Close
Enter your
text here

Email

Denial of Motion for Spoliation Sanctions Leaves Plaintiff Less Than Glad: eDiscovery Case Law

In Gladue v. Saint Francis Medical Center, 1:13-CV-186-CEJ (E.D. Mo. Mar. 24, 2015), Missouri District Judge Carol E. Jackson denied the plaintiff’s motion for evidentiary and monetary sanctions due to spoliation of evidence, finding that the defendant did not have a duty to preserve emails deleted as part of routine IT operations, had diligently attempted to recover deleted emails and that the plaintiff failed to show that any of the unrecovered emails were relevant to her claims.

Case Background

In this employment case, the plaintiff’s employment was terminated in December 2011. As part of the defendant’s routine IT operations, the plaintiff’s email account was purged in March 2012. At that time, plaintiff had not filed either a lawsuit against the defendant or a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission – the defendant was first contacted by the plaintiff’s then-attorney in June 2012 regarding the plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims.

On June 16, 2014, after this lawsuit was filed, the plaintiff submitted a request for production of all of her work emails and her calendar. Because her account had been purged, the defendant undertook several efforts to retrieve the emails, including conducting a search for all emails sent to or received from plaintiff in the accounts of every employee identified in the parties’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 disclosures. The defendant ultimately produced over 24,600 pages of emails and related documents to the plaintiff in two productions (nearly three months before the close of discovery), but acknowledged that there were no guarantees that every lost item was retrieved. The plaintiff filed a motion for evidentiary and monetary sanctions due to spoliation of evidence.

Judge’s Opinion

Finding that a “litigation hold was not required at the time plaintiff’s e-mails were deleted”, Judge Jackson ruled that the defendant “has shown that plaintiff’s e-mails were deleted as part of a routine maintenance procedure, rather than in bad faith. Moreover, defendant has diligently attempted to recover the missing documents.”

Judge Jackson also noted that the defendant produced documents to the plaintiff “nearly three months before the close of discovery and almost four months before the deadline for filing dispositive motions. Thus, as to the timing of the productions, no exceptional circumstances justify sanctions.” She also found that “plaintiff has failed to show that any of the unrecovered e-mails are relevant to her claims” and noted that “plaintiff is incorrect in her contention that defendant is at an advantage because it can use the undisclosed e-mails in this litigation” as “Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) forbids defendant from using any document that has not been produced to plaintiff at summary judgment or trial.”

As a result, Judge Jackson ruled that “plaintiff is not prejudiced and no exceptional circumstances exist to justify sanctions” and denied her motion for sanctions.

So, what do you think? Did the plaintiff’s motion really ever stand a chance? 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 Automatically Generated Read Receipt is Not Hearsay: eDiscovery Case Law

In Fox v. Leland Volunteer Fire/Rescue Department Inc., 7:12-CV-354-FL. (E.D.N.C. Mar. 10, 2015), North Carolina District Judge Louise W. Flanagan ruled that a Read Receipt automatically sent from the defendant’s email address to the plaintiff (when the defendant opened an email sent by the plaintiff) was not hearsay.

Case Background

In this wrongful termination case, the court was considering the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, as well as the defendants’ motion to strike certain exhibits attached to plaintiff’s brief in opposition to summary judgment for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) & (e). One of the items that the defendants sought to exclude was a read receipt sent from defendant Grimes email address to plaintiff, triggered when an email plaintiff sent defendant Grimes was opened, arguing that the Read Receipt was “unauthenticated hearsay”.

Judge’s Opinion

Judge Flanagan made a swift ruling on this issue when she stated “Defendants’ argument fails. The Read Receipt is not hearsay.”

Explaining her ruling, Judge Flanagan started by questioning whether a Read Receipt email was even a statement, as follows: “As noted, hearsay is a declarant’s out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein… As an initial matter, it is questionable whether the Read Receipt is a ‘statement’ at all. Federal Rule of Evidence 801(a) defines ‘statement,’ and specifically notes that a ‘statement’ must be ‘intended . . . as an assertion.’ Id. Here, it is questionable that the Read Receipt was intended to be assertive.”

