Close
Enter your
text here

Evidence

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Fallback Request for Meet and Confer after Quashing its Subpoena – eDiscovery Case Law
 

In Boston Scientific Corporation v. Lee, 1:13-cv-13156-DJC, (N.D. Cal., Aug 4, 2014), California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal found time to preside over a case other than Apple v. Samsung and granted the motion to quash the plaintiff’s subpoena for the defendant’s laptops, refusing the plaintiff’s fallback position to meet and confer and referencing Leave it to Beaver in the process.

The defendant left the employment of the plaintiff and began working for a competitor, which caused the case to be filed against him, claiming theft of trade secrets and violation of a confidentiality agreement (by downloading confidential information onto a USB thumb drive).  The defendant’s new employer assigned him a laptop when he started his employment, which he used to both perform his job duties and communicate with his attorneys. Several weeks after the lawsuit was filed, the defendant’s employer segregated this laptop with a third party e-discovery vendor, and issued him a second one.

The defendant’s employer also produced forensic information about the contents of the first laptop to the plaintiff in the form of file listing reports, which disclose extensive metadata of the files contained on the laptop, USB reports, and web browsing history reports.  When the plaintiff pressed for more, the defendant’s employer offered to have an independent vendor review a full forensic image of the first laptop to search for pertinent information, including a review of any deleted files.  The plaintiff refused, requesting forensic discovery from both laptops and issued a subpoena, to which the defendant’s employer filed a motion to quash.

Judge Grewal began his order as follows:

“This case illustrates a recurring problem in all civil discovery, especially in intellectual property cases. A party demands the sun, moon and stars in a document request or interrogatory, refusing to give even a little bit. The meet and confer required by a court in advance of a motion is perfunctory at best, with no compromise whatsoever. But when the parties appear before the court, the recalcitrant party possesses newfound flexibility and a willingness to compromise. Think Eddie Haskell singing the Beaver's praises to June Cleaver, only moments after giving him the business in private. Having considered the arguments, the court GRANTS Nevro's motion to quash.”

Explaining his decision, Judge Grewal stated “No doubt there exists discoverable information on the two laptops, but by demanding nothing less than a complete forensic image of not just one but two laptops belonging to a direct competitor, Boston Scientific demands too much. Such imaging will disclose privileged communications related to the litigation as well as irrelevant trade secrets from a nonparty-competitor.  Boston Scientific's subpoena therefore seeks discovery of protected matter, something plainly not permitted under Rule 45, rendering the subpoena overbroad and imposing an undue burden on Nevro.”

Judge Grewal noted that the plaintiff “[a]s a fall back”, proposed what the defendant’s employer had originally proposed: the retention of an independent vendor to “review a full forensic image of the Initial Laptop to search for pertinent information, including a review of any deleted files.”  Judge Grewal closed the door on that request as well, stating “to allow Boston Scientific now to seek shelter from a fallback position that Nevro previously tendered in good faith would make a mockery of both parties' obligation to meet and confer in good faith from the start.  The time to tap flexibility and creativity is during meet and confer, not after.”

So, what do you think?  Should the plaintiff have been granted its fall back request or was it too late for compromise?  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.

Privilege Not Waived on Defendant’s Seized Computer that was Purchased by Plaintiff at Auction – eDiscovery Case Law

In Kyko Global Inc. v. Prithvi Info. Solutions Ltd., No. C13-1034 MJP (W.D. Wash. June 13, 2014), Washington Chief District Judge Marsha J. Pechman ruled that the defendants’ did not waive their attorney-client privilege on the computer of one of the defendants purchased by plaintiffs at public auction, denied the defendants’ motion to disqualify the plaintiff’s counsel for purchasing the computer and ordered the plaintiffs to provide defendants with a copy of the hard drive within three days for the defendants to review it for privilege and provide defendants with a privilege log within seven days of the transfer.

In this fraud case, after several of the named defendants settled and confessed to judgment, the plaintiffs obtained a Writ of Execution in which the King County (Washington) Sheriff seized various items of personal property, including a computer owned by one of the defendants.  The computer was sold at a public auction, and an attorney for the plaintiffs outbid a representative sent by the defendants and purchased the computer.  The plaintiffs sent the computer to a third party for analysis and requested a ruling as to the admissibility of potentially attorney-client privileged documents contained on it, while the defendants contended the actions of the plaintiffs violated ethical rules, and requested that the plaintiffs return the computer to defendants, and also requested that the plaintiff’s attorneys should be disqualified from the case.

