Close
Enter your
text here

Email

2014 eDiscovery Case Law Yhttps://cloudnine.com/ediscoverydaily/case-law/2014-ediscovery-case-law-year-in-review-part-3/ear in Review, Part 3

As we noted yesterday and the day before, 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 eDiscovery cost sharing and reimbursement, fee disputes and production format disputes. Today, let’s take a look 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.

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!

PRIVILEGE / INADVERTENT DISCLOSURES

There were a couple of cases related to privilege issues, including one where privilege was upheld when the plaintiff purchased the defendant’s seized computer at auction! Here are two cases where disclosure of privileged documents was addressed:

Privilege Not Waived on Defendant’s Seized Computer that was Purchased by Plaintiff at Auction: In Kyko Global Inc. v. Prithvi Info. Solutions Ltd., Washington Chief District Judge Marsha J. Pechman ruled that the defendants’ did not waive their attorney-client privilege on the computer of one of the defendants purchased by plaintiffs at public auction, denied the defendants’ motion to disqualify the plaintiff’s counsel for purchasing the computer and ordered the plaintiffs to provide defendants with a copy of the hard drive within three days for the defendants to review it for privilege and provide defendants with a privilege log within seven days of the transfer.

Plaintiff Can’t “Pick” and Choose When it Comes to Privilege of Inadvertent Disclosures: In Pick v. City of Remsen, Iowa District Judge Mark W. Bennett upheld the magistrate judge’s order directing the destruction of an inadvertently-produced privileged document, an email from defense counsel to some of the defendants, after affirming the magistrate judge’s analysis of the five-step analysis to determine whether privilege was waived.

SOCIAL MEDIA

Requests for social media data in litigation continue, though there were not as many disputes over it as in years past (at least, not with cases we covered). Here are three cases related to social media data:

Plaintiff Ordered to Produce Facebook Photos and Messages as Discovery in Personal Injury Lawsuit: In Forman v. Henkin, a Motion to Compel was granted in part for a defendant who requested authorization to obtain records of the plaintiff’s private postings to Facebook.

Plaintiff Ordered to Re-Open Social Media Account for Discovery: In Chapman v. Hiland Operating, LLC, while noting that he was “skeptical” that reactivating the plaintiff’s Facebook account would produce any relevant, noncumulative information, North Dakota Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller ordered the plaintiff to “make a reasonable, good faith attempt” to reactivate her Facebook account.

Order for Financial Records and Facebook Conversations Modified Due to Privacy Rights: In Stallings v. City of Johnston City, Illinois Chief District Judge David R. Herndon modified an earlier order by a magistrate judge in response to the plaintiff’s appeal, claiming that the order violated the privacy rights of the plaintiff, and of minor children with whom the plaintiff had held conversations on Facebook.

TECHNOLOGY ASSISTED REVIEW

Technology assisted review continued to be discussed and debated between parties in 2014, with some disputes involving how technology assisted review would be conducted as opposed to whether it would be conducted at all. Courts continued to endorse technology assisted review and predictive coding, even going so far as to suggest the use of it in one case. Here are six cases involving the use of technology assisted review in 2014:

Court Rules that Unilateral Predictive Coding is Not Progressive: In In Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Delaney, Nevada Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen determined that the plaintiff’s unannounced shift from the agreed upon discovery methodology, to a predictive coding methodology for privilege review was not cooperative. Therefore, the plaintiff was ordered to produce documents that met agreed-upon search terms without conducting a privilege review first.

Court Rules in Dispute Between Parties Regarding ESI Protocol, Suggests Predictive Coding: In a dispute over ESI protocols in FDIC v. Bowden, Georgia Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith approved the ESI protocol from the FDIC and suggested the parties consider the use of predictive coding.

Court Sides with Defendant in Dispute over Predictive Coding that Plaintiff Requested: In the case In re Bridgepoint Educ., Inc., Securities Litigation, California Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt ruled that expanding the scope of discovery by nine months was unduly burdensome, despite the plaintiff’s request for the defendant to use predictive coding to fulfill its discovery obligation and also approved the defendants’ method of using search terms to identify responsive documents for the already reviewed three individual defendants, directing the parties to meet and confer regarding the additional search terms the plaintiffs requested.

Though it was “Switching Horses in Midstream”, Court Approves Plaintiff’s Predictive Coding Plan: In Bridgestone Americas Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp., Tennessee Magistrate Judge Joe B. Brown, acknowledging that he was “allowing Plaintiff to switch horses in midstream”, nonetheless ruled that that the plaintiff could use predictive coding to search documents for discovery, even though keyword search had already been performed.