Giving the benefit of the doubt that the Read Receipt qualifies as a statement under Rule 801(a), Judge Flanagan still ruled that “the read receipt is still admissible against both defendants where it is excluded from Rule 801…In particular, the email was generated by defendant Grimes, thus Rule 801(d)(2)(A) allows its admission against him. Rule 801(d)(2)(D), in addition, allows its admission against defendant Leland, because the statement came from defendant Grimes official email address, and defendant Grimes was required, as a function of his job, to investigate and respond to complaints of harassment.”

With regard to the defendants’ contentions that proper authentication under Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(1) & (4) of the Read Receipt was “impossible, because plaintiff failed to produce information about the email’s origin, including the mechanism by which it was generated” and that “plaintiff should have submitted a technical affidavit explaining how ‘read receipt’ emails are created, to ensure reliability”, Judge Flanagan stated that “the Read Receipt may be properly authenticated under Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(1) & (4).” Continuing, she noted that “the reliability of defendant Grimes’ email is not at issue, because the email is being admitted as a statement of a party opponent, which does not require the court to ensure reliability” and that “no technical affidavit is required to authenticate properly the Read Receipt… Here, defendant Grimes acknowledges receipt of plaintiff January 2, 2011, email referenced in the read receipt.” So, Judge Flanagan ruled that “the Read Receipt may properly be admitted.”

Ultimately, that proved to be a hollow victory for the plaintiff as Judge Flanagan granted the defendants’ motion to strike in part and also granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, closing the case.

So, what do you think? Was the court right to admit the Read Receipt? 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.

Free Trojans with Your Document Production: eDiscovery Trends

By “trojans”, I mean “malware”, not the other type of “trojans”… 🙂

An Arkansas lawyer representing three Fort Smith police officers in a whistleblower case is seeking sanctions after his computer expert found malware on an external hard drive supplied in response to a discovery request, according to a story by the Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette.

According to the story, Attorney Matthew Campbell in North Little Rock has been representing three current and former Fort Smith police officers in the lawsuit since January 2014. He requested emails from the Fort Smith Police Department, and Sebastian County Circuit Judge James O. Cox ordered on May 9, 2014, that they be provided to Campbell as part of discovery in the case. The documents were produced in June 2014. It’s how they were produced that aroused Campbell’s suspicion.

Douglas Carson, the attorney representing Fort Smith and its Police Department, sent Campbell a computer hard drive with the production by Federal Express. According to the story, Campbell said the defendants normally had provided him with requested documents via email, the U.S. Postal Service or through a cloud-based Internet storage service.

So, Campbell decided to have his information technology expert, Geoff Mueller of Austin, Texas, check out the drive first. Guess what he found? Four “Trojans,” one of which was a duplicate.

A “trojan” or “trojan horse” appears to be a legitimate program which unleashes the malware when you are tricked into running it. They can be quite tricky as I reported a few years ago when it happened to me.

“One would have kept my Internet active even if I tried to turn it off, one would have stolen any passwords that I entered in, and the other would have allowed the installation of other malicious software,” Campbell said. “It’s not like these are my only clients, either. I’ve got all my client files in my computer. I don’t know what they were looking for, but just the fact that they would do it is pretty scary.”

In an affidavit filed with the motion Friday, Mueller stated: “Upon informing Mr. Campbell of the presence of these Trojans, he provided me with information that the Fort Smith Police Department claimed to be running a secure system with real-time virus and malware protection. In my experience, if the FSPD system is actually as described, these Trojans would not exist on the system.”

Mueller said the placement of the Trojans in a subfolder named “D:Bales Court Order,” and not in the root directory, “means the Trojans were not already on the external hard drive that was sent to Mr. Campbell and were more likely placed in that folder intentionally with the goal of taking command of Mr. Campbell’s computer while also stealing passwords to his account.”

In addition to the malware found on the drive, Campbell’s motion for sanctions alleges that entire email accounts were deleted, that emails which could have been recovered were purged from the system, and that emails which were previously provided in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests had improper deletions. Campbell also states in the motion that the police department’s IT specialist attended a convention ten days after the court granted Campbell’s motion to compel evidence last May. According to Campbell, the expert took classes on secure data deletion, whistleblower investigation and monitoring employee activity, but did not take classes offered on eDiscovery and preservation of evidence.