With regard to the plaintiff’s actions, Judge Pechman ruled that plaintiffs’ acquisition of the computer was not “inherently wrongful”, noting the plaintiffs’ claim that they had not reviewed the materials on the computer at the time of the motion.  She also determined that plaintiff’s “use of a third party vendor to make a copy of the hard drive is not equivalent to metadata mining of documents produced through the normal discovery process, because whereas the hard drive might plausibly contain many documents unprotected by any privilege, metadata mining is expressly aimed at the kind of information one would expect to be protected by attorney-client privilege and/or work-product protections”.  As a result, she denied the defendants’ motion to disqualify the plaintiff’s counsel.

As for the waiver of privilege, Judge Pechman used a balancing test to determine waiver “that is similar to Rule 502(b)”, which included these factors:

  1. the reasonableness of precautions taken to prevent disclosure,
  2. the amount of time taken to remedy the error,
  3. the scope of discovery,
  4. the extent of the disclosure, and
  5. the overriding issue of fairness.

Using the analogy of where “an opposing party discovers a privileged document in the other party’s trash”, Judge Pechman considered the potential waiver of privilege.  However, because the defendant stated in a declaration that she had “someone at her office” reformat the hard drive on the computer and install a new operating system and believed her documents had been erased and were not readily accessible, she related it “to the memo torn into 16 pieces than a document simply placed in a trash can without alteration”.

As a result, Judge Pechman determined that given “Defendants’ prompt efforts to remedy the error by filing a motion with the Court and the general sense that parties should not be able to force waiver of attorneyclient privilege through investigative activities outside the discovery process and a superior understanding of the relevant technology, the Washington balancing test weighs against waiver.”  She also and ordered the plaintiffs to provide defendants with a copy of the hard drive within three days for the defendants to review it for privilege and provide defendants with a privilege log within seven days of the transfer.

So, what do you think?  Were the plaintiff’s counsel actions ethical?  Should privilege have been waived?  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.

Transparency Reports for Other Companies – Social Tech eDiscovery

Over the past couple of weeks, we’ve taken a fresh look at Twitter’s Law Enforcement Policies and their latest Transparency Report to show government requests for data, looked at (for the first time) LinkedIn’s Privacy and Law Enforcement Data Request Guidelines and Transparency Report and, yesterday, looked at Facebook’s policies and Government Request Reports.  Today, we will look at Transparency Reports for other companies.

Many other high profile companies also provide reports showing government requests for data, not just social media companies.  Some, like Google, provide a highly interactive report to navigate to various types of requests, ranging from government requests to remove data to requests for information about their users.  Others, like Apple, provide a simple one page letter with broad ranges of information requests and accounts affected (Apple’s latest letter is over a year old).  Some are current (through the end of 2013 at least), others have not been updated to reflect data since the end of 2012.  Evidently, some companies take transparency more seriously than others!  With that in mind, here are links to reports for various high profile technology companies where you might have data:

I tried to pull up the Transparency Report for Pinterest, but the link immediately redirects to their help page, so it’s only transparent if you can read really fast!

Obviously, in these modern times, our data (both personal and professional) is stored by a number of companies and law enforcement entities will request data from those companies for investigative purposes.  It’s a good idea to know how those companies respond to those requests and what rights you have as a customer.

So, what do you think?  Have you needed to request user information from any high profile technology companies for litigation purposes?  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.

Facebook’s Policies and Government Request Reports – Social Tech eDiscovery

Two weeks ago, we took a fresh look at Twitter’s Law Enforcement Policies and their latest Transparency Report to show government requests for data, then last week (for the first time), we looked at LinkedIn’s Privacy and Law Enforcement Data Request Guidelines and Transparency Report.  This week, we’ll take a look at Facebook’s policies and Government Request Reports.