Court Approves Use of Predictive Coding, Disagrees that it is an “Unproven Technology”: In Dynamo Holdings v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Texas Tax Court Judge Ronald Buch ruled that the petitioners “may use predictive coding in responding to respondent’s discovery request” and if “after reviewing the results, respondent believes that the response to the discovery request is incomplete, he may file a motion to compel at that time”.

Court Opts for Defendant’s Plan of Review including TAR and Manual Review over Plaintiff’s TAR Only Approach: In Good v. American Water Works, West Virginia District Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. granted the defendants’ motion for a Rule 502(d) order that merely encouraged the incorporation and employment of time-saving computer-assisted privilege review over the plaintiffs’ proposal disallowing linear privilege review altogether.

APPLE V. SAMSUNG

Every now and then, there is a case that just has to be covered. Whether it be for the eDiscovery related issues (e.g., adverse inference sanction, inadvertent disclosures, eDiscovery cost reiumbursement) or the fact that billions of dollars were at stake or the fact that the case earned its own “gate” moniker, the Apple v. Samsung case demanded attention. Here are the six posts (just from 2014, we have more in previous years) about this case:

Quinn Emanuel Sanctioned for Inadvertent Disclosure, Samsung Escapes Sanction: California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal has now handed down an order on motions for sanctions against Samsung and the Quinn Emanuel law firm in the never-ending Apple v. Samsung litigation for the inadvertent disclosure of confidential agreements that Apple had with Nokia, Ericsson, Sharp and Philips – now widely referred to as “patentgate”.

Apple Can’t Mention Inadvertent Disclosure in Samsung Case: Back in January, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP was sanctioned for their inadvertent disclosure in the Apple vs Samsung litigation (commonly referred to as “patentgate”). California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal handed down an order on motions for sanctions against Quinn Emanuel (in essence) requiring the firm to “reimburse Apple, Nokia, and their counsel for any and all costs and fees incurred in litigating this motion and the discovery associated with it”. Many felt that Samsung and Quinn Emanuel got off lightly. Now, Apple can’t even mention the inadvertent disclosure in the upcoming Samsung trial.

Apple Wins Another $119.6 Million from Samsung, But It’s Only 6% of What They Requested: Those of you who have been waiting for significant news to report from the Apple v. Samsung litigation, your wait is over! As reported last week in The Recorder, a California Federal jury ordered Samsung on Friday to pay Apple $119.6 million for infringing three of Apple’s iPhone patents. However, the award was a fraction of the nearly $2.2 billion Apple was requesting.

Samsung and Quinn Emanuel Ordered to Pay Over $2 Million for “Patentgate” Disclosure: Remember the “patentgate” disclosure last year (by Samsung and their outside counsel firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) of confidential agreements that Apple had with Nokia? Did you think they were going to avoid having to pay for that disclosure? The answer is no.

Court Refuses to Ban Samsung from Selling Products Found to Have Infringed on Apple Products: Apple may have won several battles with Samsung, including ultimately being awarded over $1 billion in verdicts, as well as a $2 million sanction for the inadvertent disclosure of its outside counsel firm (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) commonly known as “patentgate”. But, Samsung has may have won the war with the court’s refusal to ban Samsung from selling products that were found to have infringed on Apple products.

Apple Recovers Part, But Not All, of its Requested eDiscovery Costs from Samsung: Apple won several battles with Samsung, including ultimately being awarded over $1 billion in verdicts, as well as a $2 million sanction for the inadvertent disclosure of its outside counsel firm (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) commonly known as “patentgate”, but ultimately may have lost the war when the court refused to ban Samsung from selling products that were found to have infringed on Apple products. Now, they’re fighting over relative chicken-feed in terms of a few million that Apple sought to recover in eDiscovery costs.

Tomorrow, we will cover cases related to the most common theme of the year (three guesses and the first two don’t count). Stay tuned!

So, what do you think? Did you miss any of these? 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.

2014 eDiscovery Case Law Year in Review, Part 1

It’s time for our annual review of eDiscovery case law!  We had more than our share of sanctions granted and denied, as well as disputes over admissibility of electronically stored information (ESI), eDiscovery cost reimbursement, and production formats, even disputes regarding eDiscovery fees.  So, as we did last year and the year before that and also the year before that, let’s take a look back at 2014!

Last year, eDiscoveryDaily published 93 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 68 unique cases! And, believe it or not, we still didn’t cover every case that had eDiscovery impact. Sometimes, you want to cover other topics too.

Nonetheless, for the cases we did cover, we grouped them into common subject themes and will review them over the next few posts (a few of them could be categorized in more than one category, so we took our best shot). Perhaps you missed some of these? Now is your chance to catch up!

