Close
Enter your
text here

Federal eDiscovery Rules

eDiscovery Law: Model Order Proposes to Limit eDiscovery in Patent Cases
 

A recent article in Texas Lawyer discussed the new model order proposed by Federal Circuit Chief Judge Randall Rader as a measure against the "excesses" of eDiscovery production. As noted at the 2011 Eastern District of Texas Bench Bar Conference in Irving last week, the "Model Order on E-Discovery in Patent Cases" was unanimously voted on by the Federal Circuit Advisory Council and, as a result, could significantly alter the way discovery materials are used in patent cases.

What's Wrong with eDiscovery Now?

In his speech at the 2011 Eastern District of Texas Bench Bar Conference, "Thoughts on the Status and Direction of Patent Litigation in the United States," Judge Rader accuses the courts of becoming “intolerantly expensive”, forcing “accused infringers to acquiesce to non-meritorious claims” therefore imposing “an unhealthy tax on innovation and open competition”.  He compared the model order to the current Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30, which limits cases to 10 depositions of 7 hours or fewer.

Rader said "the greatest weakness of the U.S. court system is its expense. And the driving factor for that expense is discovery excesses." Hence, the proposed model order to save the participants in these cases time and money.

Model Order Proposes Limits on eDiscovery

Rader's model order would create several limits on the production of electronically stored information in patent cases, including:

  • Exclusion of metadata from eDiscovery production requests without "good cause";
  • Restrictions on email production requests to specific issues and “not general discovery of a product or business”;
  • Delaying of email production requests until after disclosures about the patents, the accused uses of the invention, relevant financial information and the prior art;
  • A maximum of five custodians per party in email requests, and only five search terms each, unless courts specifically allow in excess of that number (if litigants submit requests that exceed those court orders, they must pay for the extra production);
  • Receiving parties cannot use materials asserted by producing parties as attorney-client or work product privileged;
  • Prohibitions on the use of privileged information produced as part of a mass production or other inadvertent release.

For more information about this model order and its implications, see Model Order Would Limit E-Discovery in Patent Cases.

So, what do you think?  Will the model order “catch on” as a way to limit the eDiscovery possible in patent cases?  Will other jurisdictions adopt the model order? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Court Says Lack of eDiscovery Rules for Criminal Cases is a Crime

A New York district court recently ordered the United States Government to reproduce thousands of pages of electronic discovery materials in a criminal case involving the distribution of cocaine.

In United States v. Briggs, No. 10CR184S, 2011 WL 4017886 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2011), the Government produced thousands of pages of electronic documents and a number of audio recordings, none of which were text searchable. The court ultimately decided that the onus of producing searchable materials for eDiscovery fell on the Government itself.

  • Defendants requested that the Government reproduce the discovery materials in a searchable format, but the Government refused, stating that it had used a program “routinely used” in criminal cases and would not bear the storage burden or cost of reproducing the documents.
  • The defense argued that the volume of production was virtually impossible to navigate without the ability to sort or search the documents, and that the materials presented for discovery lacked some relevant information. The court later made the comparison that a paper equivalent to this discovery situation “would be if the Government took photographs of thousands of pages… put them in boxes, and invited inspection by defense counsel.”
  • In light of the absence of a rule or standard for discovery of electronic materials in criminal cases such as this one, the court referred to other criminal cases in which the same issues were discussed, including United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010) and United States v. O’Keefe, 537 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 2008). Both of these cases dealt at some point with similar debates over document format and extensive discovery production, with different findings of whether the producing party was required to produce in the requested format.
  • The court decided that, in light of the absence of a clear standard, the Government was the party “better able to bear the burden of organizing these records for over twenty defendants in a manner useful to all” and ordered the Government to produce the files in searchable PDF or native format.
  • Finally, the court expressed its hope that the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules would soon establish rules addressing the production of ESI in criminal cases.

So, what do you think? Was the court fair to put the onus of searchable text production on the Government? Should there be similar rules governing eDiscovery issues in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure as there are in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Court Rules Against Exclusion of Privileged Email

“Clawback” of inadvertently produced privileged documents is a hot topic these days, with J-M Manufacturing’s recent clawback request in their case one of the latest examples.  For more information on mechanisms for “clawback”, check out our blog posts of the last two days.

A District of Columbia court has ruled against exclusion of a privileged email that was inadvertently produced by the defendant, ruling that the defendant’s actions before and after the discovery of the email’s production pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B) were not sufficient to ensure protections under Federal Rule of Exclusion (FRE) 502(b)(3), in a case involving alleged violations of the District of Columbia Whistleblower Act.