Campbell is asking for a default judgment for his clients and that the defendants be held in criminal contempt of court, among other sanctions.

So, what do you think? Do you check data produced to you for the presence of malware? 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.

Managing Email Signature Logos During Review: eDiscovery Best Practices

Yesterday, we discussed how corporate logo graphic files in email signatures can add complexity when managing those emails in eDiscovery, as these logos, repeated over and over again, can add up to a significant percentage of your collection on a file count basis. Today, we are going to discuss a couple of ways that I have worked with clients to manage those files during the review process.

These corporate logos cause several eDiscovery complications such as slowing page refreshes in review tools and wasting reviewer time and making review even more tedious. I’ll focus on those particular issues below.

It should be noted that, as VP of Professional Services at CloudNine, my (recent) experience in assisting clients has primarily been using CloudNine’s review platform, so, with all due respect to those “technically astute vendor colleagues” that Craig Ball referred to in his excellent post last week, I’ll be discussing how I have handled the situation with logos in Outlook emails at CloudNine (shameless plug warning!).

Processing Embedded Graphics within Emails

I think it’s safe to say as a general rule, when it comes to processing of Outlook format emails (whether those originated from EDB, OST, PST or MSG files), most eDiscovery processing applications (including LAW and CloudNine’s processing application, Discovery Client) treat embedded graphic files as attachments to the email and those are loaded into most review platforms as attachments linked to the parent email. So, a “family” that consists of an email with two attached PDF files and a corporate logo graphic file would actually have four “family” members with the corporate logo graphic file (assuming that there is just one) as one of the four “family” members.

This basically adds an extra “document” to each email with a logo that is included in the review population (more than one per email if there are additional logo graphics for links to the organization’s social media sites). These files don’t require any thought during review, but they still have to be clicked through and marked as reviewed during a manual review process. This adds time and tedium to an already tedious process. If those files could be excluded from the review population, reviewers could focus on more substantive files in the collection.

In Discovery Client, an MD5 hash value is computed for each individual file, including each email attachment (including embedded graphics). So, if the same GIF file is used over and over again for a corporate logo, it would have the same MD5 hash value in each case. CloudNine provides a Quick Search function that enables you to retrieve all documents in the collection with the same value as the current document. So, if you’re currently viewing a corporate logo file, it’s easy to retrieve all documents with the same MD5 hash value, apply a tag to those documents and then use the tag to exclude them from review. I’ve worked with clients to do this before to enable them to shorten the review process while establishing more reliable metrics for the remaining documents being reviewed.

It should be noted that doing so doesn’t preclude you from assigning responsiveness settings from the rest of the “family” to the corporate logo later if you plan to produce those corporate logos as separate attachments to opposing counsel.

Viewing Emails with Embedded Logos

Embedded logos and other graphics files can slow down the retrieval of emails for viewing in some document viewers, depending on how they render those graphics. By default, Outlook emails are already formatted in HTML and CloudNine provides an HTML view option that enables the user to view the email without the embedded graphics. As a result, the email retrieves more quickly, so, in many cases, where the graphics don’t add value, the HTML view option will speed up the review process (users can still view the full native file with embedded graphics as needed). In working with clients, I’ve recommended the HTML view tab as the default view in CloudNine as a way of speeding retrieval of files for review, which helps speed up the overall review process.

So, what do you think? Do you find that corporate logo graphics files are adding complexity to your own eDiscovery processes? If so, how do you address the issue? 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.

Email Signature Logos are a Sign That Discovery Will be More Complicated: eDiscovery Best Practices

Many, if not most of us, use some sort of graphic in our email signature at work that represents our corporate logo and many organizations have created a standard email signature for their employees to use when corresponding with others. It’s another subtle way of promoting brand recognition. But, those logos can add complexity when managing those emails in eDiscovery.

Craig Ball, in his excellent blog Ball in your Court, takes up the issue in his latest post (ESI Observations on a Pretty Good Friday), where he analyzes about 500GB of email containers associated with matters in which he has served as ESI Special Master. As he observes:

“Just three-fifths of the way through the data, I see 1,371,516 messages have been processed, and these messages have thrown off 1,262,552 GIF images. The great majority of these images will prove to be logos in the signature blocks of the messages, and account for 29% of the item count extracted from the data set so far.

