Close
Enter your
text here

Evidence

eDiscovery Trends: Ralph Losey of Jackson Lewis, LLP, Part Two
 

This is the sixth of the 2012 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year.

Today’s thought leader is Ralph Losey. Ralph is an attorney in private practice with the law firm of Jackson Lewis, LLP, where he is a Partner and the firm's National e-Discovery Counsel. Ralph is also an Adjunct Professor at the University of Florida College of Law teaching eDiscovery and advanced eDiscovery. Ralph is also a prolific author of eDiscovery books and articles, the principle author and publisher of the popular e-Discovery Team® Blog and founder and owner of an intensive online training program, e-Discovery Team Training, with attorney and technical students all over the world.

Our interview with Ralph had so much good information in it, we couldn’t fit it all into a single post.  Yesterday was part 1.  Here's the rest of the interview!

Are there any other key trends you see?  Is there anything else interesting in terms of the trends you see here at LegalTech, at least as far as the curriculum goes?

[Interviewed the first morning, before the show began]  In all candor, the show hasn't begun yet, so I haven't seen anything.  I'm doing four presentations on predictive coding and one with Craig Ball, which I'm looking forward to.  I hope I don't suffer too bad of a public humiliation by Master Ball. 

But, you know, the keynote speech that's getting ready to start is on ethics, and I see a lot of ethics in the curriculum.  I'm pleased by that.  I do lecture a lot on eDiscovery ethics, and I think it comes down to fundamentally what we are doing with discovery.  Are we, as legal practitioners, willing to stop playing “hide the ball”, stop all this nonsense and waste of money, and get down to actually finding the key facts and getting them out there quickly?  That's always been my attitude, but I was lucky – I was brought up in a firm that really put ethics first and money second.  But, there are a lot of people out there for which money's first, and ethics is a gray area.

Ethics is not a gray area.  We're supposed to try and get the case resolved and save money for our clients.  That's rule one.  Just do it speedy and inexpensively.  A lot of lawyers, say, “yeah, right” and that's how they make a living.  Well, shame on them.

You don’t make a living by exploiting your clients.  You make a living by winning cases, and sometimes the best way to win a case is to settle it when you realize the facts are against you – not to try to change the facts or hide the facts.  So that's ethics.  Most clients want ethical lawyers like that.

What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

I'm doing a lot of law firm training.  I do that internally and, since my current law firm specializes in labor and employment only, we're not really a competitor to most law firms.  So, we actually can offer a service to help train other law firms in eDiscovery.

I'm also now doing a lot of training for our corporate clients.  We represent Fortune 500 type companies, and it's important for those companies to be prepared for eDiscovery.  Now that we’re coming out of the recession, companies can spend the money needed to get ready for litigation and eDiscovery that they put off before, because of other priorities.  Companies are now saying “I want to finally get my e-mail retention policy in order.  I want to figure out how to get a litigation hold implemented in my company without causing all kinds of disruption and chaos and confusion and expense.”

It just takes preparation.  It takes time.  The fundamental way to do that is to set up your own internal team, eDiscovery team.  That's one of the main ideas that I've been talking about for six years now when I started my blog, e-Discovery Team®, is the joint approach of people working together.  Get the IT people, the law people and the management people working together as teams for – in this case – litigation readiness.

It can cost a fair amount of money to do it right.  But, if you spend $100,000 now to get ready and get your systems in order, you can save yourself millions later on and also save yourself the embarrassment of making a mistake, of being found out to be a spoliator.  There are plenty of examples where it makes sense to spend a little money up front to save more money down the road.  So, I want to encourage companies to think about that, whether they use me or somebody else.  There are a number of attorneys that provide those services, and it's money well spent.  Pay me a little bit now or pay me a lot later.

Ten years ago, when Cisco was probably the first company in the country to form their own eDiscovery team, it was after they faced hundreds of investor law suits.  They found that by forming their own eDiscovery team, they reduced their litigation expenses by 90 percent because most of their litigation expenses were related to eDiscovery.  While I'm not promising you'll save 90 percent like Cisco did, I am saying it's a well-established fact that spending a little money up front to prepare will help you save costs in the long run.

I'd also like point out to people the other program that I've developed, which I call eDiscovery team training.  And you'll also find that on the web, at e-Discovery Team Training.  I took what I had developed in law school in teaching eDiscovery to law students for the past three or four years, and I developed an online program with the University of Florida, School of Law.  With their permission, I developed my own private version of that, which is actually much longer and harder than what I taught to law students.  Law students had to take it in two months.

So, I've developed a program that built on that, which you can take up to two years to complete.  It's 75 hours of work to go through the training program and it's all online.  It has homework assignments at the end for additional reading and presents different essays, hypertext-type writings and videos.  It takes advantage of the power of online education, which I really think is more the future than these expensive, face-to-face education programs, like we have at LegalTech.

