Close
Enter your
text here

Evidence

Would eDiscovery Have Identified the Correct Murderer in “Making a Murderer”?: eDiscovery Best Practices

The recently released Netflix documentary Making a Murderer has made a huge splash with hundreds of thousands of viewers (including me) having watched the 10 part documentary that was released last month. Debate has raged over whether Steven Avery and his nephew, Brendan Dassey, were wrongly convicted of murdering photographer Teresa Halbach.  Interestingly enough, some possibly deleted electronic evidence might have helped answer that question.

In an article on ACEDS (Making a Murderer: The Missing Computer Forensics Evidence), the author (Jason Krause) discusses the fact that there voicemail messages on Halbach’s phone that allegedly disappeared.  Krause discusses the information presented in the documentary regarding the voicemail messages, as follows:

“Halbach’s family reported her missing in early November 2005 after finding that they called her cellphone and received a recorded message saying the voicemail box was full. According to her family, it was not like Halbach to not check her messages and decided to alert the police that she may be missing.

However, Teresa’s ex-boyfriend Ryan Hillegas testified that he listened to her voicemails after breaking into her inbox in an attempt to learn more about where she had last been. “I had a feeling that I might know her voicemail password,” he said in the episode, in order to explain how he retrieved the voice mails. However, he claimed that he did not delete any messages.  [It was actually her brother, Mike Halbach, who stated that he had listened to her messages, though Hillegas indicated that he had accessed her phone records after also guessing Teresa’s password.]

However, the only expert called to testify in this matter was Tony Zimmerman, a network engineer with Cingular Wireless, Halbach’s phone provider. He testified that calls and messages that the phone had received, should not have filled up the full capacity of the mailbox. Avery’s lawyers speculated that someone had erased potentially incriminating messages before Halbach was reported missing.

Unfortunately, Zimmerman was not a trained computer forensic examiner and his testimony did not reflect that any investigation more rigorous than looking at Halbach’s call log.”

Krause’s article quotes David Greetham, Vice President of eDiscovery Operations with Ricoh Americas Corporation, who recalled that “as long ago as 2001 we were recovering deleted text messages from a defendant accused of drug dealing”, but also noted that “law enforcement often has budget restrictions on training and resources”, which could limit the ability to investigate such leads (back in 2005 especially).  Of course, if you’re like many viewers who believe that the Manitowoc sheriff’s department had a vested interest in seeing Avery arrested for the crime (particularly since he had filed a $36 million lawsuit against the department for his wrongful conviction in a 1985 rape case), you may think that they were less than highly motivated to pursue this lead.

Regardless of whether or not you believe that Avery and Dassey were wrongfully convicted (and, apparently, several instances of incriminating evidence regarding their potential involvement were not covered in the documentary), the question remains: Were there voicemail messages that were deleted and could they have affected the outcome of the case?  If there had been a trained computer forensic examiner on the case back then, perhaps there would have been some additional information uncovered that either pointed to a different suspect or added to the evidence that implicated Avery.  Over ten years have passed since the murder took place, so we will probably never know.

So, what do you think?  Do you find the lack of investigation of the voice mail messages disconcerting?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Defendant’s Wife Ordered to Turn Over iPhone for Examination: eDiscovery Case Law

In Brown Jordan International, Inc. et. al. v. Carmicle et. al., Consolidated Case No. 15-00037 (W.D.K.Y. Oct. 19, 2015), Kentucky District Judge Greg N. Stivers granted the plaintiffs’ expedited motion to compel the defendant’s wife to produce her iPhone for a forensic examination for information related to the case.

Case Background

In this employment dispute that spawned a counter-suit which was eventually combined into a single consolidated case, the defendant produced his electronic devices and electronic storage for forensic examination. Based upon the review of those devices and sites, the plaintiffs came to believe that the iPhone of the wife of the defendant may contain information relating to the claims in the action. As a result, the plaintiffs issued a subpoena to the the wife of the defendant, requesting her iPhone for a forensic exam.  She objected to the production of her iPhone and refused to produce it.  So, after the parties were unable to come to an agreement regarding the forensic review of her iPhone, the plaintiffs filed an Expedited Motion to Compel.