Most of the GIF logos I see in this data are just 2.2KB; so, despite their numerousity, they account for only about ten percent of the volume of single messages (extracted MSGs) sans attachments.” (emphasis added)

As a consultant who has dealt with the corporate logo graphic issue many times in projects with my clients, I thought I would do my own quick analysis to see how some of our projects compare. As I have observed that logos are often in JPEG and PNG file formats as well, I compared the counts of email messages to GIF, JPG and PNG files in three recent different sized projects in CloudNine’s review platform, which provides a handy file type breakdown in its Analytics module.

Here’s the breakdown:

  • Small project: Emails – 13,487; GIF/JPG/PNG – 10,492; 77.8% of emails.
  • Medium project: Emails – 98,818; GIF/JPG/PNG – 66,205; 67.0% of emails.
  • Large project: Emails – 443,350; GIF/JPG/PNG – 414,242; 93.4% of emails.

While clearly not all of these are corporate logo graphics (many are other embedded graphics, attached pictures, etc.), you do get the idea that these logos, repeated over and over again, can add up to a significant percentage of your collection on at least a file count basis.

Craig notes the eDiscovery complications these logos cause, including: adding data volumes throughout discovery, slowing page refreshes in review tools, wasting reviewer time and making review even more tedious as well as unnecessarily driving up the number of documents that have color and complicating identification of evidentiary documents where color needs to be preserved for its potential evidentiary value. He also notes that his “technically astute vendor colleagues may counter that there are programmatic methods to minimize the static and friction of corporate logos”, that “probably only a weirdo like me frets about corpulent GIF logos” and notes that “your corporate conceit isn’t ‘free.’”

Without a doubt, organizations don’t think about eDiscovery when crafting their corporate email signature standards and, as much as I can understand Craig’s question as to whether these color logos are worth it, I doubt that they’re going away any time soon. At CloudNine, our own email signature standards include our logo on new emails as we can’t resist any opportunity to show the “nine clouds” (eight white, one blue – the ninth cloud, get it?) in our admitted attempt to build brand recognition any way we can (at least our reply email signature standard is logo free). Try fighting the marketing guys on that.

Nonetheless, as certainly a “weirdo” who also likes to think of myself as a “technically astute vendor colleague”, I have dealt with these logos time and time again in client projects. So, tomorrow, we’ll talk about a couple of those techniques we have used to minimize the effect on our client projects.

So, what do you think? Do you find that corporate logo graphics files are adding complexity to your own eDiscovery processes? 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. eDiscoveryDaily 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.

Simply Deleting an Email Doesn’t Mean It’s Gone, Even When It’s Hillary Clinton’s Emails: eDiscovery Trends

Early in the life of this blog, we published a blog post called eDiscovery 101: Simply Deleting a File Doesn’t Mean It’s Gone to try to help our readers understand how disk drives keep track of files and how “deleted” files often can still be recovered. Something tells me that basic forensic concept will become a big issue in the coming weeks and months regarding Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails.

As reported by Politico in Hillary’s emails: Deleted but not gone (by Joseph Marks and Rachael Bade), Clinton’s attorney David Kendall on Friday wrote Benghazi Committee Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), declining the committee’s request for the personal server that she used for emails while she was Secretary of State (which we discussed previously here) to be turned over to an independent third party. The committee said it wants a third party to verify that all Benghazi-related emails were in fact turned over to the panel – especially after Clinton acknowledged deleting anything determined to be “personal” messages. Kendall called the request pointless, saying Clinton’s IT staff had confirmed to him the messages are gone for good (Gowdy, in a statement, said that Clinton “unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server”).

But, are the emails really gone? According to my colleague, Michael Heslop, Vice President of Computer Forensics at CloudNine, that depends on what they mean by “wiped”. “If they forensically wiped the server, then it’s likely not recoverable from there”, said Heslop. “But, the data might still be available via other sources, such as backups or an offline storage table (OST) file on the computer that was used for email.”

