Case Background

In this harassment and discrimination case, the plaintiff owned land within the defendant’s township and alleged that the defendant’s zoning decisions violated the plaintiff’s civil rights violations. In June 2009, the defendant withdrew its opposition to the plaintiffs’ application for use of the property and its Zoning Hearing Board granted the plaintiffs’ zoning appeal, ending the zoning dispute.   The plaintiff then filed this new complaint against the defendant in January 2011.

The plaintiffs contended that the defendants’ production had been deficient because defendants “provided a miniscule number [of emails] in response to Plaintiffs’ [discovery] request[s] – just 24 emails spanning a seventeen-year period of near-constant controversy.”  In response, the defendants noted that, during the time period relevant to this case, it did not generate large volumes of email and also cited it’s document retention policy, which stated that “e-mail messages and attachments that do not meet the definition of records and are not subject to litigation and other legal proceedings should be deleted immediately after they are read”.

The defendants also did not preserve data relating to the case until the case was filed in 2011, believing that all of the outstanding issues related to the plaintiffs’ land development applications had finally been resolved after the zoning dispute was resolved in 2009.  The plaintiffs disputed that interpretation of when the duty to preserve arose and also pointed out instances where the defendants failed to instruct key custodians to preserve data related to the case.

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to the beginning of the duty to preserve by the defendants, Judge O’Neill stated that “Plaintiffs’ arguments are not sufficient to meet their burden to show that defendants’ duty to preserve files related to other properties, emails or planning commission board minutes was triggered at any time prior to the commencement of this action. They have not set forth any reason why I should disbelieve ‘the Township’s assertion that it had absolutely no reason to anticipate litigation until it was served with the Complaint on January 7, 2011,’…and that in June 2009, ‘with the property being leased in its entirety to one tenant, the Township . . . believed that all disputes with the Giulianis had come to an end.’”

As for alleged preservation failures after the duty to preserve commenced, Judge O’Neill determined that “Plaintiffs have not met their burden to establish that defendants actually suppressed the evidence they seek. At most, defendants lost or deleted the evidence plaintiffs seek as the result of mere inadvertent negligence. Plaintiffs have not set forth any proof that defendants in fact failed to preserve emails, documents relating to other properties or Planning Commission Board Minutes at any time after January 7, 2011…Further plaintiffs have not shown that defendants had any ill motive or bad intent in failing to retain the documents which plaintiffs seek.”  As a result, Judge O’Neill denied the plaintiffs’ motion for spoliation sanctions.

So, what do you think?  Should the duty to preserve have been applied earlier?  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.

Plaintiff Ordered to Re-Produce Files in Native Format Because it Failed to Meet and Confer with Defendant: eDiscovery Case Law

You’d think a distributor of bar exam materials would know better…

In Themis Bar Review, LLC v. Kaplan, Inc., Case No. 14CV208-L, (S.D. Cal. May 26, 2015), California Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major ordered the plaintiff pay for the cost to produce files in native format after the plaintiff originally produced unsearchable PDF images without metadata and failed to properly meet and confer with the defendant regarding production format as stipulated in the parties’ Joint Discovery Plan.

Case Background

On January 9, 2015, the plaintiff produced a CD-Rom containing spreadsheets reflecting the plaintiff’s pass rate statistics by jurisdiction and the records of its students’ bar exam results with the percentage of the plaintiff’s course work that each student had completed.  The spreadsheets were produced as PDF copies of the electronic files that had been Microsoft Excel spreadsheets – the produced PDF copies were stripped of their filtering, sorting, and searching capabilities.

On April 22, the plaintiff produced a hard drive containing 822,493 pages of email communications, again as imaged PDF files with no searchable text or metadata, despite the defendant’s repeated requests for the production to include extracted text.  The defendant had also previously offered to meet and confer to discuss the required production format.  The plaintiff ultimately responded by stating that the Joint Discovery Plan only required the production of PDF documents and that the parties had “never discussed producing the hard drive with extracted text, nor the . . . format of the hard drive production.”  The defendant responded that the Joint Discovery Plan sets forth a procedure for requesting the production of metadata that requires both sides to meet and confer regarding the request.

On May 7, the plaintiff produced the Mircosoft Excel spreadsheets in native format and explained “[p]reviously, you demanded that we provide the native files to you without explanation. For the first time, you explained in your motion to compel why Kaplan needed the files in native format.”  On May 12, the defendant offered to pay half of the cost – up to $8,200 – for the plaintiff “to produce the e-mails and attachments in the format we have specified in our motion”, but the plaintiff refused, stating they would only do so if the defendant paid the entire cost to re-produce.