There are still a few events that I'll go to each year (like LegalTech and the Sedona Conference), and then I'll train inside corporations or in my own law firm.  The fact that most lawyers aren't doing eDiscovery is not because they're trying to do anything wrong or hide the truth.  They simply don't know how.  And if you teach them how to do it, they'll do it.  This is against a lot of vendors' models – they would rather serve a nice fish dinner.  I'm more into teaching people how to fish so that they can feed themselves, and that's what I go around trying to do.

Thanks, Ralph, for participating in the interview!

And to the readers, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic!

eDiscovery Trends: Ralph Losey of Jackson Lewis, LLP
 

This is the sixth of the 2012 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year.

Today’s thought leader is Ralph Losey. Ralph is an attorney in private practice with the law firm of Jackson Lewis, LLP, where he is a Partner and the firm's National e-Discovery Counsel. Ralph is also an Adjunct Professor at the University of Florida College of Law teaching eDiscovery and advanced eDiscovery. Ralph is also a prolific author of eDiscovery books and articles, the principle author and publisher of the popular e-Discovery Team® Blog and founder and owner of an intensive online training program, e-Discovery Team Training, with attorney and technical students all over the world.

Our interview with Ralph had so much good information in it, we couldn’t fit it all into a single post.  So, today is part one.  Part two will be published in the blog tomorrow!

Many people are saying that 2012 is the year of technology assisted review.  What do you think needs to happen for that to come true?

Well, many things.  First of all, we need to have better training for lawyers so that they'll know how to use the technology.  If you bring an advanced computer to anyone, they're going to need some kind of instruction on how to use it.  You have to have people trained to use the tools.  That's very important and I spend a lot of time focusing on training in my firm and around the country to other attorneys and bar groups.  The tool alone really can't do much or help you unless you fit in the use of it into a larger, legal methodology.

In other words, just bringing in technology in itself doesn't answer any questions.  It may answer some, but it doesn't give you the answers you need in order to use it in your practice.

I'm a legal practitioner.  I've been practicing law, for, I guess about 32 years now.  So, that's how I look at technology – as tools to practice law and represent clients.  And, the truth is most people don't know how to use predictive coding yet, so we're going to have a training and learning curve like you do with any new technology.

Vendors also need to start bringing the prices down so that it's more affordable and make it accessible to a large number of attorneys, rather than just a few attorneys that can afford to handle it in large cases.  I've been complaining about this to vendors for a while now.  The good news is I think that they're listening.  I'm beginning to see prices come down and I think this trend will continue.  It's in their own best interest to do that because in the long run, they are going to be more successful in bringing this technology to attorneys and making money for their companies if they look at more of a large scale, larger volume, lower profit as opposed to making larger amounts of profit and fewer projects.

I think most of the vendors are receptive to that.  The reason they probably just don't jump on it right away is the demand isn’t there yet.  Build it and they will come.  But, they're only coming in small numbers.  When they're only coming in small numbers in order to pay for their business, they have to charge a lot.

So, it's a circle.  It comes back again to training.  An educated consumer will want this.  I want this.  I like it, and I want it affordable.

Do you think that it's just merely a matter of bringing prices down?  Or is it being creative in how you price differently?

Well, it's both.  The bottom line is always the bottom line, but it’s important to get there in a way that's win-win for both the consumer (law firms and corporate law departments) and for the provider.  So, there needs to be creative solutions.  As a result, I think people are now “putting on their thinking caps” and coming up with new ways to price solutions because there are different needs.  I have my own ideas on how I want to use it, and so I want people to price accordingly.  I don't want there to be a “one-size-fits-all” type of solution.  I think the vendors are hearing that, too.

You had a recent blog post about bottom line proportional review and you noted that the larger cases have a lot at stake, so the budget is much higher.  How does it work for smaller cases?

It's going to take a legal method, and I think that the method I described (bottom line proportional review) is the way to make it happen.  In order to make bottom line driven review (where you're basically setting a budget up front) to be acceptable to the requesting party, they're going to want to make sure that this isn't just another way to “hide the ball”.  They're going to want to make sure that they can find the relevant evidence that they need to evaluate their case to either see that they've got a winning case (so they can move for a summary-judgment, establish a strong settlement position, or go to trial) or see that they have a weak case and value it accordingly.

We all want to find out as quickly as possible how good a case it is.  We really don't want to spend all of our time and money just doing discovery.  The whole point of discovery is to discover how good your case is and then resolve it.

I'm very oriented to resolving cases.  That's really most of my life.  I wasn't an eDiscovery lawyer most of my career.  I was a trial lawyer, and I think that perspective is lacking from some of the vendors and some of the analysts and some of the other people in eDiscovery.  People seem to think discovery is an end in itself.  It's not.  It's just a way to prepare for trial.

So, there is no reason to get all of the relevant evidence.  That's an archaic notion of the past.  There's too much relevant evidence.  All that counts is the important relevant evidence.  The smoking guns are what counts.  The highly relevant or hot documents are what counts.