As an example, the Politico article references the case of former Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner, who came under scrutiny over charges that the IRS targeted tea party groups for heightened scrutiny, after the IRS said that a 2011 hard-drive crash rendered her emails irretrievable. The agency trashed the hard drive and said it had over-written back-up tapes, yet other recovered back-up tapes appears to have yielded the missing emails.

Not surprisingly, the conservative group Freedom Watch has filed a racketeering lawsuit against Clinton that accuses her of failing to produce documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). So, expect efforts to scrutinize the deletion of Clinton’s emails to intensify. And, that’s no April Fools joke.

So, what do you think? Have you ever had to recover deleted emails? Were you successful in doing so? 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. eDiscoveryDaily 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.

Why is Jason R. Baron’s Interview Delayed until Tomorrow? Blame Hillary Clinton (sort of): eDiscovery Headlines

When we announced our fifth annual thought leader interview series, we announced that we would be publishing our interview with Jason R. Baron of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, today. Well, he’s been a bit busy recently, so his interview will be delayed until tomorrow.

If you haven’t read the news in the past day or so, you may have missed this New York Times article: Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules. If you missed it there, it was also covered every place from the Today Show to Good Morning America to Entertainment Tonight (no kidding!).

Jason was interviewed in the NYT article. Here are the excerpts referencing Jason and where he was quoted:

“Her expansive use of the private account was alarming to current and former National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs, who called it a serious breach.

‘It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business,’ said Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle & Reath who is a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration.

‘I can recall no instance in my time at the National Archives when a high-ranking official at an executive branch agency solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business,’ said Mr. Baron, who worked at the agency from 2000 to 2013.”

Needless to say, expect to hear quite a bit more about this story in the coming days.

Jason is also being interviewed today by Good Morning America, Anderson Cooper 360 and on the Lawrence O’Donnell show on MSNBC. So, he’s kinda busy today. 🙂 As a result, he was unable to give me feedback on the write-up of our interview from LegalTech a few weeks ago. I should get that today and his interview should be published tomorrow. BTW, here is a link to the Good Morning America story, including their interview with Jason.

So, what do you think? Is this story going to derail a potential presidential run for Hilary Clinton? 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. eDiscoveryDaily 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. 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.

Plaintiffs Not Sanctioned for Late Production, Citing Their $29,000 Expense to Hire Experts to Assist: eDiscovery Case Law

In Federico et al. v. Lincoln Military Housing LLC, et al., 2:12-cv-80 (E.D. VA, Dec. 31, 2014), Virginia Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller, concluding that the defendants had not established that the plaintiffs had acted in bad faith when failing to meet production deadlines, declined to impose “any further sanction against Plaintiffs beyond the $29,000 expense associated with their expert’s production of the Facebook records”, except for a portion of the reasonable attorney’s fees associated with the original motion to compel.

Case Summary

In this class action for personal injury and property damage allegedly arising from mold in military housing, there had been numerous discovery disputes, including several motions for sanctions and reciprocal requests for costs and fees related to the parties’ alleged non-compliance. On June 4, 2014, the Court held the first hearing on discovery disputes, which came on the plaintiffs’ motions for Protective Orders seeking relief from the defendants’ requests for production, and certain subpoenas, during which the Court admonished the assembled plaintiffs present at the hearing to turn over related material to their attorney and permit counsel to determine whether it was relevant. The Court also advised the plaintiffs that there could be consequences if materials were not provided as required by the Rules.

After the plaintiffs’ supplemental productions were still considered incomplete by the defendant, the plaintiffs’ counsel stated they had engaged an outside vendor to provide estimates (which were then estimated to be $22,450, eventually rising to $29,000) and design a search protocol for electronic media. On July 10, the plaintiffs requested an emergency hearing to extend the July 17 production deadline, which the Court declined to do, advising plaintiffs’ counsel that if the plaintiffs were unable to produce any more responsive documents, they were required to advise the Court and defendants of the nature of any search they had performed. After the plaintiffs failed to meet the production deadline, the defendants filed a motion for sanctions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims for failure to comply.