In Williams v. District of Columbia, No. 06-02076 (CKK), 2011 WL 3659308 (D.D.C. Aug. 17, 2011), the court ruled that the burden of preventing disclosure was on the defendant, and that its insufficient follow up showed “indifference,” and has thus denied the defendant’s Motion to Exclude the inadvertently produced email from evidence.

  • As part of a “recommendation to terminate packet” produced by the defendant, the District of Columbia, in the course of this case, a privileged email was inadvertently included. This email is described as being included in the first ten pages of the packet.
  • Defendant’s counsel sent an email to plaintiff’s counsel five months later, requesting the return of the email and its exclusion under Rule 26(b)(5)(B). There was neither any form of response from the plaintiff nor follow up from the defendant. Only when the email was introduced as an exhibit, more than two years later, did the defendant file its Motion to Exclude.
  • The court considered whether the defendant had met the conditions of Rule 26(b)(5)(B) that a party must “discharge its obligations under Rule 502(b)(3),” and concluded that the defense was negligent in not taking enough steps promptly to remedy the mistake. The defendant’s inability to accurately portray its document review methodology or the number and type of documents produced were also cited as reasons that the defense was itself responsible for the waiver of privilege associated with the email in question.
  • The court found that the defense’s single email request, with no follow up, was inadequate to protect its interest in the privilege of the inadvertently produced email, especially when considered in light of “the approximately two years and eight months before it filed a motion seeking the court’s intervention.”
  • Accordingly, the court ruled against exclusion of the email under FRE 502(b)(3), stating that, “the only ‘injustice’ in this matter is that done by the defendant to itself…. The District’s failure to make reasonable efforts to guard against the disclosure in the first place and to rectify its error once discovered is fatal to its reliance on Rule 502(b).”

So, what do you think? Was the court fair in assigning fault to the defense, or should the benefit of protection under FRE 502(b)(3) have been accorded the District of Columbia in this case? Have you been involved in a similar case or situation? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Law: Federal Rule of Evidence 502 Protects Against Accidental Waiver of Privilege
 

As noted yesterday, attorneys have reason to be worried about accidental waiver of privilege in today’s cases, where discovery of electronic documents reaches unprecedented volumes. With more electronically stored information (ESI) comes an increased risk of accidentally producing privileged information. Fortunately, there are provisions that can prevent some of the damage of such accidents.

Yesterday, we discussed “clawback” provisions and “quick peek” agreements. Both of these types of agreements can be used to protect against accidental waiver of privilege through production of the wrong documents for discovery. But, sometimes parties are unable to complete such agreements.  In other cases, these protections have been defeated by lawyers in court.  That's where Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 502 steps in to ensure that privilege is safeguarded when parties inadvertently produce privileged materials, assuming they take reasonable steps to avoid such inadvertent production.

FRE 502 was enacted in 2008, and it provides that:

  • "Subject matter waiver", the idea that production of a single privileged document waives privilege on all related documents on the same subject matter, does not exist. If and when waiver occurs, it is limited to the documents and information that were actually produced.
  • There is no waiver if the producing party takes reasonable steps to withhold privileged material or requests that materials accidentally produced be returned or destroyed.  Of course, what constitutes “reasonable steps” is open to interpretation.
  • If parties have agreed that inadvertent production will result in no waiver, such an agreement is binding only on the parties involved unless it is part of a court order. The effect of the agreement is broader if the agreement is included in a court order.
  • Any conflict between state and federal rules is determined by choosing the rule that provides the greatest protection of privilege.
  • FRE 502 applies even if a case is conducted under state law.

FRE 502 is relatively new and is still being interpreted by courts, but one thing is clear: the greatest protection afforded by FRE 502 is present when parties have entered into a “clawback” agreement and requested that it be made part of a court order. However, there remains no definitive ruling on what constitutes inadvertent production of privileged information or what constitutes “reasonable steps” to avoid such inadvertent production.

So, what do you think? Does FRE 502 provide important protections, or does it overstep in protecting parties and attorneys who are negligent? What do you think is necessary for a party to claim that production was inadvertent? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Law: Inadvertent Production is Inevitable, So How Do You Protect Yourself?
 

With exploding volumes of electronically stored information (ESI) being required in discovery proceedings, there is more chance than ever of inadvertently producing materials that should have been protected by privilege. No case exemplifies that better than the current eDiscovery malpractice case involving McDermott, Will & Emery discussed in this blog here, here and here where McDermott’s former client, J-M Manufacturing, has contended that 3,900 privileged documents were erroneously produced.  It is virtually impossible these days to keep every item from production that is protected by attorney-client or work product privilege.