ADMISSIBILITY AND PROPORTIONALITY

As always, there are numerous disputes about data being produced and not being produced and whether the costs to do so are overly burdensome. Here are twelve cases related to admissibility, the duty to preserve and produce ESI and the proportionality for preserving and producing that ESI:

Split Decision between Plaintiff and Defendant Regarding Search Terms: In Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Giannoulias, Illinois District Judge John F. Grady resolved several motions regarding discovery proceedings in a $114 million lawsuit. Two of the motions concerned search terms for documents and electronically stored information (ESI), in which the plaintiff opposed the defendants’ request for six additional terms to be included in retrieving discovery documents. The court ruled that four additional search terms would be added, while two would be excluded.

Court Grants Motion to Compel Defendant to Produce Documents as Requested and Chronicle Approach: In Home Instead, Inc. v. Florance, following a motion to compel discovery on behalf of the plaintiff, Nebraska Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart ordered the defendant to produce documents requested during discovery and required the defendant to produce a sworn affidavit chronicling the methods used in their search for production of the discovery documents.

Electronic Discovery Dispute Sees Court Requesting Cooperation from Both Parties to Avoid “Court-Ordered Middle Ground”: In Fort Worth Employees’ Retirement Fund v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., a complex discovery dispute arose during the process of this securities action lawsuit revolving around the defendants’ loan products and offerings with regards to a specific consumer class, in which the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel an expanded discovery.

Definition of “Electronic Storage” Considered in Invasion of Privacy Lawsuit: In Cheng v. Romo, the interpretation of laws enacted prior to the modern Internet age served as a deciding factor in the outcome of this invasion of privacy lawsuit, which alleged a violation of the Stored Communications Act (SCA).

Government Ordered to Maintain Expensive Custom Database Shared with Criminal Defendant: In the criminal case of United States v. Shabudin, California Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas ordered the Government to continue to provide access to a Relativity Database used by the parties to review documents produced by the Government, instead of discontinuing access for the defendants several weeks before trial was to begin due to budgetary issues.

Portions of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel eDiscovery Ruled as “Overbroad” and “Moot” Reaffirmed by District Court: In Elkharwily v. Mayo Holding Co., Minnesota District Judge David S. Doty overruled the plaintiff’s objection to a magistrate judge’s order that denied in part the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, labeling some requests as overbroad or moot, particularly after the defendant contended it had already produced the requested discovery materials.

Court Denies Defendant’s Request to Image Plaintiff’s PCs Three Years after Termination: In Downs v. Virginia Health Systems, Virginia Magistrate Judge James G. Welsh, citing proportionality and privacy concerns, denied the defendant’s motion to compel the mirror imaging of the Plaintiff’s personal computers nearly three years after she had been terminated.

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Fallback Request for Meet and Confer after Quashing its Subpoena: In Boston Scientific Corporation v. Lee, California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal found time to preside over a case other than Apple v. Samsung and granted the motion to quash the plaintiff’s subpoena for the defendant’s laptops, refusing the plaintiff’s fallback position to meet and confer and referencing Leave it to Beaver in the process.

Court Rules to Limit Scope of Discovery, Noting that “Searching for ESI is only one discovery tool”: In United States v. Univ. of Neb. at Kearney, Nebraska Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart denied the government’s motion to compel discovery, finding that “ESI is neither the only nor the best and most economical discovery method for obtaining the information the government seeks” and stating that searching for ESI “should not be deemed a replacement for interrogatories, production requests, requests for admissions and depositions”.

Defendant Ordered to Produce Archived Emails Even Though Plaintiff Failed to Produce Theirs: In Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal granted the plaintiff’s motion ordering the defendant to produce relevant emails from its eight custodians, even though the plaintiff was unable to provide its own archival emails.

Court Determines that Software License Agreement Does Not Eliminate Production Obligation of Video: In Pero v. Norfolk Southern Railway, Co., Tennessee Magistrate Judge C. Clifford Shirley, Jr. granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery of a video declining to require the plaintiff to view the video at the defendant’s counsel’s office or obtain a license for the proprietary viewing software, ordering the defendant instead to either produce a laptop with the video loaded on it or to reimburse the plaintiff for the cost of a software license.

Image Isn’t Everything, Court Says, Denying Plaintiff’s Request for Imaging on Defendant’s Hard Drives: In Design Basics, LLC. v. Carhart Lumber Co., Nebraska Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart, after an extensive hearing on the plaintiff’s motion to compel “full disk imaging of Defendant’s hard drives, including Defendant’s POS server, secretaries’ computers, UBS devices. . .”, denied the motion after invoking the mandatory balancing test provided in FRCP Rule 26(b)(2)(C).