In subsequent oral argument regarding the defendants’ motion, the plaintiffs indicated that they had engaged their IT consultant, who was present and described the ongoing process for searching and processing relevant records, primarily from social media. As a result, the Court deferred any ruling until after the consultant’s production. In September, Plaintiffs produced the results of their consultant’s search, including over 5,000 records from social media, and contended that any material omitted resulted from their clients’ inexperience in managing electronic production and not from bad faith or intentional destruction of evidence.

Judge’s Decision

Judge Miller used the Fourth Circuit’s four-part test to help decide whether to impose sanctions, as follows: (1) whether the non-complying party acted in bad faith, (2) the amount of prejudice that noncompliance caused the adversary, (3) the need for deterrence of the particular sort of non-compliance, and (4) whether less drastic sanctions would have been effective. With regard to the bad faith factor, Judge Miller stated:

“Defendants have failed to establish that any Plaintiff deliberately destroyed evidence known to be relevant, or otherwise acted in bad faith. While Plaintiffs’ delayed production should not have required Court action, they did eventually produce a nearly complete record of email and social medial posts and these materials were available to Defendants prior to most of the depositions. In addition, the limited relevance of the voluminous material produced suggests that any gaps in production were not likely intentional and do not prejudice Lincoln’s defense.”

As a result, Judge Miller ruled that the Court “declines to impose any further sanction against Plaintiffs beyond the $29,000 expense associated with their expert’s production of the Facebook records, but will award a portion of the reasonable attorney’s fees associated with the original motion to compel.”

So, what do you think? Should the plaintiffs have been sanctioned for their late production or was the judge’s ruling appropriate, considering the plaintiffs’ challenges and expense and efforts to comply? 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. eDiscoveryDaily 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. 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.

Three “C”s, Cowboys, Cannibals and Craig (Ball) – eDiscovery Best Practices

They say that a joke is only old if you haven’t heard it before. In that vein, an article about eDiscovery is only old if you haven’t read it before. Craig Ball is currently revisiting some topics that he covered ten years ago with an updated look, making them appropriate for 1) people who weren’t working in eDiscovery ten years ago (which is probably a lot of you), 2) people who haven’t read the articles previously and 3) people who have read the articles previously, but haven’t seen his updated takes.  In other words, everybody.

So far, Craig has published three revisited articles to his terrific Ball in your court blog. They are:

Starting Over, which sets the stage for the series, and covers The DNA of Data, which was the very first Ball in your court (when it was still in print form). This article discusses how electronic evidence isn’t going away and claims of inaccessible data and how technological advances have rendered claims of inaccessibility mostly moot.

Unclear on the Concept (originally published in Law Technology News in May of 2005), which discusses some of the challenges of early concept searching and related tools (when terms like “predictive coding” and “technology assisted review” hadn’t even entered our lexicon yet). Craig also pokes fun at himself for noting back then how he read Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Joyce Carol Oates in grade school. 🙂

Cowboys and Cannibals (originally published in Law Technology News in June of 2005), which discusses the need for a new email “sheriff” in town (not to be confused with U.S. Magistrate Judge John Facciola in this case) to classify emails for easier retrieval. Back then, we didn’t know just how big the challenge of Information Governance would become. His updated take concludes as follows:

“What optimism exists springs from the hope that we will move from the Wild West to Westworld, that Michael Crichton-conceived utopia where robots are gunslingers. The technology behind predictive coding will one day be baked into our IT apps, and much as it serves to protect us from spam today, it will organize our ESI in the future.”

That day is coming, hopefully sooner rather than later. And, you have to love a blog post that references Westworld, which was a terrific story and movie back in the 70s (wonder why nobody has remade that one yet?).

eDiscovery Daily has revisited topics several times as well, especially some of the topics we covered in the early days of the blog, when we didn’t have near as many followers yet. It’s new if you haven’t read it, right? I look forward to future posts in Craig’s series.

So, what do you think? How long have you been reading articles about eDiscovery? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Image © Metro Goldwyn Mayer

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

2014 eDiscovery Case Law Year in Review, Part 4

As we noted yesterday, Wednesday and Tuesday, eDiscoveryDaily published 93 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 68 unique cases! Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to privilege and inadvertent disclosures, requests for social media, cases involving technology assisted review and the case of the year – the ubiquitous Apple v. Samsung dispute. Today, let’s take a look back at cases related to sanctions and spoliation.