We originally looked at Facebook’s law enforcement policies back in 2010 – this policy was updated extensively by the time we looked at it again in 2012.  The good news is that the policy has remain largely unchanged since our last look – the main difference is the option to submit records requests online as well as via email, snail mail or fax (you still have to be a law enforcement officer to submit the request).

Facebook, similar to Twitter and LinkedIn, posts biannual Transparency Reports, however the company uniquely calls them “Global Government Request Reports”.  Facebook began publishing these reports last year, and posted the first one on June 30, 2013 for the first six months of 2013 – the latest report available is for the last six months of 2013.  The main page gives you an interactive map to click on to select a continent, then you can select a country for which get a specific report.  Or, you can download the entire report as a comma-separated values (.CSV) file to review all of the countries at once.

The downloaded entire report covers: 1) The countries that requested information from Facebook about their users, 2) The number of requests received from each of those countries, 3) The number of users/accounts specified in those requests, and 4) The percentage of these requests in which Facebook was required by law to disclose at least some data.  It also includes instances in which Facebook has removed content that governments have identified as illegal (e.g., posts denying the holocaust are illegal in Germany).  If you select the country individually via the interactive map, you also get a breakdown of the first three numbers for the types of requests (e.g., Search Warrant, Subpoena, Emergency Disclosures, Other).

In the latest report, the US had 12,598 requests for user data (44.8% of the total of 28,147 worldwide), referencing 18,715 user accounts (47.6% of the total of 39,320 worldwide) and some data was produced in 81.02% of the requests.  The next highest country was India (3,598 requests involving 4,711 accounts).  We’re number one!

Facebook, like other social media platforms, continues to push the US government to allow more transparency in releasing specific numbers and types of national security-related requests. Colin Stretch, Facebook’s General Counsel, made an all-encompassing comment about the topic: “Government transparency and public safety are not mutually exclusive ideals. Each can exist simultaneously in free and open societies, and they help make us stronger. We strongly encourage all governments to provide greater transparency about their efforts aimed at keeping the public safe, and we will continue to be aggressive advocates for greater disclosure.”

You can get more information about the reports here and look at their FAQ page here.

What other sites have reports?  We’ll take a look at that tomorrow.

So, what do you think?  Have you needed to request information from Facebook for litigation purposes?  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.

Court Orders Sharing of Costs for Forensic Examination of Plaintiff’s Emails – eDiscovery Case Law

In Zeller v. So. Central Emergency Med. Servs. Inc., 1:13-CV-2584 (M.D. Pa. May 20, 2014), Pennsylvania Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick used the Zubulake seven factor test to rule that the costs for restoring and searching the plaintiff’s emails should be shared, up to a maximum contribution by $1,500 by the plaintiff.

In this wrongful termination case based on plaintiff’s claims of retaliation by the defendant after the plaintiff took a leave of absence under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the parties began the eDiscovery process to recover the plaintiff’s emails and asked the Court to resolve the issue of “first review” of documents identified as a result of an agreed upon search of Plaintiff’s emails, and the matter of cost-sharing.

The plaintiff asserted that he is entitled to a “first review” of all documents to be produced while the defendants asserted that after forensic retrieval of emails from Plaintiff’s email account, all non-potentially privileged documents should be forwarded directly to the defendants to save time.  Noting that “Plaintiff has no obligation to produce emails that are wholly irrelevant to either party’s claim or defense” and that broad search terms such as the plaintiff’s wife’s name was used, Judge Mehalchick ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to a “first review” of the results of the forensic examination of his email account.

Regarding the cost sharing request by the defendants, Judge Mehalchick referenced Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B) and determined that the data requested was inaccessible without the forensic examination and used the seven factor balance test below for cost-shifting from Zubulake v. UBS Warburg to decide whether forensic examination costs should be shifted.  The factors are:

  1. The extent to which the request is specifically tailored to discover relevant information;
  2. The availability of such information from other sources;
  3. The total cost of production, compared to the amount in controversy;
  4. The total cost of production, compared to the resources available to each party;
  5. The relative ability of each party to control costs and its incentive to do so;
  6. The importance of the issues at stake in the litigation; and
  7. The relative benefits to the parties of obtaining the information.