DISCOVERY ON DISCOVERY

Some cases are becoming so contentious that parties (or sometimes the courts themselves) are requesting for discovery on their opponent’s discovery process. Sometimes those requests were granted, sometimes not. Here were six cases in 2014 which involved requests for “discovery on discovery”:

‘Discovery About Discovery’ Motions Lead to Unusual Court Decision: In Ruiz-Bueno v. Scott, a discovery dispute in this wrongful death case arose, leading Ohio Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp to arrive at the unusual decision to direct a party to provide ‘discovery about discovery.’

Ruling on ESI Discovery Dispute Delayed as Court Requests Specific Information: In Worley v. Avanquest North America Inc., a putative class action involving PC security software, California Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler required the defendant to produce further information related to discovery disputes before a ruling would be issued.

Parties’ Failure to Cooperate Sparks Denial of Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider Court Ordered Discovery: In In Cactus Drilling Co. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., a largely contentious discovery phase was a major contributor to the decision of Oklahoma Chief District Judge Vicki Miles LaGrange regarding the defendant’s Motion to Reconsider, or Alternately, Motion for Clarification of the Court’s Order.

Plaintiffs Denied Motion to Depose Defendants Regarding ESI Processes Prior to Discovery Requests: In Miller v. York Risk Servs. Grp., Arizona Senior District Judge John W. Sedwick denied the plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, requesting permission to conduct depositions in order to determine the defendant’s manner and methods used for storing and maintaining Electronically Stored Information (ESI) prior to submitting their discovery requests.

Court Denies Defendant’s Request for Deposition Regarding Plaintiff’s Discovery Search Tools: In Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Hunt Control Sys., Inc., New Jersey Magistrate Judge James B. Clark III granted the plaintiff’s protective order to prevent the defendant from proceeding with a new deposition to review whether the plaintiff had used “appropriate search tools for ESI discovery,” after the requested discovery documents had already been produced.

Despite 18 Missing Emails in Production, Court Denies Request for “Discovery on Discovery”: In Freedman v. Weatherford Int’l, New York Magistrate Judge James C. Francis, IV denied the plaintiff’s request to, among other things, require the defendant to produce “certain reports comparing the electronic search results from discovery in this action to the results from prior searches” – despite the fact that the plaintiff identified 18 emails that the defendant did not produce that were ultimately produced by a third party.

We’re just getting started! Tomorrow, we will cover cases related to eDiscovery cost reimbursement, fee disputes and production format disputes. Stay tuned!

So, what do you think? Did you miss any of these? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Where Some of Your Tax Dollars are Going, if you’re in Tennessee – eDiscovery Trends

One of the topics at the roundtable discussion after the Houston showing of The Decade of Discovery the other night was regarding Rule 37(e), preservation and sanctions.  Apparently, at least in one state, the burden of preservation has become a fairly significant cost to that state.

In a post on the Nashville Public Radio blog site (of all places!) titled Tennessee Agencies Are Spending ‘A Huge Amount Of Money’ To Store Emails For Lawsuits, Bobby Allyn described a recent budget hearing with the Tennessee governor and the Department of Children’s Services (DCS) Commissioner Jim Henry, who said:

“Litigation hold on email storage is $865,000, which, you know, is a huge amount of money for us to pay just to store emails”.

As the author noted, “It’s a figure expected to climb to $1.1 million. Just a few years ago, it was almost nothing.”

Because of court orders aimed at ensuring that potential lawsuit evidence isn’t being hidden or destroyed, Tennessee state agencies are spending millions of dollars on email storage.  In particular, DCS’ sum stems from a 14-year-old federal lawsuit brought by a New York-based child advocacy firm that sued the state over claims of unsafe conditions in Tennessee foster homes and other allegations of systemic issues plaguing the department.  While the $865,000 is a fraction of the $32 million the suit has cost DCS over two fiscal years, moving and preserving email communication is still a significant expense that most people don’t realize.

Overall, the state is expected to spend $1.6 million this fiscal year on paying staff and outside firms to save emails, according to Lola Potter, spokeswoman for Tennessee’s Inspector General.  And, that total apparently doesn’t include litigation-related email storage services in a number of state agencies, such as TennCare which has litigation holds on about 20 lawsuits, and spends more than $1 million a year on transferring and storing employee emails connected to the suits, thanks to court orders that mandate saving of the emails.

So, what do you think?  Are litigation hold costs escalating in your state government or your organization?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Thanks to Nashville attorney Thomas B. Norris, Jr. for the tip on this article!

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

Defendant Ordered to Produce Archived Emails Even Though Plaintiff Failed to Produce Theirs – eDiscovery Case Law

In Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems., 5:13-cv-03999-BLF (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2014), California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal granted the plaintiff’s motion ordering the defendant to produce relevant emails from its eight custodians, even though the plaintiff was unable to provide its own archival emails.

