Close
Enter your
text here

Preservation

For a Successful Outcome to Your Discovery Project, Work Backwards: eDiscovery Best Practices

Based on a recent experience with a client, it seemed appropriate to revisit this topic. Plus, it’s always fun to play with the EDRM model. Notice anything different? 🙂

While the Electronic Discovery Reference Model from EDRM has become the standard model for the workflow of the process for handling electronically stored information (ESI) in discovery, it might be helpful to think about the EDRM model and work backwards, whether you’re the producing party or the receiving party.

Why work backwards?

You can’t have a successful outcome without envisioning the successful outcome that you want to achieve. The end of the discovery process includes the production and presentation stages, so it’s important to determine what you want to get out of those stages. Let’s look at them.

Presentation

Whether you’re a receiving party or a producing party, it’s important to think about what types of evidence you need to support your case when presenting at depositions and at trial – this is the type of information that needs to be included in your production requests at the beginning of the case as well as the type of information that you’ll need to preserve as a producing party.

Production

The format of the ESI produced is important to both sides in the case. For the receiving party, it’s important to get as much useful information included in the production as possible. This includes metadata and searchable text for the produced documents, typically with an index or load file to facilitate loading into a review application. The most useful form of production is native format files with all metadata preserved as used in the normal course of business.

For the producing party, it’s important to be efficient and minimize costs, so it’s important to agree to a production format that minimizes production costs. Converting files to an image based format (such as TIFF) adds costs, so producing in native format can be cost effective for the producing party as well. It’s also important to determine how to handle issues such as privilege logs and redaction of privileged or confidential information.

Addressing production format issues up front will maximize cost savings and enable each party to get what they want out of the production of ESI. If you don’t, you could be arguing in court like our case participants from yesterday’s post.

Processing-Review-Analysis

It also pays to make decisions early in the process that affect processing, review and analysis. How should exception files be handled? What do you do about files that are infected with malware? These are examples of issues that need to be decided up front to determine how processing will be handled.

As for review, the review tool being used may impact how quick and easy it is to get started, to load data and to use the tool, among other considerations. If it’s Friday at 5 and you have to review data over the weekend, is it easy to get started? As for analysis, surely you test search terms to determine their effectiveness before you agree on those terms with opposing counsel, right?

Preservation-Collection-Identification

Long before you have to conduct preservation and collection for a case, you need to establish procedures for implementing and monitoring litigation holds, as well as prepare a data map to identify where corporate information is stored for identification, preservation and collection purposes.

And, before a case even begins, you need an effective Information Governance program to minimize the amount of data that you might have to consider for responsiveness in the first place.

As you can see, at the beginning of a case (and even before), it’s important to think backwards within the EDRM model to ensure a successful discovery process. Decisions made at the beginning of the case affect the success of those latter stages, so working backwards can help ensure a successful outcome!

So, what do you think? What do you do at the beginning of a case to ensure success at the end?   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.

Tired of the “Crap”, Court Sanctions Investors and Lawyers for Several Instances of Spoliation: eDiscovery Case Law

In Clear-View Technologies, Inc., v. Rasnick et al, 5:13-cv-02744-BLF (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2015), California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal sanctioned the defendants $212,320 and also granted a permissive adverse jury instruction that allows the presumption that the defendants’ spoliated documents due to a series of “transgressions” by the defendants and their prior counsel.

You’ve got to love an order that begins this way:

“Deployment of ‘Crap Cleaner’ software—with a motion to compel pending. Lost media with relevant documents. False certification that document production was complete. Failure to take any steps to preserve or collect relevant documents for two years after discussing this very suit. Any one of these transgressions by {the defendants} and their prior counsel might justify sanctions. Taken together, there can be no doubt.”

This case arose from the defendants’ alleged conspiracy with certain former plaintiff’s employees to take over the plaintiff’s company or, failing that, to divert their personnel, intellectual property and investors to a competing enterprise to commercialize the plaintiff’s alcohol tracking product known as the “BarMaster”. As early as May 2011, the plaintiff threatened Defendants with litigation for interfering with the plaintiff’s operations, ultimately filing suit in June 2013.

After the plaintiff’s discovery requests yielded just 422 pages produced by the defendants (including no communications solely between defendants and virtually no communications between defendants and any “co-conspirator” identified in the plaintiff’s requests) the plaintiff moved to compel further production and in September 2014, the court granted the motion and ordered that “(i) Defendants appear by September 23 for depositions regarding ‘document preservation and production,’ and (ii) the parties meet and confer in order to submit to the court by September 30 ‘a plan to retain an independent consultant to do a limited forensic collection and analysis of the media associated with each named defendant.’”