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to the dispute regarding the Joint Discovery Plan, Judge Major excerpted the portion of the plan at issue, including this passage:

“If a party believes, on a case-by-case basis, that documents should be produced in a format other than native format, or that metadata should be produced, the parties collectively agree that they will meet and confer in good faith to discuss such alternative production arrangements.”

As a result, Judge Major ruled as follows:

“Based on the evidence provided by the parties and for the reasons set forth herein, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant’s request that Plaintiff reproduce the spreadsheets in native format, GRANTS Defendant’s request for production of the emails with associated metadata in searchable format, and REQUIRES Plaintiff to pay for the cost of reproducing the emails with the associated metadata in searchable format. The Court finds that it is appropriate that Plaintiff pay for the reproduction because Plaintiff ignored Defendant’s request to produce the documents in the native format with metadata, failed to meet and confer with Defendant as required by the Joint Discovery Plan, and then produced the documents in the unsearchable PDF format without metadata.”

So, what do you think?  Should the plaintiff have been ordered to re-produce the documents at their own cost?  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.

Plaintiff Ordered to Image its Sources of ESI, Respond to Disputed Discovery Requests: eDiscovery Case Law

In Electrified Discounters, Inc. v. MI Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:13cv1332 (RNC) (D. Conn. May 19, 2015), Connecticut Magistrate Judge Donna F. Martinez granted the defendant’s motion to compel the plaintiff ‘s responses to discovery and ordered the plaintiff to “image its sources of electronically stored information (‘ESI’), including its hard drives and QuickBook files”.

Case Background

In this trademark infringement case between competitors who sell replacement lamps for rear projection televisions and front projectors via online marketplaces, the defendants filed a motion to compel the plaintiff ‘s responses to discovery and argued that the plaintiff failed to issue a timely litigation hold and that the plaintiff’s production of ESI was “careless and indifferent.”  Specifically, the defendant stated that the plaintiff anticipated filing a lawsuit against the defendant in 2011, but that the plaintiff’s attorney admittedly did not counsel his client regarding its duty to retain relevant information until 2013 when the lawsuit was filed.

Additionally, in March 2015, the plaintiff’s company president testified in his deposition that he routinely deletes emails based on their age when his mailbox becomes full, that he deletes emails about once a month, that he continued to delete emails during this litigation and, on the day before his deposition, he deleted approximately 1000 emails.  Other records also were admittedly destroyed by the plaintiff company, which responded to the defendant’s request for plaintiff’s lamp sales that “[a]s part of its routine business practices, Electrified discards its records of lamps sales after approximately one year following payment.”

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to the defendant’s criticism of plaintiff’s failure to institute a timely litigation hold and its careless and indifferent production efforts after the duty to preserve arose, Judge Martinez stated “After reviewing the deposition testimony of Electrified’s witnesses, the court agrees that the defendant’s concern is well-founded.”  Those depositions included one plaintiff employee, who testified that his company uses a Quickbooks program, which contains detailed inventory and sales records dating back to 2006 as well as the company president, who also acknowledged that the Quickbook database contains inventory and sales information.

Citing Pension Committee and Zubulake, Judge Martinez stated that “The duty to preserve evidence is ‘well established.’”  With regard to the plaintiff’s admitted preservation failures, she stated “This cannot continue. Pending the final disposition of all claims in this action, plaintiff Electrified is ordered to preserve all documents, electronically-stored information, and/or tangible things that might be relevant to this subject matter or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action.”  In an attempt to limit further spoliation of data, Judge Martinez stated that the plaintiff “shall image its sources of electronically stored information (‘ESI’), including its hard drives and QuickBook files.”

With regard to the twenty discovery requests in dispute, Judge Martinez granted the defendant’s motion to compel for each one, ordering the plaintiff to search and produce responsive ESI within 14 days of the order.  She also ordered the plaintiff “to show cause by June 2, 2015 why the court should not award defendant [requested] attorney’s fees incurred in the making of the motion to compel pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5).”

So, what do you think?  Are sanctions the next step in this case?  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.

Think Before You Hit Send (Unless You’re On Gmail and are Really Fast): eDiscovery Trends

Let’s face it, people make mistakes. However, a new feature from Google may help people who make those mistakes avoid the consequences – if they’re quick to address them.

As covered on Fortune.com (Gmail now officially lets you ‘Undo Send’ those really embarrassing e-mails, by Kia Kokalitcheva), Gmail, Google’s e-mail service, has officially added its “Undo Send” feature to the Web-based version of the service. Previously an experimental feature as part of Gmail’s “labs,” the feature lets users retract an e-mail after it’s been sent. Users can choose a time window between five and 30 seconds during which they’ll be able to recall that offending e-mail. So, if you’re modus operandi sometimes tends to be “ready, fire, aim”, you can avoid that critical mistake, if you notice it and act quickly.