Case Background

As Judge Grewal stated “[t]o cut to the chase in this dispute over the scope and pace of Defendant Bluecoat Systems, Inc.’s document production in this patent infringement case”, the plaintiff moved to compel the defendant to produce email from eight custodians related to both technical documents and damages documents as well as damages testimony.  The defendant did not object to producing any of the technical discovery requested and raised only limited issues concerning the documents on damages, mostly objecting to producing custodial email from archival systems when the plaintiff was not able to do the same in return.

Each party agreed to identify eight custodians and ten terms per custodian for the other to search. The defendant did not dispute the relevance of either the custodians or search terms the plaintiff selected. But when the defendant learned that the plaintiff did not have former employees’ emails — except as produced in other litigations — the defendant balked at the idea that its custodians should have to turn over any email other than from active systems.

Judge’s Ruling

“Reduced to its essence, Rule 26(b)(2)(iii) requires this court to decide: have Blue Coat’s discovery responses been fair? Blue Coat’s discovery responses so far have largely been fair, but not entirely”, stated Judge Grewal.

Judge Grewal found that, with the exception of one document repository recently discovered (as acknowledged by defendant’s counsel), the defendant had completed its obligation regarding the technical document production.  Judge Grewal also ruled that the plaintiff “has identified no legitimate reason why it should be provided discovery on Blue Coat’s foreign sales or valuation on the whole”.  He also stated that the defendant “might reasonably be required to at least tell Finjan what the [third party] agreements are and the status of its efforts to secure consent.”

However, with regard to the archival email, Judge Grewal ruled as follows:

“Where Blue Coat has been less than fair is with respect to archival email for its eight custodians. Blue Coat may largely be in the right that it should not have to dig through legacy systems when Finjan is unable to the same for its custodians. But one party’s discovery shortcomings are rarely enough to justify another’s. And here, at least with respect to documents mentioning Finjan — the one specific category of documents Finjan could identify that it needed from archived email — Finjan’s request is reasonable.”

As a result, the defendant was ordered to “identify all license agreements whose production is awaiting third-party consent and the status of its efforts to secure that consent” within seven days and “produce all archival email from its eight designated custodians that mention Finjan and supplemental Interrogatories 5 and 6” within 21 days.

So, what do you think?  Should the defendant have to produce email when the plaintiff can’t do the same?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

The Watergate 18 Minute Gap in Audio Recordings Has Nothing on This Case – eDiscovery Case Law

Anybody who remembers Watergate remembers the big deal made about an 18 1/2 minute gap in audio recordings reported by President Nixon’s secretary, Rose Mary Woods.  This case involves a gap in audio recordings much longer than that.

In Novick v. AXA Network, LLC, 07-CV-7767 (AKH) (KNF) (S.D.N.Y.Oct. 22, 2014), 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.

Case Background

In this wrongful termination case, the plaintiff contended that the defendants committed several “strikes” justifying his request for sanctions, including spoliating audio recordings because “audio recordings from the time period August 28, 2006 through November 5, 2006 (approximately one-third of the entire time period ordered) are missing,” and “Defendants admit that they were likely erased and taped over” (per defendants letter to the plaintiff on October 25, 2013).  According to the plaintiff, “these recordings are from the most important time period of all – directly before and directly after Mr. Novick’s termination.”  The plaintiff also contended that the defendant had numerous deficiencies in their email production, where the defendant again made several promises to rectify the mistakes.

The defendants contended that “no responsive emails have been withheld and there is no evidence that any emails are missing.”  They did, however, “acknowledge that there are approximately eight weeks of audio recordings, within the period of time for which production of audio recordings was eventually ordered, that cannot be located or produced,” but “[t]his is not a new issue,” and the defendants advised plaintiff of it, on October 17, 2013, when the majority of the recordings were produced to him, and “[t]he fact that these weeks of recordings are missing constitutes the only real issue in plaintiff’s sanctions motion.”  The defendant also acknowledged that they “cannot now explain the absence of these recordings”.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Fox stated that the court “determined that ‘[t]he defendants’ duty to preserve evidence arose when the plaintiff’s counsel notified the defendants, in the October 16, 2006 letter, that the audio recordings should be preserved because they may be relevant to future litigation’” and that the defendants conceded that “‘there are approximately eight weeks of audio recordings that are missing within the period for which defendants have been ordered to produce audio recordings,’ namely the period of August 28-31, 2006, and September 8-November 5, 2006, and they ‘have not been able to determine when, why or how these audio recordings came to be missing from the group of other audio recordings that were stored on DVDs and have been produced.’”  As a result, Judge Fox ruled that “the Court finds that the defendants spoliated relevant evidence, namely, audio recordings for the period August 28-31, 2006, and September 8-November 5, 2006”.