During the depositions, the individual defendants admitted having deleted numerous emails and text messages, failing to preserve devices that potentially responsive data was stored on, failing to search key media and failing to use obvious search terms in the searches that they did perform. Meanwhile, in October 2014, per the parties’ joint agreement, the Court selected the a digital forensics firm (at the defendants’ expense) to perform a forensic analysis of Defendants’ media and email accounts, with the order calling for the defendants to produce over 40 specified electronic media and email accounts for forensic imaging.

The digital forensics firm ultimately found 2,593 relevant documents totaling 12,467 pages – over 12,000 pages more than the defendants had previously produced and also determined that “four separate system optimization and computer cleaning programs were run” (including CCleaner, aka “Crap Cleaner”) on one defendant’s laptop. These programs were loaded onto his laptop and executed on July 22, 2014 – just six days after the filing of the plaintiff’s motion – and resulted in the deletion of “over 50,000 files”. For that and other apparent instances of spoliation of data among the defendants, the plaintiff requested monetary sanctions, an adverse inference instruction and terminating sanctions.

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to the duty to preserve, Judge Grewal stated that “Once upon a time, the federal courts debated exactly when the duty to preserve documents arises. No more. “The duty to preserve evidence begins when litigation is `pending or reasonably foreseeable.’”

Finding that the defendants “were on notice of foreseeable litigation well before spoliation occurred”, that their “spoliation occurred with the required culpable mindset” and that they “failed to produce thousands of documents that contained key terms that the parties designated as relevant to the litigation”, Judge Grewal ruled that “In sum, sanctions are warranted. The only question is what kind.”

Ultimately, Judge Grewal awarded “expenses and fees in this discovery dispute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C)” of $212,320 and granted the request for an adverse instruction that the unproduced material may be deemed to support the plaintiff’s contentions. He also ruled that “Defendants’ prior counsel also must be sanctioned for improperly certifying Defendants’ discovery responses, and for subsequently failing to intervene even after ‘obvious red flags’ arose, such as Defendants’ failure to produce incriminating documents CVT obtained from their third parties.” Also, based on information that the defendants had “stiffed on the bill” for the digital forensics firm, Judge Grewal ruled that “Defendants shall show cause why they should not face further sanctions for this failure.”

Judge Grewal, however, declined to recommend terminating sanctions “in light of public policy and the sufficiency of monetary sanctions and an adverse jury instruction”.

So, what do you think? Should the request for terminating sanctions have been granted? 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.

Appeals Court Upholds “Death Penalty Order” Sanction That Leads to Multi-Million Dollar Judgment: eDiscovery Case Law

In Crews v. Avco Corp., No. 70756-6-I (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 6, 2015), a Washington Court of Appeals upheld a “death penalty order” against the defendant for discovery violations, including the failure to produce relevant information, but remanded for amendment of the final judgment of over $17.28 million to reflect any offsets for settlements with other defendants.

Case Background

In this product liability case related to a faulty carburetor that was associated with a plane crash in which several people were killed, the defendant failed to satisfy the plaintiffs’ discovery demands from October 2010 into February 2013, often objecting to most, if not all, of the requests. During part of that time, the defendant relied in part upon its document retention policy and, after being held in contempt, the defendant submitted a declaration from counsel describing its efforts to comply with the court’s order to produce. While not providing the policy itself, counsel explained that “pursuant to company policy” certain categories of documents were “retained only for fixed periods of time” and stating that many of the documents supplied by another defendant were “beyond the various retention periods” in the policy. Ultimately, the plaintiffs’ filed a motion for default against the defendant.

On February 4, 2013, the first day of trial, the judge held oral argument on the plaintiffs’ motion for default, during which the defendant’s counsel finally produced a copy of the records management policy. After reviewing the policy, the judge found that it was unclear whether the policy extended to the documents requested by the plaintiffs and orally granted the plaintiffs’ motion to sanction the defendant. The next day, the judge entered a written order granting the plaintiffs’ motion. The order stated that there was substantial evidence that the defendant did not comply with the plaintiffs’ discovery requests and the court found that the withheld discovery tied directly to the plaintiffs’ burden of proof regarding the defendant’s violation of federal regulations and punitive damages.

The court found that the defendant’s “continued disregard and violation of the discovery and contempt orders is without reasonable excuse and is willful. [Avco] has and continues to substantially prejudice plaintiffs’ preparation for trial and presentation at trial, on issues of liability, causation, and punitive damages.” As a result, the court ruled that “All of each plaintiff’s allegations in their respective operative Complaints against [Avco] are deemed admitted, and all of [Avco’s] defenses, if any, are stricken.”

The jury considered compensatory damages and punitive damages in two separate phases of trial, returning a verdict for the plaintiff of $17,283,000; $6 million of which was in punitive damages. The defendant appealed on multiple grounds, arguing that the order violated due process and that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the most severe sanctions possible when lesser sanctions would have sufficed and also challenged specific sanctions.