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to the relevancy of her iPhone, Judge Stivers, noting that the forensic examination report of the defendant’s laptop found “an Apple iTunes backup file of Rashna’s iPhone, which contains some of the original Brown Jordan International screenshots”, stated “[i]n this case, the information sought from Rashna’s iPhone appears to be relevant to the claims asserted in the action and good cause exists.”

Judge Stivers then stated that “[t]he burden then shifts to Rashna ‘to establish that the material either does not come within the scope of relevance or is of such marginal relevance that the potential harm resulting from production outweighs the presumption in favor of broad disclosure’”, noting that it was a heavy burden.  The defendant’s wife made the following arguments, each of which was addressed by Judge Stivers:

  • The information does not exist on her iPhone: Judge Stivers rejected that argument, indicating that “it is impossible for the Brown Jordan Parties to refute it without a forensic examination of her iPhone, and issues of spoliation of evidence have been raised in this matter”;
  • The plaintiffs already have that information: Judge Stivers indicated that he was “unpersuaded by this argument”, “in light of the potential spoliation issues and the forensic report”;
  • Producing the iPhone would be inconvenient: Judge Stivers noted that the plaintiffs indicated that “the forensic examination can occur in as little as four hours and can be completed overnight”;
  • She won’t have sufficient to review the results to assert any applicable privileges: Judge Stivers agreed to “modify the review period” to give her more time.

With her objections addressed, Judge Stivers ordered the wife of the defendant to produce her iPhone to be forensically examined and gave her nine days to complete the review of the documents collected from her iPhone.

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

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

When a Text File Doesn’t Match the Image or Native Excel File, What Do You Do?: eDiscovery Best Practices

Even when you’ve been in the business for 25+ years, you sometimes encounter situations you can’t explain (at least initially).  Here is a story about a document that I encountered yesterday that initially didn’t make sense to me.  Thankfully, I’m extremely curious and ultimately figured it out (with some help).  See if it will be obvious to you.

The Issue

In a document collection produced by the opposing party to our client (where we received agreed upon images, text files, native files and metadata), I was performing searches in our CloudNine review platform looking for documents related to a key investment account disputed between the two parties.  On one of the documents, I found a hit in the searchable text referencing key information related to the account that was noted by an accountant that we had not yet previously encountered.  This appeared to be an important document.

To get a better look at the document, I decided to look at the image that was provided.  That text entry was not there.

Since we had the produced Excel file, I downloaded a copy of it (from CloudNine) to take a look at it and the text did not appear to be present in the original native Excel file either.  When I performed a search for the accountant’s last name in the entire workbook, Excel retrieved no hits.

What?  How can that be?

Figuring It Out

My first thought was that there were hidden columns, rows or worksheets within the Excel file that were not being searched.  As it turned out, there was one hidden sheet (which I unhid), but repeating my search for the accountant’s last name in the entire workbook still retrieved no hits.

At this point, I’m wondering if the opposing party may have doctored the image and the Excel file, but forgot to doctor the produced extracted text?  You hate to believe the worst of people, but it happens.

Out of ideas, I took the issue to CloudNine’s production manager, Jesus Arellano.  After he looked at the Excel file and performed the same search (finding nothing, which made me feel better), he then decided to perform a text extract of the Excel file using LAW PreDiscovery® (which was later reproduced with our own CloudNine Discovery Client processing software).  We looked at the results in the text and, behold, there was the note from the accountant!

What the hell is going on out here?

Finally, The Answer

Taking another look at the Excel file, we finally noticed that little red triangle in the corner of some of the cells.  Excel comments.  Of course.

When I put the cursor over the cell, the comment popped up, revealing the note (that should have been a clue) from the accountant.  Excel comments aren’t normally displayed unless you put the cursor on the cell where the comment is contained (you can show all comments under the review tab, but hardly anybody ever does).  When the Excel is “printed” to an image file, only the main portion of the workbook is “printed”, not the hidden comments.  The same is true for other Microsoft Office applications, as well.  So, don’t expect to typically see the hidden comments in an image of an Excel workbook, Word document or other Office file.

As for searching the hidden comments in Excel, you can do so using Ctrl+F, you just have to make sure you change the “Look in” field to Comments to search those specifically (see the example below using my last name of Austin):

 

Perhaps, if it hadn’t been at the end of a long day, I would have caught it more quickly (that’s my excuse, anyway).  Nonetheless, it serves as an excellent example of how hidden metadata can contain important information.  Due to this find, resulting from the original text search I did, we identified an individual for our client to depose!