Judge Fox also noted that “Moreover, the defendants’ misconduct respecting the audio recordings was compounded by their deliberate and unjustified failure to search for and locate e-mail messages, as directed by the September 25, 2013 order. The defendants now admit that it was not until March 2014, that they realized that the Frontbridge archive was not searched for responsive documents, but contend this delay was ‘due to human error,’ without explaining what that error was or why they waited until March 2014 to conduct the investigation concerning the production of e-mail messages.”

As a result, Judge Fox Fox granted the plaintiff’s request for sanctions against the defendant, awarding an adverse inference jury instruction for the defendant’s actions and also awarding “reasonable attorney’s fees and costs” associated with the motion as well as retaking several depositions.

So, what do you think?  Did defense counsel’s quick reaction to the disclosure save the email’s privileged status?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

BTW, we also covered a ruling on this case last year 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.

The Importance of Metadata – eDiscovery Best Practices

This topic came up today with a client that wanted information to help justify the request for production from opposing counsel in native file format, so it’s worth revisiting here…

If an electronic document is a “house” for information, then metadata could be considered the “deed” to that house. There is far more to explaining a house than simply the number of stories and the color of trim. It is the data that isn’t apparent to the naked eye that tells the rest of the story. For a house, the deed lines out the name of the buyer, the financier, and the closing date among heaps of other information that form the basis of the property. For an electronic document, it’s not just the content or formatting that holds the key to understanding it. Metadata, which is data about the document, contains information such as the user who created it, creation date, the edit history, and file type. Metadata often tells the rest of the story about the document and, therefore, is often a key focus of eDiscovery.

There are many different types of metadata and it is important to understand each with regard to requesting that metadata in opposing counsel productions and being prepared to produce it in your own productions.  Examples include:

  • Application Metadata: This is the data created by an application, such as Microsoft® Word, that pertains to the ESI (“Electronically Stored Information”) being addressed. It is embedded in the file and moves with it when copied, though copying may alter the application metadata.
  • Document Metadata: These are properties about a document that may not be viewable within the application that created it, but can often be seen through a “Properties” view (for example, Word tracks the author name and total editing time).
  • Email Metadata: Data about the email.  Sometimes, this metadata may not be immediately apparent within the email application that created it (e.g., date and time received). The amount of email metadata available varies depending on the email system utilized.  For example, Outlook has a metadata field that links messages in a thread together which can facilitate review – not all email applications have this data.
  • Embedded Metadata: This metadata is usually hidden; however, it can be a vitally important part of the ESI. Examples of embedded metadata are edit history or notes in a presentation file. These may only be viewable in the original, native file since it is not always extracted during processing and conversion to an image format.
  • File System Metadata: Data generated by the file system, such as Windows, to track key statistics about the file (e.g., name, size, location, etc.) which is usually stored externally from the file itself.
  • User-Added Metadata: Data created by a user while working with, reviewing, or copying a file (such as notes or tracked changes).
  • Vendor-Added Metadata: Data created and maintained by an eDiscovery vendor during processing of the native document.  Don’t be alarmed, it’s impossible to work with some file types without generating some metadata; for example, you can’t review and produce individual emails within a custodian’s Outlook PST file without generating those out as separate emails (either in Outlook MSG format or converted to an image format, such as TIFF or PDF).

Some metadata, such as user-added tracked changes or notes, could be work product that may affect whether a document is responsive or contains privileged information, so it’s important to consider that metadata during review, especially when producing in native format.

Here’s an example of one case where the production of metadata was ordered and an answer to the question “Is it Possible for a File to be Modified Before it is Created?” (you might be surprised at the answer).

So, what do you think? Have you been involved in cases where metadata was specifically requested as part of discovery? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Plaintiff Can’t “Pick” and Choose When it Comes to Privilege of Inadvertent Disclosures – eDiscovery Case Law

In Pick v. City of Remsen, C 13-4041-MWB (N.D. Iowa Sept. 15, 2014), Iowa District Judge Mark W. Bennett upheld the magistrate judge’s order directing the destruction of an inadvertently-produced privileged document, an email from defense counsel to some of the defendants, after affirming the magistrate judge’s analysis of the five-step analysis to determine whether privilege was waived.

Case Background

In this wrongful termination case, the plaintiff served a request for production of documents that included “all relevant non-privileged emails initiated by or received by the City of Remsen in regard to the Plaintiff and/or any of the issues set forth in Plaintiff’s complaint”.  Among the documents produced was an email, dated July 14, 2012, from defense counsel to Remsen Utility Board members and others discussing an upcoming Utility Board meeting.  Defense counsel learned of the email’s inadvertent disclosure on March 25, 2014, when the plaintiff served supplemental discovery responses on defense counsel and contacted plaintiff’s counsel within 34 minutes of the discovery.