Fortunately, there are protections against a claim of privilege waiver through inadvertent production.  The two most common historical protections are “quick peek” agreements and “clawback” provisions.

“Quick Peek” Agreement

“Quick peek” agreements are available, but not very common, because they present challenges for both parties in a lawsuit.

Instead of reviewing documents, everything is presented for a "quick peek." The requesting party is obligated to sort through all of the evidence and select the documents they wish to have presented for discovery. The producing party then has the opportunity to review those documents for privilege. The onus of review and labor for reviewing the entire collection is on the requesting party, but the producing party must be willing to accept the risk that opposing counsel will use any privileged information viewed against them, even if that information hasn’t been produced.

“Clawback” Provision

The more common protection is known as a “clawback” provision or “clawback” agreement. A part of the protective order made by the court early in a case, a “clawback” provision is an agreement between both parties that any discovery documents that are accidentally produced when they should have been protected by privilege are to be destroyed or returned upon request.

This kind of early agreement is usually simple and straightforward. It protects parties from disagreement over specific documents and prohibits the requesting party from making a claim of waiver.  Of course, parties don’t always agree to enter in such an agreement and sometimes courts have to decide.

One More Protection: Federal Rule of Evidence 502

In addition, the Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 502 was created in 2008 to provide additional protection. Before this rule was brought in, it has been argued, and sometimes upheld, that despite agreement between the parties as to no waiver through inadvertent production, that agreement did not extend to other parties in other proceedings. Waiving privilege on a single document has often constituted a waiver for all other documents on the same subject (called “subject matter waiver”).  FRE 502 provides extra protection in these cases.

But, more on that tomorrow!

So, what do you think? Have you ever been in a situation where you had to rely on one or more of these protections to deal with inadvertent production in a case? How did that work out for you and/or your client? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Update: J-M Manufacturing Tries to Clawback Privileged Documents at Issue in McDermott Malpractice Case
 

One of the most talked about cases from an eDiscovery perspective this year is the case against McDermott Will & Emery for alleged malpractice in the disclosure of privileged documents.  McDermott’s former client, J-M Manufacturing, has contended that 3,900 privileged documents were erroneously produced as part of 250,000 J-M electronic records that were reviewed under McDermott’s supervision.  In late July, J-M filed an amended complaint to its case, naming Navigant Consulting, Stratify and Hudson Legal as third party vendors hired by McDermott to run documents through a filter to identify potential attorney-client privilege documents and perform review of those documents.

Now, J-M has filed a motion seeking clawback of 3,400 privileged documents it contends that McDermott wrongfully produced, claiming the US government and, then, their opponents in the case, received the documents erroneously from McDermott.

The malpractice case was filed in California Superior Court, but was successfully moved to federal court by McDermott.  Recently, Hobson Dungog Bernardino + Davis, representing J-M in this case, filed a motion to remand the case to state court.

J-M says the first production of privileged documents in the case, in response to federal subpoenas, occurred in 2007 and 2008.  Stratify was hired by McDermott to search 1.3 million electronic files to identify potentially responsive and privileged files.  J-M claims it took “various precautions to identify and segregate documents that were subject to attorney-client privilege.", but that McDermott turned over files to the government that were not properly screened for privilege. J-M retrieved those documents through an informal July 2007 “clawback” agreement with the government. Both parties agreed to “return, sequester or destroy any inadvertently produced privileged materials.”

According to the filing, J-M then turned over a second production to the government assuming that its McDermott and its vendor, Stratify, had properly conducted the privilege review as previously instructed.  However, on May 20, 2010 (two months after McDermott had been dismissed), attorneys for one of the relators (John Hendrix at Day Pitney), notified J-M that they held potentially privileged documents, J-M requested the return or destruction of the 3,400 privileged documents in June 2010, but was rebuffed by Day Pitney attorneys, who rejected the request saying J-M had waived privilege by not taking “reasonable steps to prevent disclosure” as specified in Federal Rule of Evidence 502 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.  J-M has contended that the production of privileged documents was inadvertent and not a waiver.

On February 18, 2011, almost a year after McDermott had been dismissed, J-M entered into a joint clawback agreement with all relators.  Ironically, in a June 3, 2011 email to Day Pitney attorneys, Sheppard Mullin noted an additional production in 2011 by them of 500 allegedly privileged documents as Stratify (still being used as the vendor in this case) “mistakenly released approximately 9,650 ESI files without first presenting them for attorney review”.  As these documents may fall under the February 2011 clawback agreement, the plaintiffs have expressed willingness to destroy these documents.