So, what do you think?  Have you ever encountered data important to a case in the hidden metadata of a file?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Apparently, in Discovery, Delta is Not Ready When You Are and It Has Cost Them Millions: eDiscovery Case Law

A few years ago, we covered a case law decision in the Delta/Air Tran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litigation, where Delta was ordered to pay plaintiff attorney’s fees and costs for eDiscovery issues in that litigation.  Apparently, Delta’s difficulties in this case have continued, as they have been ordered this week to pay over $2.7 million in sanctions for failing to turn over ESI, to go along with more than $4.7 million in sanctions for earlier discovery violations.

According to the Consumerist (Delta Hit With Another $2.7M In Sanctions In Years-Old Baggage-Fee Collusion Case, by Chris Morran), U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Batten imposed the sanction of $2,718,795.05 against Delta, which was higher than the $1.86 million sanction amount recommended by the Special Master in the case.

In his ruling, Judge Batten stated that: “Since discovery commenced in February 2010, this case has been plagued by a veritable deluge of discovery disputes and a corresponding succession of motions for discovery sanctions against Delta. It is not hyperbolic to say that this lawsuit has turned into litigation about litigation: the time, energy, and resources spent on discovery abuses equals or exceeds those that have been dedicated to litigating the merits of the case. Plaintiffs filed four sanctions motions in as many years, with each motion building on its predecessors.”  Judge Batten also noted that “Delta’s discovery practices have time and time again been shown to be ineffective, inefficient, and inept. Throughout this litigation, Delta’s left hand has not known what its right hand was doing, and ‘it often times appears that this litigation was conducted in an Inspector Clouseau-like fashion.’”

Delta had already been sanctioned $1.3 million for failing to turn over 60,000 pages of documents to the plaintiffs that were found in a box of previously undiscovered backup tapes and another $3.49 million, mostly to cover the cost of hiring an independent researcher to scan through and restore another batch of 29 backup tapes that was eventually discovered.

Summing up the lengthy and difficult discovery period to date, Judge Batten stated: “Without question, it is Delta’s ineptitude and missteps that have caused the vast majority of the excessive time, expenses, and energy that the parties have expended in discovery for the last five years…Delta’s discovery misconduct has rendered the Court’s attempts to manage this litigation and move it toward a resolution on the merits as futile and maddening as Sisyphus’s efforts to roll his boulder to the top of the hill.”

To make matters worse for Delta, Judge Batten also granted class-action status to the case this week.  Of course, as the article notes, Delta made more than $860 million off baggage fees in 2014 alone, so they can afford to fight.

So, what do you think?  Should Delta have received such severe sanctions?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Similar Spoliation Case, Somewhat Different Outcome: eDiscovery Case Law

Remember the Malibu Media, LLC v. Tashiro case that we covered a couple of weeks ago, which involved spoliation sanctions against a couple accused of downloading its copyrighted adult movies via a BitTorrent client?  Here’s a similar case with the same plaintiff and similar spoliation claims, but with a somewhat different outcome (at least for now).

In Malibu Media, LLC v. Michael Harrison, Case No. 12-cv-1117 (S.D. Ind. June 8, 2015), Indiana District Judge William T. Lawrence denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, upholding the magistrate judge’s ruling which found an adverse inference instruction for destroying a hard drive with potentially responsive data on it to be not warranted, and ruled that “it will be for a jury to decide” if such a sanction is appropriate.

Case Background

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant installed a BitTorrent Client onto his computer and then went to a torrent site to upload and download its copyrighted Work, specifically, six adult films (or portions thereof).  As in the Tashiro case, the plaintiff used a German company to identify certain IP addresses that were being used to distribute the plaintiff’s copyrighted movies, and the defendant was eventually identified by Comcast as the subscriber assigned to this particular IP address.

After the lawsuit was filed, in January 2013, the defendant’s hard drive on his custom-built gaming computer crashed and he took it to an electronics recycling company, to have it “melted”. He then replaced the gaming computer’s hard drive. In addition to his gaming computer, the defendant also had another laptop. During discovery, that laptop and the new hard drive were examined by forensic experts; while the laptop revealed extensive BitTorrent use, it did not contain any of the plaintiff’s movies or files and the new hard drive did not reveal any evidence of BitTorrent use.  Nonetheless, because of the destroyed hard drive, the plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions for the Intentional Destruction of Material Evidence, as well as a motion for summary judgment.