Defense counsel asked that the email be destroyed. The plaintiff’s counsel suggested the email could be redacted to protect “advice relating to procedure,” but indicated he intended to rely on the remainder of the email unless ordered otherwise by the court.  The defendants’ filed a motion requesting that the court order the email’s destruction as an inadvertently produced privileged document, which the magistrate judge granted.

Judge’s Ruling

The Magistrate Judge, Leonard Strand, had applied the five-step analysis to determine the proper range of privilege to extend.  Those five factors were, as follows:

  1. The reasonableness of the precautions taken to prevent inadvertent disclosure in view of the extent of document production: Judge Strand found that the privileged email was “inconspicuously located among various non-privileged email messages”, which, based on the fact that defendants turned over to their counsel 440 pages of documents (including 183 pages of email messages, some pages of which contained more than one email), was upheld as “completely fair and accurate”;
  2. The number of inadvertent disclosures: Since there was only one inadvertent disclosure, Judge Bennett upheld the ruling as “not clearly erroneous”;
  3. The extent of the disclosures: Though the email was sent to six people, all six were privileged recipients of the email, so Judge Bennett upheld the ruling as “not clearly erroneous”;
  4. The promptness of measures taken to rectify the disclosure: Because defense counsel contacted plaintiff’s counsel just 34 minutes after learning of the email’s inadvertent disclosure and requested its destruction, Judge Bennett upheld the ruling as “not clearly erroneous”; and
  5. Whether the overriding interest of justice would be served by relieving the party of its error: Judge Strand, finding that the plaintiff “clearly has other evidence that he intends to rely on in support of his various claims”, ruled in favor of the defendant in this factor as well, which Judge Bennett upheld.

Judge Bennett summarized as follows: “The email is classic legal advice that should be protected by the attorney-client privilege…This interest of justice would be harmed here by permitting Pick to use the email at trial…Given the important nature of the attorney-client privilege and the manner in which the email was inadvertently disclosed, Judge Strand’s conclusion that the overriding interest in justice factor weighed against waiver is not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, Pick’s objection is overruled.”

So, what do you think?  Did defense counsel’s quick reaction to the disclosure save the email’s privileged status?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Despite 18 Missing Emails in Production, Court Denies Request for “Discovery on Discovery” – eDiscovery Case Law

In Freedman v. Weatherford Int’l, 12 Civ. 2121 (LAK) (JCF) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2014), New York Magistrate Judge James C. Francis, IV denied the plaintiff’s request to, among other things, require the defendant to produce “certain reports comparing the electronic search results from discovery in this action to the results from prior searches” – despite the fact that the plaintiff identified 18 emails that the defendant did not produce that were ultimately produced by a third party.

Case Background

In this securities fraud class action, Judge Francis had previously denied three motions to compel by the plaintiffs seeking production of “(1) ‘certain reports comparing the electronic search results from discovery in this action to the results from prior searches’; (2) ‘documents concerning an investigation undertaken by [the] Audit Committee’ of [the] defendant…; and (3) ‘documents concerning an investigation undertaken by the law firm Latham & Watkins LLP’.”  In denying the motions, Judge Francis stated that “Although I recognized that such ‘discovery on discovery’ is sometimes warranted, I nevertheless denied the request because the plaintiffs had not ‘proffered an adequate factual basis for their belief that the current production is deficient.’”

However, Judge Francis granted reconsideration and asked for further briefing on the second item, based on the plaintiffs’ presentation of “new evidence, unavailable at the time [they] filed their [earlier] motion, which allegedly reveals deficiencies in [Weatherford’s] current production.”

Eighteen Missing Emails

The new evidence referenced by the plaintiffs consisted of 18 emails from “critical custodians at Weatherford” that were produced (after briefing on the original motion to compel was complete) not by the defendants, but by a third-party causing the plaintiffs to contend that Weatherford’s production is “significantly deficient.”  The plaintiffs contended that “providing them with a “report of the documents `hit'” by search terms used in connection with the Latham and Audit Committee Investigations will identify additional relevant documents that have not been produced here.”

Judge’s Ruling

However, Judge Francis disagreed, stating “the suggested remedy is not suited to the task. The plaintiffs admit that of those 18 e-mails only three, at most, would have been identified by a search using the terms from the investigations.”  He also cited Da Silva Moore, noting that “[T]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require perfection…Weatherford has reviewed “millions of documents [] and [produced] hundreds of thousands,” comprising “nearly 4.4 million pages,” in this case…It is unsurprising that some relevant documents may have fallen through the cracks. But, most importantly, the plaintiffs’ proposed exercise is unlikely to remedy the alleged discovery defects. In light of its dubious value, I will not require Weatherford to provide the requested report.”