Judge Mehalchick stated that “the parties were unable to identify the total cost of production of the search, compared to the amount in controversy and the resources to each party”.  However, with regard to the other five factors, she ruled that “the request is specifically tailored to discovery relevant information”, that “there is no other source which could possibly be available”, that since the parties have agreed on a forensic examiner “neither party has any more ability than the other to control the cost”, that “the information sought is important to the issues at stake in the litigation” and that “it is to the benefit of both parties to obtain the information sought”.

As a result, Judge Mehalchick found “that some cost-shifting is appropriate” and ruled “Plaintiff and Defendant should share equally in the cost of restoring and searching Plaintiff’s emails, up to a maximum contribution by Plaintiff of One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1500.00).”

So, what do you think?  Was the Zubulake test applied appropriately?  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.

LinkedIn’s Transparency Report – Social Tech eDiscovery

Yesterday, we talked about LinkedIn’s Privacy and Law Enforcement Data Request Guidelines.  Like Twitter and other social media companies, LinkedIn also discloses a semi-annual Transparency Report to inform the public of the frequency and type of government requests the company receives regarding member data.  Let’s take a look.

With regards to the reporting, it’s worth noting that LinkedIn and other web-based companies cannot be fully transparent because of restrictions imposed on disclosing the number of national security-related requests received from the U.S. government. In A Letter to the LinkedIn Community, Erika Rottenberg, the Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of LinkedIn, explains that, “we have been expressly prohibited by the U.S. government from disclosing the number of U.S. national security-related requests we receive, if any. This prohibition, which limits our ability to provide the transparency that we think our members and the public deserve, has been the source of great disappointment and frustration to us.”

In September 2013, LinkedIn filed legal challenges seeking the right to provide greater transparency into the number of national security-related requests they receive from the U.S. government. And last December they released, along with other technology companies, government surveillance reform principles that highlight government request transparency as a key part of necessary reform. In response to the legal challenges and advocacy of LinkedIn and other technology companies, the U.S. government officially changed its policy regarding the reporting of national security-related requests on January 27, 2014, to increase transparency (detailed in the articleGoogle, Yahoo and Linkedin disclose details on US National Security requests).

So, the Transparency Report isn’t as transparent as LinkedIn (and other providers) would like, but it’s better.

With that in mind, in the latest Transparency Report, covering the second half of 2013, there were 72 government requests for member data globally reported, with 56 of those (78%) coming from the US.   Requests actually dropped 13% from the first half of 2013 (from 83 to 72 globally and from 70 to 56 in the US – 20% drop).  Those requests impacted 110 member accounts globally, 90 of which were in the US (82%).  While requests dropped in the second half of 2013, the accounts affected rose from 97 to 110 (13% rise) globally and from 84 to 90 in the US (7%).  LinkedIn provides stats for the last two years on government requests for member data and member accounts impacted (at six month intervals).  In the most recent six months, LinkedIn provided data in response to overall requests 47% of the time (61% of the time to US requests).

Next week, we will take a look at Facebook’s policies and transparency.

So, what do you think?  Have you ever request information from LinkedIn for discovery purposes?  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.

LinkedIn Has Privacy and Law Enforcement Data Request Guidelines Too – Social Tech eDiscovery

Last week, we discussed recent updates to Twitter’s Law Enforcement policies as well as Twitter’s latest Transparency Report to show government requests for data.  Today, let’s take a look at the Privacy Policy and Law Enforcement Guidelines for LinkedIn.

This is our first time to take a look at LinkedIn, which (as you probably know) is a business-focused social networking site, designed for professional networking.  On March 26th of this year, LinkedIn updated its Terms of Service, which include its Privacy Policy and User Agreement, in part because they acquired Pulse, a mobile app, and SlideShare, a sharing platform for business documents, videos and presentations. As a result, LinkedIn integrated SlideShare and Pulse’s Terms of Service into one unified agreement.

The Privacy Policy is broken into four main sections: 1) What information we collect, 2) How we use your personal information, 3) Your choices & obligations and 4) Other information.  In the “How we use your personal information”, LinkedIn notes that “It is possible that we may need to disclose personal information, profile information, or information about your activities as a Member or Visitor when required by law, subpoena, or other legal process” as well as to investigate potential illegal activities, enforce the User Agreement or exercise the rights of LinkedIn or its members.  With regard to notifying users about these requests, LinkedIn states they “attempt to notify Members about legal demands for their data when appropriate in our judgment, unless prohibited by law or court order or when the request is an emergency” and they “may dispute such demands when we believe, in our discretion, that the requests are overbroad, vague or lack proper authority”.