In an evidentiary hearing in December 2014, the magistrate judge recommended that the motion for sanctions be denied, concluding that the defendant “did not destroy the hard drive in bad faith”, that “[h]ad [Harrison] truly wished to hid adverse information, the Court finds it unlikely that [Harrison] would have waited nearly five months to destroy such information” and noted that he found the defendant’s testimony to be credible.  The plaintiff filed an objection to that report and recommendation, arguing that “bad faith should be inferred from the undisputed evidence.”

Judge’s Ruling

Regarding both the summary judgment motion and the motion for sanctions, Judge Lawrence stated the following:

“The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Dinsmore that default judgment was not warranted in this case. That said, Magistrate Judge Dinsmore found an adverse inference not to be warranted because he found Harrison’s testimony to be credible. While the Court does not necessarily disagree with Magistrate Judge Dinsmore—in that it is certainly possible a jury would find Harrison’s testimony to be credible—ultimately, the Court believes this is an issue best left for a jury to decide. Malibu Media has presented sufficient evidence to the contrary, and in light of the fact that Malibu Media’s motion for summary judgment was denied on the same grounds, the Court believes leaving the issue of spoliation to the jury to be the best approach. Accordingly, at trial the Court will instruct the jury that if it finds that Harrison destroyed the gaming computer’s hard drive in bad faith, it can assume that the evidence on the gaming computer’s hard drive would have been unfavorable to Harrison.”

So, what do you think?  Should this case have been handled the same way the Malibu Media, LLC v. Tashiro case was handled?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Expanded Sources of ESI Show That Crime Doesn’t Pay: eDiscovery Trends

I love the TV show Forensic Files – it amazes me how many different ways that law enforcement entities have to identify, catch and convict criminals.  With that in mind, here are a couple of stories that show how expanded sources of ESI can be used as evidence in criminal cases.

US court allows Google Earth image as evidence (by John Ribiero of IT News): An appeals court ruled on June 18 that Google Earth images, like photographs, can be used as evidence in a court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on an appeal by Paciano Lizarraga-Tirado, who claimed that he was on the Mexico side of the U.S.-Mexico border when he was arrested by U.S. agents years ago on charges of illegal reentry.  He insisted that the Border Patrol agents must have accidentally crossed the border before arresting him, according to court filings.

One of the arresting agents had, however, testified in court that she recorded the coordinates of Lizarraga-Tirado’s arrest using a handheld GPS device. To illustrate the location of those coordinates, the government introduced a Google Earth satellite image.  Lizarraga-Tirado claimed that both the satellite image on its own and the digitally added tack and coordinates were impermissible hearsay, invoking a rule that bars admission of out-of-court statements to prove the truth of the matters asserted.

However, since the relevant assertion wasn’t made by a person but by the Google Earth program, the Ninth Circuit said that it was joining other circuit courts that have held that machine statements aren’t hearsay. A machine could, however, malfunction, produce inconsistent results or have been tampered with. “But such concerns are addressed by the rules of authentication, not hearsay,” according to the court.  Since Lizarraga-Tirado only raised an objection on grounds of hearsay, but didn’t raise an authentication objection at trial or at appeal, his appeal was denied.

Woman staged ‘rape’ scene with knife, vodka, called 9-1-1, police say (by Brett Hambright of LancasterOnline):

Police officers acting on a 9-1-1 dispatch found overturned furniture, a knife and a bottle of vodka inside an East Lampeter Township home on March 10 where a woman claimed she was raped by a stranger at midnight.  However, further investigating – including a review of a Fitbit activity tracker – enabled the police to determine that the scene was staged and 43-year-old Jeannine Risley knowingly filed a false report.

The device, which monitors a person’s activity and sleep, showed Risley was awake and walking around at the time she claimed she was sleeping.  Also, snow on the ground revealed no bootprints or any signs of anyone walking outside the home, according to the affidavit. The hard-surface floor in the bedroom also showed no evidence of bootprints.

Risley is now headed to trial on three misdemeanor counts for prompting the emergency response and manhunt for an intruder that allegedly never was.

Thanks, as always, to Rob Robinson’s Complex Discovery site and Sharon Nelson’s Ride the Lightning site for the tips on the interesting ESI discovery stories.