As Sheppard Mullin has been disqualified in federal court due to conflict of interest, J-M has hired yet a third mega-firm in the False Claims case, Paul Hastings.  The False Claims Act case is still awaiting trial, so it may be difficult for J-M at this point to show how the disclosure of privileged documents has caused it damages.

So, what do you think? Should J-M Manufacturing be able to clawback its privileged documents?  Is it too early to assess malpractice against McDermott? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Law: Texas Rule 196.4 Protects Parties from "Undue Burden or Cost"
 

A recent article published in Texas Lawyer and reprinted on Law.com raises the question of extensive and costly eDiscovery requests and how to handle them. The authors of Keep E-Discovery Costs from Torpedoing Litigation Budgets present a hypothetical scenario where the opposing counsel has requested production of 10 years of legacy electronic data – a prospect that could cost more in recovery expenses than the value of the entire lawsuit. What is the best approach for counsel to take under the circumstances and what kind of legal recourse is there if producing extensive amounts of electronic information doesn't make sense?

Meet Texas Rule 196.4

The answer – in the state of Texas, at least – is found in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196.4. Like Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2), Rule 196.4 states that parties must comply with "reasonable" production requests, but are not forced to produce electronic information for discovery if it cannot be retrieved "through reasonable efforts."  So, when it comes to unduly burdensome discovery requests, don’t mess with Texas!

Rule 196.4 also includes a provision that makes it possible to shift the cost of extensive discovery production to the requesting party. However, an attorney's ability to make a case for challenging a production request or shifting the cost of such production depends on thorough knowledge of the client's information systems. It's paramount to know the details of the client's data storage, backup systems, old and new equipment in order to make an objection on grounds of either Texas or Federal law.

Rule 196.4 Still Being Clarified

Courts are still ruling on how and when this rule applies, so it remains a useful recourse but not a foolproof procedure for issues surrounding extensive (and expensive) production. Therefore, courts have used Federal Rule 26(b)(2) and federal case law to help apply an understanding of what’s reasonably accessible.  In In Re Weekley Homes, LP (2009), the Texas Supreme Court addressed when a trial court may order production of information that is not reasonably available, but instructed trial courts to consider "the reasonable availability of information on a case-by-case basis" which leaves the implementation of these rules open-ended for the moment.

The Texas Lawyer article references other important cases, including the landmark Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC (2003) opinion (Zubulake I) which famously adopted a classification system of five categories of media on which electronic data is commonly stored, from most accessible to least, as follows:

  1. Active, online data, such as hard drives;
  2. Near-line data, such as an older robotic storage devices like optical disks;
  3. Offline storage/archives, such as removable media that can be labeled and stored on a shelf like CDs and floppy disks;
  4. Backup tapes, which are sequential access devices not intended for recovery of individual files; and
  5. Erased, fragmented or damaged data.

Understanding these five categories of media and their accessibility is a must for anyone to be prepared to respond to discovery requests, especially like the one posed hypothetically at the beginning of the article.

So, what do you think? Have you ever been hit with a production request with a scope that would have raised eDiscovery costs beyond the value of the suit itself? If so, what did you do? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: A Site Designed to Facilitate Meet and Confer Conferences
 

The past two days, we discussed the basics of the Rule 26(f) “meet and confer” conference and details regarding the topics to discuss during that conference.  Hopefully, you found that review informative.

Now, as noted in a recent Law Technology News article by Sean Doherty, there’s a web application to facilitate the process to prepare for and conduct the Rule 26(f) conference.

MeetandConfer.com, provided by 26F LLC, was created to help attorneys prepare for court mandated “meet and confer” meetings.  The application is designed for law firms and corporate clients to help them determine the content, scope, and extent of ESI associated with the case.  There are four modules to coordinate the process, as follows:

  • Manage Enterprise Information: Enables users to map out organizational information, allowing all parties to understand where potentially relevant ESI is located, policies and practices associated with the ESI, and who is responsible for the ESI.  This module also enables various aspects of the organization to be documented, including backup policies and disaster recovery plans.
  • Matter Scoping: Enables users to track the various matters, and, for each matter, it enables users to track custodians and generate surveys to gather information about the locations of potentially responsive ESI.
  • Meet and Confer: Allows attorneys to define essential ESI needs for both parties while projecting a budget to identify, collect and process the data.  This module also provides a mechanism for computer-aided video conferencing (which can be facilitated by an independent mediator) to actually conduct the conference.
  • System Administration: Supports the creation of clients and users and establish rights for each user group.

Sean’s article mentioned above goes into more detail into each module, reflecting his “hands on” experience in “test driving” the application.  MeetandConfer.com is offering a free one month trial to “qualified” users (i.e., attorneys and judges), with the monthly rate of $149 per user to be billed after the free trial.