We grouped those cases into common subject themes and will review them over the next few posts. Perhaps you missed some of these? Now is your chance to catch up!

SPOLIATION / SANCTIONS

I’ll bet that you won’t be surprised that, once again, the topic with the largest number of case law decisions related to eDiscovery are those related to sanctions and spoliation issues. Of the 68 cases we covered this past year, 28 percent of them (19 total cases) related to sanctions and spoliation issues. Sometimes requests for sanctions are granted, sometimes they’re not. Here they are.

Plaintiff Sanctioned After its “Failure to Take the Most Basic Document Preservation Steps”: In SJS Distribution Systems, Inc. v. Sam’s East, Inc., New York Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy found the plaintiff’s failure to take “the most basic document preservation steps,” including issuing a litigation hold – “even after it discovered the packaging nonconformities and filed this action” – constituted gross negligence. As a result, an adverse inference instruction sanction was issued against the plaintiff and the defendant was awarded its costs and attorney’s fees associated with its motion to compel.

Sanctions Awarded when Defendant Failed to Preserve Relevant Evidence: In Zest IP Holdings, LLC v. Implant Direct Manufacturing, LLC., California Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo granted the Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions because parties are “required to preserve evidence relevant to litigation and to prevent spoliation.” Judge Gallo found that the Defendant “failed to preserve multiple documents that are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims with the requisite culpable state of mind to support a finding of spoliation of evidence”.

Search Process for ESI Called into Question, but Court Denies Sanctions for Plaintiff: In Brown v. West Corp., the plaintiff filed a motion to compel, claiming the defendant had been insufficient in its handling of searching for Electronically Stored Information (ESI) relevant to discovery. The plaintiff additionally contested a prior order from a magistrate judge, requiring the defendant to explain its search processes to the defendant. Ultimately, Nebraska Senior District Judge Lyle E. Strom denied the requested sanctions and rejected the challenge to the prior order.

Bad Faith Violations in Discovery Lead to Sanctions for Defendant: Regarding the case In re Pradaxa (Dabigatran Etexilate) Products Liability Litigation, the defendants’ repeated failure to preserve and produce documents during discovery was found to be in bad faith. The defendants were ordered to produce the documents, or to explain why they couldn’t be produced, and to pay a hefty fine plus the plaintiff’s costs and fees for pursuing discovery motions. The order left room for additional future sanctions, should the bad faith behavior continue.

Clawback Rights Upheld and Plaintiff Sanctioned for Refusal to Comply Concerning Inadvertently Produced Privileged Documents: In RIPL Corp. v. Google Inc., seven discovery-related motions were heard concerning this trademark infringement action. The various motions to seal, compel, enforce, and sanction were filed after the parties had entered into a stipulated protective order. Washington District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez granted in part, denied in part, and deferred in part the various motions.

Sanctions Denied over Destruction of Audio Evidence in Discrimination Lawsuit: In Sokn v. Fieldcrest Cmty. Unit School Dist. No. 8, the plaintiff filed a motion for default and sanctions relating to spoliation of evidence with a federal court, after a district court issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) to deny the motion. Illinois Senior District Judge Joe Billy McDade ultimately declined to impose sanctions, due to a lack of evidence regarding the timing of alleged spoliation, and the plaintiff’s inability to establish bad faith on the part of the defendants.

Plaintiff Sanctioned for Spoliation of Digital Evidence in Sexual Harassment Lawsuit: In Calderon v. Corporacion Puertorrique a de Salud, the plaintiff was found to have violated his duty to preserve evidence during the discovery phase of this sexual harassment lawsuit. Sanctions were imposed, though not to the extent requested by the defendants.

Use of a Bulk File Changer to Manipulate Metadata Leads to Sanctions for Defendant: In T&E Investment Group, LLC v. Faulkner, Texas District Judge Jorge A. Solis upheld the earlier recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to order an adverse inference sanction, along with monetary sanctions, against the defendant for manipulation of metadata.

Defendants – and Defendants’ Counsel – Sanctioned for Delays in Producing ESI: In Knickerbocker v Corinthian Colleges, Washington District Judge James L. Robart imposed sanctions against the defendants and the defendants’ counsel for their delays in producing Electronically Stored Information (ESI) during discovery, despite the fact that spoliation of evidence was ultimately avoided.