So, what do you think?  Have you been involved in a case that turned on a unique source of ESI?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Court Orders Deposition of Expert to Evaluate Issues Resulting from Plaintiff’s Deletion of ESI: eDiscovery Case Law

In Procaps S.A. v. Patheon Inc., 12-24356-CIV-GOODMAN, 2014 U.S. Dist. (S.D. Fla. Apr. 24, 2015), Florida District Judge Jonathan Goodman ordered the deposition of a third-party computer forensic expert, who had previously examined the plaintiff’s computers, to be conducted in part by a Special Master that had been appointed to examine the eDiscovery and forensic issues in the case. The purpose of the ordered deposition was to help the Court decide the issues related to files deleted by the plaintiff and assist the defendant to decide whether or not to file a sanctions motion.

Case Background

Although the plaintiff filed suit in this antitrust case in December 2012, it did not implement a formal litigation hold until after February 27, 2014, when this Court ordered one to be implemented in response to the defendant’s motion. Beyond not implementing a formal hold, the plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged that its document and electronically stored information (“ESI”) search efforts were inadequate. Its US lawyers never traveled to Colombia (where the plaintiff is based) to meet with its information technology team (or other executives) to discuss how relevant or responsive ESI would be located, and it did not retain an ESI retrieval consultant to help implement a litigation hold or to search for relevant ESI and documents. In addition, some critical executives and employees conducted their own searches for ESI and documents without ever seeing the defendant’s document request or without receiving a list of search terms from its counsel.

The plaintiff ultimately agreed to a forensic analysis by an outside vendor specializing in ESI retrieval and the Court appointed a neutral computer forensic expert to analyze the plaintiff’s ESI and later appointed a Special Master to assist the Court with ESI issues. Completed in May 2014,the report, which was “thousands of pages long” from the forensic expert, showed that “nearly 200,000 emails, PDFs, and Microsoft Word, Excel, and PowerPoint files were apparently deleted” and “[i]t appears that approximately 5,700 of these files contain an ESI search term in their title, which indicates that they could have been subject to production in the forensic analysis if they had not been deleted.”

The defendant filed a motion to conduct the deposition of the neutral third-party expert to explain the report and the plaintiff filed an opposing response.

Judge’s Ruling

You’ve got to love an opinion that begins by quoting both eighteenth century English writer Samuel Johnson and the recently departed B.B. King. Judge Goodman began his analysis by referencing Federal Rule of Evidence 706, noting that it “governs court-appointed expert witnesses” and that “Subsection 706(b)(2) provides that such witnesses ‘may be deposed by any party.’” With regard to the plaintiff’s objection that such depositions are not very common, he stated that “regardless of whether depositions of court-appointed neutral experts on computer forensic issues are very common, used occasionally or are actually rare and atypical, they are certainly permissible. As noted, Federal Rule Evidence 706(b)(2) expressly provides for them. Moreover, there are published opinions discussing these types of depositions without critical comment. Perhaps more importantly, district courts have ‘broad discretion over the management of pre-trial activities, including discovery and scheduling.’”

Judge Goodman also rejected the plaintiff’s objection about the purported tardiness of the motion, noting that the forensic analysis took more than a year and was not completed until the first week of April 2015. He stated that “the deposition would undoubtedly be of great help to the Court. If I were to deny the motion, as Procaps urges, then I would be undermining my own ability to grapple with the myriad, thorny issues which will surely arise in the next several weeks or months.

Therefore, the Undersigned hopes to be able to ‘get by with a little help from my [ESI neutral expert] friends’ and is ‘gonna try [to comprehensively and correctly assess the to-be-submitted ESI issues] with a little help from my friends.’ Granting Patheon’s motion will enable the Undersigned to accomplish that goal; denying it would render that specific goal unattainable (and make the ESI spoliation/sanctions/trial evidence/bad faith/significance of missing evidence/prejudice evaluation more difficult).”

As a result, Judge Goodman ordered the deposition of the third-party computer forensic expert to be conducted in part by the Special Master and laid out the procedures for the deposition in his order.

So, what do you think? Was the judge right in ordering the deposition? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

This isn’t the first time we’ve covered this case, click here for a previous ruling we covered back in May 2014.