You do have to wade through some relevant documents to get there, but the point is to get there.  It gets back to my “seven plus or minus two” rule.  It's not my rule.  It's an old rule of persuasion.  That's never going to change.  People are never going to remember more than seven documents at a trial.  They just can't.  The juror's mind is not capable of it.

Lawyers can handle probably several hundred exhibits, and they can keep it in their head.  But, they don't make the decisions.  And, the several hundred exhibits are merely predicates or evidentiary foundations in order to get the key exhibits out there that you then use in your closing argument.

The point of discovery and litigation is to identify and locate these key documents.  When you understand that, then you'll accept and understand the fact that you don't need all relevant information, all relevant documents.  You just need the most highly relevant documents so that you can feel pretty confident you've got the handful of documents you need to try the case.

The thing that’s exciting about predictive coding is its ranking abilities.  You don't have to look at the junk that's not really that relevant.  You only look at the most relevant documents, whether it’s the most relevant 5,000, 50,000 or 100,000.  Whatever it is that's appropriate to your size case.  You're not going to look at 100,000 documents in a $250,000 dollar discrimination case.  It makes no sense.

That's where you get back to proportionality.  It's a somewhat long answer to your question, but people need to understand that this isn't a way to hide the truth.  It's really a way to get the truth out there in an efficient, economic manner.

So, based on the five dollar per document review cost example in your post, if you have $25,000 to spend, you can review the top 5,000 documents, right?

That's right.  And the five dollars is just like a working number that you use.  Some document collections can be even more expensive and difficult.  For example, a collection with a lot of 20-page spreadsheets (where you actually determine what's confidential and what's not in each sheet) can drive that number up.  Banking cases are a nightmare.  You've got all this financial information, where some of it's relevant and some of it's not.  For other cases, it can be a lot cheaper.  But, you also have to take some vendor claims with a big grain of salt.  “Oh, I'll do your whole thing for you for a buck a document.”  Will you?  Really?  What does that include?

Thanks, Ralph, for participating in the interview!

And to the readers, just a reminder that part two of our interview with Ralph Losey will be published tomorrow.  Don't miss it!  And, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic!

eDiscovery Trends: DOJ Criminal Attorneys Now Have Their Own eDiscovery Protocols
 

Criminal attorneys, are you discouraged that there is a lack of eDiscovery rules and guidelines for criminal cases?  If you work for the Department of Justice or other related law enforcement agencies, cheer up!

As noted in the Law Technology News article, DOJ Lays Down the Law on Criminal E-Discovery Protocols, written by Evan Koblentz, the government's Joint Electronic Technology Working Group (JETWG), led by the DOJ, unveiled its best practices guide for eDiscovery at a federal software summit in Washington on February 10.  The 21 page document, “intended for cases where the volume and/or nature of the ESI produced as discovery significantly increases the complexity of the case”, primarily consists of three sections:

  • Recommendations for ESI Discovery in Federal Criminal Cases: Provides a general framework for managing ESI, including planning, production, transmission, dispute resolution, and security;
  • Strategies and Commentary on ESI Discovery in Federal Criminal Cases: Provide more detailed guidance for implementing the recommendations – this section will evolve to reflect experiences in actual cases; and
  • ESI Discovery Checklist: One page checklist for addressing ESI production issues.

While the one page checklist has several items that would apply to any case, there are some items specific to criminal cases that would make it a handy reference for conducting eDiscovery on those cases.  The three sections are based on ten basic principles, which should have familiarity to those who have been dealing with eDiscovery in civil cases.  They are as follows:

  1. Lawyers have a responsibility to have an adequate understanding of electronic discovery.
  2. In the process of planning, producing, and resolving disputes about ESI discovery, the parties should include individuals with sufficient technical knowledge and experience regarding ESI.
  3. At the outset of a case, the parties should meet and confer about the nature, volume, and mechanics of producing ESI discovery. Where the ESI discovery is particularly complex or produced on a rolling basis, an on-going dialogue may be helpful.
  4. The parties should discuss what formats of production are possible and appropriate, and what formats can be generated. Any format selected for producing discovery should maintain the ESI’s integrity, allow for reasonable usability, reasonably limit costs, and, if possible, conform to industry standards for the format.
  5. When producing ESI discovery, a party should not be required to take on substantial additional processing or format conversion costs and burdens beyond what the party has already done or would do for its own case preparation or discovery production.
  6. Following the meet and confer, the parties should notify the court of ESI discovery production issues or problems that they reasonably anticipate will significantly affect the handling of the case.
  7. The parties should discuss ESI discovery transmission methods and media that promote efficiency, security, and reduced costs. The producing party should provide a general description and maintain a record of what was transmitted.
  8. In multi-defendant cases, the defendants should authorize one or more counsel to act as the discovery coordinator(s) or seek appointment of a Coordinating Discovery Attorney.
  9. The parties should make good faith efforts to discuss and resolve disputes over ESI discovery, involving those with the requisite technical knowledge when necessary, and they should consult with a supervisor, or obtain supervisory authorization, before seeking judicial resolution of an ESI discovery dispute or alleging misconduct, abuse, or neglect concerning the production of ESI.
  10. All parties should limit dissemination of ESI discovery to members of their litigation team who need and are approved for access, and they should also take reasonable and appropriate measures to secure ESI discovery against unauthorized access or disclosure.