Although Google actually first introduced the feature in 2009, it will now be located in Gmail’s general settings tabs instead of hidden in the “labs” section. However, users will have to manually enable it as the feature is not turned on by default. Google’s recently released email app, Inbox, also provides the “Undo Send” feature for those who need the safety net when on the go (which may be even more often than from the desktop).

Here’s a page with instructions on how to enable the “Undo Send” feature.

Imagine if this feature catches on with other applications, such as Microsoft Outlook? Or social media sites such as Facebook or Twitter? If this feature existed in these applications in the past, it might have helped many who may have wished that they could think after they send, including an all-pro NFL running back, a Chili’s waitress, the daughter of a former prep school head (who lost out on an $80,000 settlement), the social media manager of an NBA team and a former New York congressman (and former NYC mayoral candidate).

Regardless of which applications eventually have this feature, unless you’re very quick to catch your mistake, it’s still better to think before you hit send. Take a deep breath, look over the content, check to make sure you’ve selected the correct recipient(s), then hit send. Otherwise, you just might be the next social media disaster story covered on eDiscovery Daily!

So, what do you think? Do you think the “Undo Send” feature will catch on with other applications? 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.

When Collecting Emails, Make Sure You Have a Complete Outlook: eDiscovery Best Practices

I’m out of the office this week, taking the kiddos on a family vacation (can you guess where?). Instead of going dark for the week (which we almost never do), I decided to use the opportunity to give you a chance to catch up on cases we’ve covered so far this year with a couple of case law pop quizzes, sandwiched around a popular post from the past that you may have missed. Today’s post takes a look back at Outlook files and the different forms they take. How many do you know?

Most discovery requests include a request for emails of parties involved in the case. Email data is often the best resource for establishing a timeline of communications in the case and Microsoft® Outlook is the most common email program used in business today. Outlook emails can be stored in several different forms, so it’s important to be able to account for each file format when collecting emails that may be responsive to the discovery request.

There are several different file types that contain Outlook emails, including:

EDB (Exchange Database): The server files for Microsoft Exchange, which is the server environment which manages Outlook emails in an organization. In the EDB file, a user account is created for each person authorized at the company to use email (usually, but not always, employees). The EDB file stores all of the information related to email messages, calendar appointments, tasks, and contacts for all authorized email users at the company. EDB files are the server-side collection of Outlook emails for an organization that uses Exchange, so they are a primary source of responsive emails for those organizations. Not all organizations that use Outlook use Exchange, but larger organizations almost always do.

OST (Outlook Offline Storage Table): Outlook can be configured to keep a local copy of a user’s items on their computer in an Outlook data file that is named an offline Outlook Data File (OST). This allows the user to work offline when a connection to the Exchange computer may not be possible or wanted. The OST file is synchronized with the Exchange computer when a connection is available. If the synchronization is not current for a particular user, their OST file could contain emails that are not on the EDB server file, so OST files may also need to be searched for responsive emails.

PST (Outlook Personal Storage Table): A PST file is another Outlook data file that stores a user’s messages and other items on their computer. It’s the most common file format for home users or small organizations that don’t use Exchange, but instead use an ISP to connect to the Internet (typically through POP3 and IMAP). In addition, Exchange users may move or archive messages to a PST file (either manually or via auto-archiving) to move them out of the primary mailbox, typically to keep their mailbox size manageable. PST files often contain emails not found in either the EDB or OST files (especially when Exchange is not used), so it’s important to search them for responsive emails as well.

MSG (Outlook MSG File): MSG is a file extension for a mail message file format used by Microsoft Outlook and Exchange. Each MSG file is a self-contained unit for the message “family” (email and its attachments) and individual MSG files can be saved simply by dragging messages out of Outlook to a folder on the computer (which could then be stored on portable media, such as CDs or flash drives). As these individual emails may no longer be contained in the other Outlook file types, it’s important to determine where they are located and search them for responsiveness. MSG is also a common format for native production of individual responsive Outlook emails, though HTML is also used (as Outlook emails, by default, are already HTML formatted files).

Other Outlook file types that might contain responsive information are EML (Electronic Mail), which is the Outlook Express e-mail format and PAB (Personal Address Book), which, as the name implies, stores the user’s contact information.

Of course, Outlook emails are not just stored within EDB files on the server or these other file types on the local workstation or portable media; they can also be stored within an email archiving system or synchronized to phones and other portable devices. Regardless, it’s important to account for the different file types when collecting potentially responsive Outlook emails for discovery.

So, what do you think? Are you searching all of these file types for responsive Outlook emails? 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.