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

How Blue Was My Valley? Not Blue Enough to Cite the Defendant for Discovery Violations: eDiscovery Case Law

In Malone v. Kantner Ingredients, 4:12CV3190 (D. Neb. Mar. 31, 2015), Nebraska Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart denied the plaintiffs’ motion to show cause, finding that the defendant “the plaintiffs have presented no evidence” that the defendant “destroyed, hid, or purposefully (or even recklessly) failed to produce responsive ESI” in the case.

Case Background

Over two years, the defendants had produced documents from various sources, including 140,000 electronic files located on a computer image of the data stored on the defendant’s file servers. Despite that, multiple conferences were held with the court regarding the parties’ discovery disputes and the plaintiffs filed five motions to compel additional documentation from the defendant.

In October of 2014, the plaintiffs claimed the defendants failed to produce all documents responsive to the plaintiffs’ discovery requests, particularly sent emails and invoices of transactions between Blue Valley Foods and the defendants. In an attempt to quell the plaintiffs’ ongoing distrust of the defendants’ discovery efforts, the defendants were ordered to locate their servers and determine if the server imaging performed by the defendants at the outset of the case was a full and complete imaging, as well as produce responsive invoices and sent mail from those servers.

In response to that order, the servers were received by defense counsel, who confirmed that the data image from the shared server data received by defense counsel at the outset of the case matched the data set and data amount on the servers. The servers were sent to the defendants’ forensic expert, who fully imaged them and provided a full copy of that imaging to the plaintiffs’ forensic expert. After receiving the server imaging, the plaintiffs’ forensic expert performed a word search of the data and located some documents containing the words “Blue Valley” that were not previously disclosed by the defendants in an electronic format. The plaintiffs presented evidence that some of those documents were responsive to production requests served by the plaintiffs, but they were not previously disclosed to the plaintiffs in an electronic format.

The plaintiffs moved for an order to show cause, alleging the defendants, their counsel, and counsel’s paralegal failed to comply with the order, “destroyed or tampered with evidence, and provided untruthful information to the court regarding the existence of discovery requested by the plaintiffs.”

Judge’s Opinion

Judge Zwart noted that, after receiving the actual servers, “the defendants did not repeat their search of the server data for responsive discovery…But the order required the defendants to determine if the server imaging performed by the defendants at the outset of the case was a full and complete imaging: It did not require the defendants to repeat their ESI review and production if the 2012 initial data imaging appeared to be full and complete.”

She continued: “By providing the full image of the servers to Plaintiffs’ expert, the defendants produced the emails, invoices, and associated metadata as required under the court’s order. While the plaintiffs incurred expense for forensic review of that data, the plaintiffs’ use of their own forensic expert was reasonable—and perhaps necessary—to bring some closure to the ongoing ESI discovery battle… The defendants allowed Plaintiffs to ‘see for themselves’ whether any additional documentation was on the Kantner servers. And the court is convinced this was the only means of convincing Plaintiffs that they had received everything. Had the parties discussed how to collect, review and produce ESI at the outset, perhaps the cost of two experts, and other discovery-related fees and costs, could have been avoided. But those discussions never occurred.”

With regard to the missed documents discovered by the plaintiff, Judge Zwart, referencing several sources for best practices for searching, indicated that “At most, the plaintiffs offered evidence of mistakes made during defense counsel’s 2012 manual review of the electronic files. Manual review is still considered by many as the ‘gold standard’ for electronic document review. But human error is common when attorneys are tasked with personally reviewing voluminous electronically stored information.” She also cited Reinsdorf v. Skechers (2013), which stated: “The discovery process relies upon the good faith and professional obligations of counsel to reasonably and diligently search for and produce responsive documents…However, while parties must impose a reasonable construction on discovery requests and conduct a reasonable search when responding to the requests, the Federal Rules do not demand perfection.”

Given that standard, Judge Zwart denied the plaintiffs’ motion to show cause.

This isn’t the first time we’ve covered rulings by Judge Zwart: click here, here, here and here to review previous rulings with eDiscovery impact that we’ve covered.

So, what do you think? Was that the right call or should the defendants 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. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Rules that Automatically Generated Read Receipt is Not Hearsay: eDiscovery Case Law

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

Case Background

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

Judge’s Opinion

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

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

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

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

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

So, what do you think? Was the court right to admit the Read Receipt? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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