Evan’s article provides comments from Andrew Goldsmith, the national criminal eDiscovery coordinator, regarding the efforts and intent of the document and training program for DOJ attorneys and other law enforcement personnel, as well as efforts of the department to determine how to apply commercial, civil litigation oriented, eDiscovery software to criminal cases.  It’s a good read and the guidelines look promising as a resource for criminal attorneys to manage eDiscovery in those cases.

So, what do you think?  Do these guidelines show promise for eDiscovery in criminal cases?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

eDiscovery Best Practices: Google’s Blunder Keeps Them Under the (Smoking) Gun

As we noted back in November, a mistake made by Google during discovery in its lawsuit with Oracle could cost the company dearly, perhaps billions.  Here’s a brief recap of the case:

Google is currently involved in a lawsuit with Oracle over license fees associated with Java, which forms a critical part of Google’s Android operating system.  Google has leveraged free Android to drive mobile phone users to their ecosystem and extremely profitable searches and advertising.

Despite the use of search technology to cull down a typically large ESI population, a key email, written by Google engineer Tim Lindholm a few weeks before Oracle filed suit against Google, was produced that could prove damaging to their case.  With the threat of litigation from Oracle looming, Lindholm was instructed by Google executives to identify alternatives to Java for use in Android, presumably to strengthen their negotiating position.

“What we’ve actually been asked to do (by Larry and Sergey) is to investigate what technical alternatives exist to Java for Android and Chrome,” the email reads in part, referring to Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin. “We’ve been over a bunch of these, and think they all suck. We conclude that we need to negotiate a license for Java under the terms we need.”

Lindholm added the words “Attorney Work Product” and sent the email to Andy Rubin (Google’s top Android executive) and Google in-house attorney Ben Lee; however, Lindholm’s computer saved nine drafts of the email while he was writing it – before he added the words and addressed the email to Lee.  Because Lee’s name and the words “attorney work product” weren’t on the earlier drafts, they weren’t picked up by the eDiscovery software as privileged documents, and they were produced to Oracle.

Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court in Oakland, California, indicated to Google’s lawyers that it might suggest willful infringement of Oracle’s patents and despite Google’s motion to “clawback” the email on the grounds it was “unintentionally produced privileged material”, Alsup refused to exclude the document at trial.  Google next filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., seeking to have the appeals court overrule Alsup’s decision permitting Oracle to use the email as evidence in the trial.

On February 6, the Federal Circuit upheld Alsup’s ruling that the email is not privileged, denying Google’s mandamus petition. Observing that the email was written at the request of Google’s co-founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin (who are not lawyers) and did not refer specifically to legal advice or the senior counsel’s investigation, the appeals court rejected Google’s petition.

As we noted before, organizing the documents into clusters based on similar content, might have grouped the unsent drafts with the identified “attorney work product” final version and helped to ensure that the drafts were classified as intended and not produced.

So, what do you think?  Could this mistake cost Google billions?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

eDiscovery Case Law: Burn Your Computer and the Court Will Burn You
 

In Evans v. Mobile Cnty. Health Dept., No. CA 10-0600-WS-C, (S.D. Ala. Jan. 24, 2012), Alabama Magistrate Judge William Cassady granted a motion for sanctions, including an adverse inference instruction, where the plaintiff had burned and destroyed her computer that she used during the time she claimed she was harassed.

Evans sued the Mobile County Health Department alleging reverse discrimination. The court entered a scheduling order that instructed Evans to preserve all relevant information. In discovery, the health department asked Evans for all documents, including electronically stored information (ESI), related to her claims.

Initially, Evans did not produce any documents in response to the defendant's request, but at her deposition, she produced a small number of documents and admitted that she had others, including e-mails. After her deposition, the defendant renewed its request for Evans to produce all ESI in her possession and asked to inspect her personal computer. When the plaintiff did not comply, the defendant filed a motion to compel.

After the motion was filed, Evans' counsel told the defendant that Evans had destroyed her computer. Evans explained that her computer crashed about eight months after her complaint was filed. When she sought help from computer experts, who told her to buy another computer, she burned her computer to destroy the personal information it contained due to the "threat of identity theft." She then bought a new computer. The defendant filed a motion for sanctions and sought dismissal of the case.