Court Refuses to Dismiss Spoliation Claim Due to Defendant’s Failure to Produce Key Native File with Metadata: In Raines v. College Now Greater Cleveland, Inc., Ohio District Judge James S. Gwin refused to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim of tortious spoliation of evidence due to the defendant’s failure to produce the metadata associated with a key report authored by the plaintiff.

Court Denies Sanctions for Deletion of “Smoking Gun” Email, Grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment: In the case In re Text Messaging Antitrust Litig., Illinois District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly not only denied the plaintiffs’ request for an adverse inference sanction against the defendants for destroying emails, but also granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, as the plaintiffs failed to provide any supporting circumstantial evidence to meet their burden of proof.

Failure to Preserve Cloud-Based Data Results in Severe Sanction for Defendant: In Brown v. Tellermate Holdings, Magistrate Judge Terence Kemp granted plaintiffs’ motion for judgment and motion to strike, ruling that the defendant could not “present or rely upon evidence that it terminated the Browns’ employment for performance-related reasons” and enabling the plaintiffs to use documents produced by the defendant “designated as attorneys’-eyes-only” to be used by the plaintiffs “without restriction”, due to the defendant’s failure to preserve or produce data from their Salesforce.com database.

Texas Supreme Court Reverses Spoliation Ruling, Remands Case for New Trial: In Brookshire Bros., Ltd. v. Aldridge, the Supreme Court of Texas determined “that imposition of the severe sanction of a spoliation instruction was an abuse of discretion” in the trial court, reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Circuit Court Affirms Denial of Sanctions Over Spoliation by Defendant: In Automated Solutions Corp. v. Paragon Data Sys., Inc., the Sixth Circuit court affirmed the holdings of the district court, rejecting the plaintiff’s arguments that the district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions due to defendant’s failure to preserve information on a hard drive and server. The circuit court also affirmed the ruling by both the magistrate and district judge that the defendant’s back-up tapes were not subject to the duty to preserve.

Court Grants Motion for Spoliation Sanctions Due to Data that is “Less Accessible”: In Mazzei v. Money Store, New York Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis granted the plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions against the defendant, ordering the defendant to bear the cost of obtaining all the relevant data in question from a third party as well as paying for plaintiff attorney fees in filing the motion.

Failure to Preserve Data on Various Devices Causes Special Master to Recommend Default Judgment: In Small v. University Medical Center of Southern Nevada, Special Master Daniel B. Garrie, calling the defendant’s widespread failure to preserve data a “mockery of the orderly administration of justice”, recommended that the court enter an order of default judgment, along with further sanctions, in favor of the plaintiffs.

Plaintiff Slips, But Defendant Takes the Fall: In Riley v. Marriott Int’l, New York Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson agreed with the plaintiffs that spoliation of data had occurred when the defendant failed to preserve video surveillance and “sweep logs” after one of the plaintiffs slipped and fell in the defendant’s hotel garage and that the defendant was at least grossly negligent for not preserving the information. However, the judge denied the plaintiffs request for summary judgment, granting an adverse inference instruction instead.

The Watergate 18 Minute Gap in Audio Recordings Has Nothing on This Case: In Novick v. AXA Network, LLC, New York Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox granted the plaintiff’s request for sanctions against the defendant, awarding an adverse inference jury instruction for several weeks of spoliated audio recordings and also awarding “reasonable attorney’s fees and costs” associated with the motion as well as retaking several depositions.

Finding Defendant’s Destruction of Documents to be “Planned, Repeated and Comprehensive”, Court Awards Judgment to Plaintiff: In Regulatory Fundamentals Group v. Governance Risk Management Compliance, New York District Judge Katherine B. Forrest granted the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and ordered that judgment be entered for the defendant’s “planned, repeated, and comprehensive” destruction of highly-relevant documents.

That concludes our look back at 68 cases from last year – the most we’ve ever covered! Do you think discovery issues are being disputed more than ever before? If so, do you think the new Federal rules changes (once they’re implemented) will reverse that trend? 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. eDiscoveryDaily 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. 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.