In the “Your choices & obligations” section, LinkedIn’s policies regarding the access rights and information on closing members’ accounts are similar to those of Facebook andTwitter. If members close their account, their information will be removed within 24 hours, and LinkedIn delete closed account information and de-personalizes logs and other backup information within 30 days (unless required for legal obligations, meeting regulatory requirements, resolving disputes, and preventing fraud and abuse).

LinkedIn’s Law Enforcement Guidelines are kept in a separate PDF document.  The Guidelines answer questions such as the type of data requests you can make, your contact information that you must provide, information being requested, types of data that might be available, whether members will be notified that their information is being requested, non-US requirements, etc.  LinkedIn only accepts Data Requests, such as subpoenas and search warrants; Preservation Requests, in connection with official criminal investigations; and Emergency Requests, using the Emergency Request Form on the last page. You can only submit requests via fax, certified mail, express courier or in person, NOT online.  What, no horse and buggy?

Tomorrow, we will take a look at LinkedIn’s Transparency Report to see how many government requests they receive.  It will be here before you know it!

So, what do you think?  Have you ever had to request data from LinkedIn for a case?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Court Denies Defendant’s Request to Image Plaintiff’s PCs Three Years after Termination – eDiscovery Case Law
 

Here’s an interesting case courtesy of Virginia Lawyer’s Weekly…

In Downs v. Virginia Health Systems, Civil No. 5:13cv00083, (W.D. Va. June 2, 2014), Virginia Magistrate Judge James G. Welsh, citing proportionality and privacy concerns, denied the defendant’s motion to compel the mirror imaging of the Plaintiff’s personal computers nearly three years after she had been terminated.

The plaintiff brought an employee discrimination case against the defendant following being terminated after nearly seventeen years of employment as an executive secretary.  Among the reasons the defendant gave to justify her discharge was that that she had accessed her supervisor’s e-mail account without authority (she disputed that the access was not authorized) and that she had similarly forwarded information from that account to her personal email accounts and her home computers without permission.

The plaintiff represented that she had deleted all material she sent to her home computers following her August 2011 termination; therefore, the defendant requested to have the plaintiff’s two family computers mirror-imaged “to ensure against any further spoliation or destruction of evidence”.  The plaintiff objected to that request as “overly broad, burdensome, ‘personally intrusive,’ and ‘would necessarily invade’ the attorney-client privilege”.  She also argued that the defendants’ in-house IT experts and its own computer logs and reports would provide the same information being requested by the defendant to be mirror-imaged.

Judge Welsh stated that “On its face, the discovery issue presented by the defendants’ request for an exhaustive forensic examination of the plaintiff’s computers is also directly within the scope of ESI discovery contemplated by the inspection, copying, testing and sampling provisions of Rule 34(a)(1)(A).”  Ultimately, however, he also stated as follows:

“Consideration of the defendants’ ESI motion in a manner consistent with the forgoing discovery rules, standards and principles, compels the following findings and conclusions:

(1) nothing in the record suggests any willful failure, fault or bad faith by the plaintiff on her discovery obligations that would justify the requested computer forensics examination;

(2) the “mirror-imaging” of the plaintiff’s family computers three years after her termination raises significant issues of confidentiality and privacy;

(3) there was no duty on the part of the plaintiff to preserve her family computers as evidence,

(4) principles of proportionality direct that the requested discovery is not sufficiently important to warrant the potential burden or expense in this case; and

(5) on the current record that the defendants have failed to justify a broad, and frankly drastic, forensic computer examination of the plaintiff’s two family computers.”

As a result, “even though the defendants have demonstrated a connection between the plaintiff’s two family computers and the issues this lawsuit”, Judge Welsh stated that “the court’s consideration of the several other relevant factors, including the proportionality balance required by Rule 26(b)(2), all weigh heavily against permitting the exhaustive and intrusive computer forensic examination the defendants seek” and denied the defendant’s motion to compel.