Judge Cassady granted the defendant's motion to compel, finding that the plaintiff's claims that she had produced all relevant ESI difficult to believe in light of her deposition testimony and her other discovery violations. Accordingly, Judge Cassady required Evans to produce e-mails from her gmail account and a notebook she referenced in her deposition that contained relevant evidence. The plaintiff also had to produce her new computer for inspection and pay for the defendant's fees and costs in bringing the motion.

Judge Cassady also granted defendant's request for sanctions. In determining the appropriate punishment, he looked first to Eleventh Circuit law, but the court had not set forth specific guidelines for the imposition of sanctions. Therefore, Judge Cassady applied Alabama state law, since it was consistent with general federal spoliation standards. Alabama law requires courts to consider five factors in analyzing a request for sanctions: "(1) the importance of the evidence destroyed; (2) the culpability of the offending party; (3) fundamental fairness; (4) alternative sources of the information obtainable from the evidence destroyed; and (5) the possible effectiveness of other sanctions less severe than dismissal."

Judge Cassady found that Evans had destroyed the evidence in bad faith: her culpability was "excessively high." However, the judge stopped short of dismissing the case. Since the defendant could still defend itself against Evans' allegations, the magistrate judge decided that the court would give the jury an adverse inference instruction at trial. It also awarded defendant its attorneys' fees and costs for the motion.

So, what do you think?  Should the case have been dismissed or were the sanctions sufficient?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).

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

eDiscovery Case Law: Fifth Amendment Doesn’t Extend to Encrypted Hard Drives – Or Does It?
 

In the case U.S. v. Fricosu, Colorado district judge Robert Blackburn has ruled that a woman must produce an unencrypted version of her Toshiba laptop's hard drive to prosecutors in a mortgage fraud case for police inspection.  The woman, Ramona Fricosu, had argued that the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination protected her from having to disclose the password to her hard drive, which was encrypted using PGP Desktop and seized when investigators served a search warrant on her home.

The day the search warrant was carried, Fricosu spoke with her imprisoned ex-husband Scott (indicted with Fricosu in the case) by phone. The conversation was recorded, and Fricosu implied that relevant information could be found on the encrypted laptop:

Scott: (SC [simultaneous conversation]) oh yeah that’s right it was on your laptop wasn’t it

Ramona: I think so but I’m not sure

Scott: OK

Ramona: yeah cause they kept asking me for passwords and I said, ya know no I just didn’t answer them

Scott: right (SC). Because when you went there you took your laptop

Ramona: yeah I think so I think I did

Scott: and so (SC) it would been on there

Ramona: yeah

Scott: OK

Ramona: and my lawyer said I’m not obligated by law to give them any passwords or anything they need to figure things out for themselves

Based on this conversation, the government sought a warrant under the “All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, requiring Ms. Fricosu to produce the unencrypted contents of the computer.”  Fricosu declined, “asserting her privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment”.

In providing his ruling, Judge Blackburn referenced In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Boucher in which child pornography was identified on the defendant's laptop during a border search in Vermont. When the laptop was later seized, it was determined to be password protected. A magistrate judge initially sided with the defendant finding that he could not be compelled to reveal the contents of his mind, which is what the act of producing the password would be.  Revising the grand jury’s request to require the defendant to produce, not the password itself, but rather an unencrypted version of the drive, a Vermont District judge granted that request.

With that case as precedent, Judge Blackburn ruled that Fricosu was required to provide the government in this case with an unencrypted copy of the Toshiba laptop computer’s hard drive.  However, Judge Blackburn also ruled that the government would be “precluded from using Ms. Fricosu’s act of production of the unencrypted contents of the computer’s hard drive against her in any prosecution”.

Fricosu’s attorney has indicated he plans to appeal the ruling and noted that his client may not even be able to decrypt the hard drive, stating “If that's the case, then we'll report that fact to the court, and the law is fairly clear that people cannot be punished for failure to do things they are unable to do”.

So, what do you think?  Should production of the hard drive have been compelled?  Does the preclusion from using evidence from the hard drive against her in prosecution address any Fifth Amendment concerns?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

eDiscovery Case Law: Court Dismisses Identify Theft Case Where No Harm Was Proven
 

In the case Reilly v. Ceridian Corp, 11-1738 (3rd Cir. Dec. 12, 2011), the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a class action against payroll processing company Ceridian for a data breach, finding that the plaintiffs case lacked merit because their alleged injuries were too speculative.

An unknown hacker breached Ceridian’s Powerpay system in December 2009, potentially gaining access to payroll information such as names, birth dates, bank account numbers and Social Security numbers belonging to approximately 27,000 employees at 1,900 companies. Two individual plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of all of the individuals whose information was exposed in the security breach.  However, the lawsuit did not allege that the hacker actually accessed, misused or copied the data. Instead, the plaintiffs claim was based on an allegedly increased risk of identity theft, emotional distress and the credit-monitoring costs they incurred.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld a District Court decision dismissing the case, finding that these asserted injuries were too speculative to give the plaintiffs standing to bring a federal lawsuit and emphasized the need for an injury-in-fact, which must be actual or imminent, not hypothetical.