So, what do you think?  Was the decision justified or should the defendant have been held to a higher standard?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Good Processing Requires a Sound Process – Best of eDiscovery Daily

Home at last!  Today, we are recovering from our trip, after arriving back home one day late and without our luggage.  Satan, thy name is Lufthansa!  Anyway, for these past two weeks except for Jane Gennarelli’s Throwback Thursday series, we have been re-publishing some of our more popular and frequently referenced posts.  Today’s post is a topic that comes up often with our clients.  Enjoy!  New posts next week!

As we discussed Wednesday, working with electronic files in a review tool is NOT just simply a matter of loading the files and getting started.  Electronic files are diverse and can represent a whole collection of issues to address in order to process them for loading.  To address those issues effectively, processing requires a sound process.

eDiscovery providers like (shameless plus warning!) CloudNine Discovery process electronic files regularly to enable their clients to work with those files during review and production.  As a result, we are aware of some of the information that must be provided by the client to ensure that the resulting processed data meets their needs and have created an EDD processing spec sheet to gather that information before processing.  Examples of information we collect from our clients:

  • Do you need de-duplication?  If so, should it performed at the case or the custodian level?
  • Should Outlook emails be extracted in MSG or HTM format?
  • What time zone should we use for email extraction?  Typically, it’s the local time zone of the client or Greenwich Mean Time (GMT).  If you don’t think that matters, consider this example.
  • Should we perform Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for image-only files that don’t have corresponding text?  If we don’t OCR those files, these could be responsive files that are missed during searching.
  • If any password-protected files are encountered, should we attempt to crack those passwords or log them as exception files?
  • Should the collection be culled based on a responsive date range?
  • Should the collection be culled based on key terms?

Those are some general examples for native processing.  If the client requests creation of image files (many still do, despite the well documented advantages of native files), there are a number of additional questions we ask regarding the image processing.  Some examples:

  • Generate as single-page TIFF, multi-page TIFF, text-searchable PDF or non text-searchable PDF?
  • Should color images be created when appropriate?
  • Should we generate placeholder images for unsupported or corrupt files that cannot be repaired?
  • Should we create images of Excel files?  If so, we proceed to ask a series of questions about formatting preferences, including orientation (portrait or landscape), scaling options (auto-size columns or fit to page), printing gridlines, printing hidden rows/columns/sheets, etc.
  • Should we endorse the images?  If so, how?

Those are just some examples.  Questions about print format options for Excel, Word and PowerPoint take up almost a full page by themselves – there are a lot of formatting options for those files and we identify default parameters that we typically use.  Don’t get me started.

We also ask questions about load file generation (if the data is not being loaded into our own review tool, OnDemand®), including what load file format is preferred and parameters associated with the desired load file format.

This isn’t a comprehensive list of questions we ask, just a sample to illustrate how many decisions must be made to effectively process electronic data.  Processing data is not just a matter of feeding native electronic files into the processing tool and generating results, it requires a sound process to ensure that the resulting output will meet the needs of the case.

So, what do you think?  How do you handle processing of electronic files?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

P.S. – No hamsters were harmed in the making of this blog post.

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.

The Files are Already Electronic, How Hard Can They Be to Load? – Best of eDiscovery Daily

Come fly with me!  Today we are winding our way back home from Paris, by way of Frankfurt.  For the next two weeks except for Jane Gennarelli’s Throwback Thursday series, we will be re-publishing some of our more popular and frequently referenced posts.  Today’s post is a topic that relates to a question that I get asked often.  Enjoy!

Since hard copy discovery became electronic discovery, I’ve worked with a number of clients who expect that working with electronic files in a review tool is simply a matter of loading the files and getting started.  Unfortunately, it’s not that simple!

Back when most discovery was paper based, the usefulness of the documents was understandably limited.  Documents were paper and they all required conversion to image to be viewed electronically, optical character recognition (OCR) to capture their text (though not 100% accurately) and coding (i.e., data entry) to capture key data elements (e.g., author, recipient, subject, document date, document type, names mentioned, etc.).  It was a problem, but it was a consistent problem – all documents needed the same treatment to make them searchable and usable electronically.

Though electronic files are already electronic, that doesn’t mean that they’re ready for review as is.  They don’t just represent one problem, they can represent a whole collection of problems.  For example:

These are just a few examples of why working with electronic files for review isn’t necessarily straightforward.  Of course, when processed correctly, electronic files include considerable metadata that provides useful information about how and when the files were created and used, and by whom.  They’re way more useful than paper documents.  So, it’s still preferable to work with electronic files instead of hard copy files whenever they are available.  But, despite what you might think, that doesn’t make them ready to review as is.

So, what do you think?  Have you encountered difficulties or challenges when processing electronic files?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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