So, what do you think?  Should the drives have been imaged or did the defendant’s request fail the proportionality test?  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.

Twitter Remains Transparent Regarding Government Requests – Social Tech eDiscovery

Yesterday, we took an updated look at Twitter to see how it handles private information and law enforcement requests (such as subpoenas) and what has changed since our last look about two years ago.  Today, we will take a look at Twitter’s latest Transparency Report to show government requests for data over the last six months of 2013.

Transparency reports are typically issued by companies to disclose numerous statistics related to requests for user data, records, and website content. These reports indicate the frequency and authority that governments request data or records over the given period. Due to the creation of these reports, the public may be informed of the private information governments gain access to via search warrants, court subpoenas and other methods.  Many other major communication platforms provide Transparency Reports as well, such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Google and Microsoft.

Twitter began publishing Transparency Reports in 2012 (we took a look at their first one here) and has continued doing so every six months or so.  Twitter’s current format for their Transparency Report is divided into three categories: trends in government requests for account information, government requests for content removal, and copyright notices and is available for every reporting period since Twitter began publishing the report. The Transparency Report also offers insight as to whether or not Twitter acts upon the requests sent to the company.

The first category is Information Requests. This includes worldwide government requests for account information typically connected to criminal investigations. For the six month period from July 1 to December 31, 2013, Twitter had 1,410 information requests. Due partly to the influence of Twitter’s growing global expansion, this number is a 22% increase from the prior period; however, the United States still accounted for 59% of the total requests.

In the Removal Requests section, Twitter includes government requests and other complaints of illegal content from authorized reporters to remove or withhold its content. In the first half of 2013, there were a total of 60 requests. However, in the second half of 2013 this number was over five times greater – 377 requests!  Now that’s an upsurge!  309 of those requests came from one country – France.  The removal requests number does not include emergency disclosure report numbers, as this information cannot be disclosed to the general public at this time.

As for copyright notices, Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notices rose from 5,753 in the prior period to 6,680 – a 16 percent increase.  To find more information about Twitter’s Transparency Reports, you can review them online by clicking here.

Next week, we will take a look at how another platform – LinkedIn – handles privacy, law enforcement requests and transparency.

So, what do you think?  Do you feel that Twitter provides enough information in their report?  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.

Twitter’s Law Enforcement Policies Revisited Again – Social Tech eDiscovery

It’s time to take another look at the social media platforms to see how they handle private information and law enforcement requests (such as subpoenas).  Let’s start with Twitter.

In 2010 and 2012, we reviewed Twitter’s Privacy Policy and Law Enforcement Guidelines.  Since our last review, despite their efforts to fight it, Twitter was ordered to produce tweets for a New York criminal case (People v. Harris).  At the time, Manhattan Criminal Court Judge Matthew Sciarrino stated that “If you post a tweet, just like if you scream it out the window, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy”, but acknowledged that his decision was “partially based on Twitter’s then terms of service agreement”, which was subsequently modified to add the statement “You Retain Your Right To Any Content You Submit, Post Or Display On Or Through The Service.”  After its appeal was denied, Twitter ultimately complied with the order.

There aren’t a lot of changes to Twitter’s Privacy Policy since our post in 2012, though the page is rearranged.  Most information in Twitter is still publicly shared with everyone, as noted by the tip at the top – “What you say on Twitter may be viewed all around the world instantly” (which former congressman and failed NYC mayor candidate Anthony Weiner famously discovered).  Your privacy settings determine whether some information such as location of tweets, email address and cell phone number is private or not.

In the Privacy Policy, Twitter now provides some details about Data Retention of account data, which is about 30 days from the date of deactivation, with the data being permanently deleted within a week afterwards.  Although the Data Retention section of the Guidelines for Law Enforcement page still states “Twitter retains different types of information for different time periods”.

One key change to the Guidelines for Law Enforcement page is that Twitter now provides a web form for law enforcement officers to submit general inquiries or emergency disclosure requests (no more sending faxes!).  If you’re not an authorized law enforcement or government representative, you can’t use the form.

Tomorrow, we will take a look at Twitter’s latest Transparency Report to show government requests for data over the last six months of 2013.  See you then!

So, what do you think?  Have you needed to request information from Twitter for litigation purposes?  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.