The court distinguished this case from other cases in the Seventh and Ninth Circuits where plaintiffs bringing claims for data breaches were found to have standing. The Third Circuit judges noted that those other cases involved threatened harms that were much more “imminent” and “certainly impending” due to evidence of improper intent (such as the Ninth Circuit case, where an individual had attempted to open a bank account with a plaintiff’s information following the physical theft of a laptop).

Even though the plaintiffs voluntarily expended time and money to monitor their financial situation, the court concluded:

“Here, no evidence suggests that the data has been—or will ever be—misused”…The present test is actuality, not hypothetical speculations concerning the possibility of future injury. Appellants’ allegations of an increased risk of identity theft resulting from a security breach are therefore insufficient to secure standing.”

So, what do you think?  Should the case have been dismissed?  Or should a company be held responsible for security breaches regardless what is done with the data that’s breached?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

eDiscovery Case Law: Via Rule 45 Subpoena, Plaintiff Allowed to Search Non-Party Personal Hard Drive
 

A party can subpoena a nonparty to provide a personal computer for the forensic review of electronically stored information (ESI) under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In Wood v. Town of Warsaw, N.C., No. 7:10-CV-00219-D, (E.D.N.C. Dec. 22, 2011), a former police chief alleged his former employer unfairly terminated him because of his age under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. During discovery, the plaintiff sent a non-party subpoena to the former town hall manager, who the plaintiff claimed was responsible for his termination. In the subpoena, the plaintiff asked that the former town manager make his personal computer available for a search by a forensic expert using agreed-upon search terms. He also offered to pay for the cost of the search, excluding any privilege review that the town manager wanted to conduct.

The town manager objected to the subpoena and attempted to modify it, claiming the search would be expensive, would be time-consuming, and would invade his privacy. He also claimed he did not use his personal computer for work. He offered to search the computer himself and provide any documents that were responsive to the plaintiff’s requests in the subpoena.

The court reviewed Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which required it to balance three factors in deciding whether to modify or quash a subpoena: (1) the relevance of the information sought, (2) the plaintiff’s need for the information, and (3) the potential hardship to the non-party. In doing so, it concluded that the plaintiff’s narrow request for “non-privileged documents identified by an electronic search for key words related to the claims and defenses asserted by the parties” was reasonable. The court also noted that “in this age of smart phones and telecommuting, it is increasingly common for work to be conducted outside of the office and through the use of personal electronic devices.” Therefore, it was reasonable to expect to find relevant ESI on the town manager’s computer. Finally, the fact that the plaintiff assumed all of the costs except the privilege review minimized the burden on the town manager.

The court also noted that the subpoena’s requests were limited to tangible documents, not including ESI, and would thus not “encompass the information sought by the request to search [the town manager’s] hard drive.”

Therefore, it ruled that the subpoena was proper but modified it to clarify that the plaintiff was not entitled to the complete contents of the hard drive—just to those responsive to the search terms that were neither privileged nor confidential.

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

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).

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

eDiscovery Year in Review: eDiscovery Case Law, Part 4
 

As we noted the past three days, eDiscovery Daily has published 65 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 50 unique cases!  Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to discovery of social media.  One final set of cases to review.

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

SANCTIONS / SPOLIATION

Behold the king!  I’ll bet that you won’t be surprised that the topic with the largest number of case law decisions (by far!) related to eDiscovery are those related to sanctions and spoliation issues.  Late in 2010, eDiscovery Daily reported on a Duke Law Journal article that indicated back then that sanctions were at an all-time high and the number of cases with sanction awards remains high.

Of the 50 cases we covered this past year, over a third of them (17 total cases) related to sanctions and spoliation issues.  Here they are.  And, as you’ll see by the first case (and a few others), sanctions requested are not always granted.  Then again, sometimes both sides get sanctioned!

No Sanctions for Scrubbing Computers Assumed to be Imaged.  In this case, data relevant to the case was lost when computers were scrubbed and sold by the defendants with the permission of the court-appointed Receiver, based on the Receiver’s mistaken belief that all relevant computers had been imaged and instruction to the defendants to scrub all computers before selling.  Because of the loss of this data, defendants filed a motion for spoliation sanctions for what they described as “the FTC’s bad-faith destruction of Defendants’ computer systems.”  Was the motion granted?

Spoliate Evidence, Don’t Go to Jail, but Pay a Million Dollars.  Defendant Mark Pappas, President of Creative Pipe, Inc., was ordered by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm to "be imprisoned for a period not to exceed two years, unless and until he pays to Plaintiff the attorney's fees and costs". However, ruling on the defendants’ appeal, District Court Judge Marvin J. Garbis declined to adopt the order regarding incarceration, stating it was not "appropriate to Order Defendant Pappas incarcerated for future possible failure to comply with his obligation to make payment…". So, how much was he ordered to pay?  Now we know.  That decision was affirmed here.