So, what do you think? Would an application like this make it easier to fully prepare for “meet and confer” conferences? Would you consider using such an application?  Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Rules: ESI Topics of the "Meet and Confer"
 

Yesterday, we talked about the basics of the Rule 26(f) “meet and confer” conference, Today, let’s go into more detail about the topics that are typically covered during the “meet and confer”, and why.

The "meet and confer" conference focuses on the exchange of information regarding discovery and the creation of a comprehensive plan that will govern the sharing and privilege of ESI. Accordingly, the requirements of this meeting specify discussion of the following topics:

  • Initial Disclosures: This exchange may be specific and detailed or very basic, depending on the needs of the case and the attorney's agendas. Proposed changes to the requirements, timing, or form of these disclosures may be discussed.
  • Topics on which Discovery may be Needed: It may be easy to agree on subjects for which discovery is necessary, or it may require prolonged discussion to reach an accord. In some instances, time and expense can be saved by beginning with a single area and later expanding discovery to include other topics, if necessary. Known as "phased discovery", this can be a very effective choice, as long as it is conducted in a way that does not require duplication of effort in later phases.
  • Format of Production of ESI: Although the actual discovery process may be conducted over weeks or even months after the conference, it's important to agree now on the format of production to prevent parties from accidentally converting files into a type that will later prove to be inconvenient or result in loss of data. This is especially important if one party has a request for a particular format.
  • Privilege, Inadvertent Disclosure, and Protective Orders: Although we all strive to prevent disclosure of privileged information, it's important to discuss in advance the possible implications and a process for dealing with such an eventuality, if it should occur.
  • Potential Deviations from Discovery Rules Requirements: In some cases, opposing attorneys will agree that they can accomplish discovery in fewer depositions than specified by Federal Rules or local rules. If so, this discussion and any related proposals should be part of the "meet and confer" conference so they can be incorporated into the discovery plan.
  • Any Other Orders or Concerns about Discovery: From discovery agreements to questions or requests, almost any topic related to eDiscovery can be part of the "meet and confer" conference.

To get the most out of the "meet and confer," and to save time and expense, most attorneys will prepare an extensive agenda of the topics for discussion in advance of the meeting itself. Although there are many other topics that may be included in the conference, this list covers key requirements of the Rule 26(f) "meet and confer" conference and the discovery plan to be created there.

So, what do you think? Did you learn something that you didn’t already know about the Rule 26(f) "meet and confer" conference?  If so, then we accomplished our goal! Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Rules: What's Really Required for the "Meet and Confer"?
 

Almost any litigation professional who works with eDiscovery is aware of the Rule 26(f) "meet and confer" conference, but many don't fully understand its parameters and how it affects ESI. What exactly is the "meet and confer" and what are some of its implications in regard to eDiscovery?

What is the "Meet and Confer"?

The "meet and confer" conference is now a requirement in Federal cases as of the rules changes of 2006 to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In addition to Rule 26(f) for Federal cases, an increasing number of states now have (or are contemplating) a similar rule.  It provides an opportunity for the parties in a lawsuit to discuss discovery and create a plan for the sharing of information during and before trial.

The goal of the "meet and confer" rules is to provide a basis for an open exchange of information and a productive dialogue about discovery-related topics. Even in the antagonistic world of litigation, it is possible to reach an accord on the details of discovery by conforming to the requirements of these rules and of the discovery process.

What are the Parameters of the "Meet and Confer"?

Rule 26(f) states that attorneys must meet and discuss "any issues about preserving discoverable information" as well as developing a "discovery plan." It also specifies that:

  • Attorneys must already be aware of the location and nature of their own clients' computer systems and discoverable documents, and must be prepared to ask questions about their opponents' ESI, electronic systems, and data preservation actions.
  • In order to be fully prepared for this conference, an attorney needs to know as much as possible about the location, volume, and logistical challenges that surround the collection of ESI, as well as the client's preferences regarding privilege, protective orders, and document review.
  • The more informed the attorneys are on each of these counts, the more capable they will be to address relevant issues, streamline the discovery process, and minimize eDiscovery costs.
  • Attorneys may exchange either in-depth or limited information about the legal holds process.
  • The result of the "meet and confer" conference is to establish a comprehensive discovery plan and lay the groundwork for the discovery aspects of the rest of the proceeding.

Tomorrow, I’ll go into more details about the specific topics to be covered at the Rule 26(f) conference.  Oh, the anticipation!

So, what do you think? Do you have any experience with Rule 26(f) conferences that went awry or cases where having a Rule 26(f) conference would have helped? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.