Deliberately Produce Wrong Cell Phone, Get Sanctioned.  In this case, the plaintiff originally resisted production of a laptop and a cell phone for examination, but ultimately produced a laptop and cell phone. The problem with that production? After examination, it was determined that neither device was in use during the relevant time period and the actual devices used during that time frame were no longer in plaintiff’s possession. When requested to explain as to why this was not disclosed initially, the plaintiff’s attorney explained that he was torn between his “competing duties” of protecting his client and candor to the court.  Really?

Destroy Data, Pay $1 Million, Lose Case.  A federal judge in Chicago has levied sanctions against Rosenthal Collins Group LLC and granted a default judgment to the defendant for misconduct in a patent infringement case, also ordering the Chicago-based futures broker's counsel to pay "the costs and attorneys fees incurred in litigating this motion" where plaintiff’s agent modified metadata related to relevant source code and wiped several relevant disks and devices prior to their production and where the court found counsel participated in "presenting misleading, false information, materially altered evidence and willful non-compliance with the Court’s orders."

Conclusion of Case Does Not Preclude Later Sanctions.  In this products liability case that had been settled a year earlier, the plaintiff sought to re-open the case and requested sanctions alleging the defendant systematically destroyed evidence, failed to produce relevant documents and committed other discovery violations in bad faith. As Yogi Berra would say, “It ain’t over ‘til it’s over”.

Written Litigation Hold Notice Not Required.  The Pension Committee case was one of the most important cases of 2010 (or any year, for that matter). So, perhaps it’s not surprising that it is starting to become frequently cited by those looking for sanction for failure to issue a written litigation hold. In this case, the defendant cited Pension Committee, arguing that plaintiff’s failure to issue a written litigation hold and subsequent failure to produce three allegedly relevant emails allowed for a presumption that relevant evidence was lost, thereby warranting spoliation sanctions.  Was the court’s ruling consistent with Pension Committee?

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

Discovery Violations Result in Sanctions Against Plaintiff and Counsel.  Both the plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel have been ordered to pay sanctions for discovery abuses in a lawsuit in Washington court that was dismissed with prejudice on June 8, 2011.

Meet and Confer is Too Late for Preservation Hold.  A US District court in Indiana ruled on June 28 in favor of a motion for an Order to Secure Evidence in an employment discrimination lawsuit. The defendant had given the plaintiff reason to believe that emails and other relevant documents might be destroyed prior to Rule 26(f) meeting between the parties or Rule 16(b) discovery conference with the court. As a result, the plaintiff formally requested a litigation hold on all potentially relevant documents, which was approved by US Magistrate Judge Andrew Rodovich.

Court Orders Sanctions in Response to "Callous and Careless Attitude" of Defendant in Discovery.  A Special Master determined that multiple discovery failures on the part of the defendant in an indemnity action were due to discovery procedures "wholly devoid of competence, yet only once motivated by guile". Accordingly, the court ordered sanctions against the defendant and also ordered the defendant to pay all costs associated with its discovery failures, including plaintiff's attorney fees and costs.

Court Upholds Sanctions for Intentional Spoliation of Unallocated Space Data.  The Supreme Court of Delaware recently upheld the sanctions against the defendant for wiping the unallocated space on his company’s computer system, despite a court order prohibiting such destruction. In this case, Arie Genger, CEO of Trans-Resources, Inc., argued that sanctions against him were unreasonable and made a motion for the court to overturn its previous decision regarding spoliation of discovery materials. Instead, after due process, the court upheld its earlier decision.

Sanctions for Spoliation, Even When Much of the Data Was Restored.  A Virginia court recently ordered sanctions against the defendant in a case of deliberate spoliation of electronic discovery documents. In this case, the defendant was found to have committed spoliation "in bad faith" in a manner that constituted a "violation of duty… to the Court and the judicial process."

"Untimely" Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation Denied.  A recent ruling by the US District Court of Tennessee has denied a motion for sanctions for spoliation on the grounds that the motion was "untimely." In this case, the plaintiff argued that the defendants' admitted failure to preserve evidence "warrants a harsh penalty," but the court found in favor of the defense that the motion was untimely.

Defendant Sanctioned for Abandonment and Sale of Server; Defendants' Counsel Unaware of Spoliation.  An Illinois District Court ordered heavy sanctions against the defense for spoliation "willfully and in bad faith" of documents stored on a server, in a case revolving around damages sought for breach of loan agreements.

Facebook Spoliation Significantly Mitigates Plaintiff’s Win.  In this case with both social media and spoliation issues, monetary sanctions were ordered against the plaintiff and his counsel for significant discovery violations. Those violations included intentional deletion of pictures on the plaintiff’s Facebook page as instructed by his Counsel as well as subsequent efforts to cover those instructions up, among others.

Lilly Fails to Meet its eDiscovery Burden, Sanctions Ordered.  In this case, a Tennessee District court found that “Lilly failed to take reasonable steps to preserve, search for, and collect potentially relevant information, particularly electronic data, after its duty to preserve evidence was triggered by being served with the complaint.” As a result, the court ordered sanctions against Lilly. How far did the court go with those sanctions?

Court Grants Adverse Inference Sanctions Against BOTH Sides.  Have you ever seen the video where two boxers knock each other out at the same time? That’s similar to what happened in this case. In this case, the court addressed the parties’ cross motions for sanctions, ordering an adverse inference for the defendants’ failure to preserve relevant video surveillance footage, as well as an adverse inference for the plaintiff’s failure to preserve relevant witness statements. The court also awarded defendants attorneys’ fees and costs and ordered re-deposition of several witnesses at the plaintiff’s expense due to other plaintiff spoliation findings.

Next week, we will begin looking ahead at 2012 and expected eDiscovery trends for the coming year.

So, what do you think?  Of all of the cases that we have recapped over the past four days, which case do you think was the most significant?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Year in Review: eDiscovery Case Law, Part 3
 

As we noted the past two days, eDiscovery Daily has published 65 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 50 unique cases!  Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to privilege & inadvertent disclosures, proportionality and eDiscovery service disputes, including the notable McDermott Will & Emery eDiscovery malpractice case.  But, we still have more cases to review.  So, let’s keep going!

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!

SOCIAL MEDIA

Social media affects all aspects of litigation from the discovery of data from social media web sites to social media communication during trial.  You even have jurors trying to “friend” participants in the case!

Organizations now have to not only plan for preserving, collecting, reviewing and producing conventional data, but also posts, tweets, IMs and more.  You know that already.  What you may not know is that in nearly every case discussed in eDiscovery Daily this past year where social media data was requested, that request was granted.  Oh, and if you have text messages as evidence, you may have to provide corroborating evidence to verify authorship of those text messages for them to be admissible – at least in Pennsylvania.  Here are eight cases related to social media issues:

Jurors and Social Media Don’t Mix.  Discovery of social media is continuing to increase as a significant issue for organizations to address, with more and more cases addressing the topic. However, when it comes to social media, courts agree on one thing: jurors and social media don’t mix. Courts have consistently rejected attempts by jurors to use social technology to research or to communicate about a case, and have increasingly provided pre-trial and post-closing jury instructions to jurors to dissuade them from engaging in this practice.

Cut and Paste Makes the Cut as Evidence.  In this case, the defendant in a criminal case appealed his conviction and raised the issue of whether the prosecution properly authenticated instant messages cut-and-pasted into a Microsoft Word document.

Defendant Can’t Be Plaintiff’s Friend on Facebook.  In this case, Bucks County, Pa., Common Pleas Court Judge Albert J. Cepparulo denied the motion from the defendant requesting access to the photos of plaintiff Sara Piccolo posted in her Facebook account, rejecting McMillen v. Hummingbird Speedway, Inc., in which the court ordered the plaintiff to provide his username and password to the defendant’s attorney, as a precedent.

Social Media Posts Deemed Discoverable in Personal Injury Case.  A Pennsylvania court recently ordered the plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit to disclose social media passwords and usernames to the defendant for eDiscovery. Discoverability of social media continues to be a hot topic in eDiscovery, as eDiscovery Daily has noted in summaries of prior cases that reflect varied outcomes for requests to access social media data.

A Pennsylvania Court Conducts Its Own Social Media Relevancy Review.  Pennsylvania seems to be taking the lead in setting social media discovery precedents. In this case, a Pennsylvania court agreed to review a plaintiff's Facebook account in order to determine which information is subject to discovery in a case relating to the plaintiff's claim of injury in a motor vehicle accident.

Defendant Ordered to Re-Post Infringing Photograph to Facebook Profile.  In this case, a New Jersey court ordered the defendant to re-post a photograph displaying infringing trade dress to his Facebook profile for a brief period of time to allow the plaintiff to print copies, in a case involving trademark infringement.

Court Rules 'Circumstantial Evidence' Must Support Authorship of Text Messages for Admissibility.  When are text messages admissible in court? Which text messages qualify as evidence, and what does it take to prove authorship of a text message? A recent opinion from the Pennsylvania Superior Court addresses these very issues in an old yet new way, perhaps setting the precedent for future cases and opening what seems to be a potential Pandora's Box of obstacles to the use of text messages as legal evidence.

Facebook Content Discoverable Yet Again.  It seems most, if not all, of the cases these days where discoverability of social media is at issue are being decided by courts in favor of the parties seeking to discover this information. Here’s another example.

Tune in tomorrow for more key cases of 2011 and see the topic that continues to generate more case law related to eDiscovery than any other!  Yes, I know I said that yesterday, but I forgot that topic was planned for the big finish tomorrow.  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.