Appeals Court Analysis

Assessing the defendant’s objections, the appellate court described the requirements to justify harsh sanctions – that the discovery violations were willful or deliberate, that the opposing party was substantially prejudiced, and that the trial court explicitly considered lesser sanctions. Following considerable analysis, the appellate court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its findings that the violation of the discovery order was willful, that the plaintiffs’ case was prejudiced and that lesser sanctions would not be adequate for a fair trial.

With regard to the records management policy, the appellate court, while observing that the policy was not part of the record, agreed that the “scope and operation of the policy is unclear and unsupported” and that the defendant “did not submit any other evidence, such as employee affidavits, about how the policy applied to the requested documents and their destruction”.

Though the appellate court essentially affirmed the sanctions imposed, it did remand the case for “amendment of the final judgment to reflect any offsets authorized pursuant to chapter 4.22 RCW.”

So, what do you think? Were the sanctions appropriate or should the court have considered lesser sanctions against the defendant? 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.

Denial of Motion for Spoliation Sanctions Leaves Plaintiff Less Than Glad: eDiscovery Case Law

In Gladue v. Saint Francis Medical Center, 1:13-CV-186-CEJ (E.D. Mo. Mar. 24, 2015), Missouri District Judge Carol E. Jackson denied the plaintiff’s motion for evidentiary and monetary sanctions due to spoliation of evidence, finding that the defendant did not have a duty to preserve emails deleted as part of routine IT operations, had diligently attempted to recover deleted emails and that the plaintiff failed to show that any of the unrecovered emails were relevant to her claims.

Case Background

In this employment case, the plaintiff’s employment was terminated in December 2011. As part of the defendant’s routine IT operations, the plaintiff’s email account was purged in March 2012. At that time, plaintiff had not filed either a lawsuit against the defendant or a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission – the defendant was first contacted by the plaintiff’s then-attorney in June 2012 regarding the plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims.

On June 16, 2014, after this lawsuit was filed, the plaintiff submitted a request for production of all of her work emails and her calendar. Because her account had been purged, the defendant undertook several efforts to retrieve the emails, including conducting a search for all emails sent to or received from plaintiff in the accounts of every employee identified in the parties’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 disclosures. The defendant ultimately produced over 24,600 pages of emails and related documents to the plaintiff in two productions (nearly three months before the close of discovery), but acknowledged that there were no guarantees that every lost item was retrieved. The plaintiff filed a motion for evidentiary and monetary sanctions due to spoliation of evidence.

Judge’s Opinion

Finding that a “litigation hold was not required at the time plaintiff’s e-mails were deleted”, Judge Jackson ruled that the defendant “has shown that plaintiff’s e-mails were deleted as part of a routine maintenance procedure, rather than in bad faith. Moreover, defendant has diligently attempted to recover the missing documents.”

Judge Jackson also noted that the defendant produced documents to the plaintiff “nearly three months before the close of discovery and almost four months before the deadline for filing dispositive motions. Thus, as to the timing of the productions, no exceptional circumstances justify sanctions.” She also found that “plaintiff has failed to show that any of the unrecovered e-mails are relevant to her claims” and noted that “plaintiff is incorrect in her contention that defendant is at an advantage because it can use the undisclosed e-mails in this litigation” as “Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) forbids defendant from using any document that has not been produced to plaintiff at summary judgment or trial.”

As a result, Judge Jackson ruled that “plaintiff is not prejudiced and no exceptional circumstances exist to justify sanctions” and denied her motion for sanctions.

So, what do you think? Did the plaintiff’s motion really ever stand a chance? 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.

Discarding a Relevant Computer Results in Adverse Inference Sanctions, Not Default Judgment: eDiscovery Case Law

In Grady v. Brodersen, No. 13-cv-00752-REB-NYW (D.Colo. Mar. 23, 2015), Colorado Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang granted the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against the defendant in part for failing to produce a computer that the defendant ultimately acknowledged that he discarded, but denied the plaintiff’s request for a default judgment sanction, opting for the less severe adverse inference instruction sanction.

Case Background

In this copyright infringement case filed in March 2013 due to publication of disputed images on the defendant’s web site, the District Court of Colorado entered a scheduling order on February 20, 2014, ordering Defendant to preserve all electronically stored information (ESI), including metadata, and to identify his relevant devices. A week later, on February 27, the defendant submitted his initial disclosures to the plaintiff, in which he acknowledged his computer equipment was relevant to this litigation, identified himself as custodian of the equipment, and represented that “a search through computer equipment for any discoverable material has [sic] and is ongoing. Defendant will supplement its response [sic] if necessary.”

But, on August 9, the defendant amended his initial disclosures “after discussion with lawyers regarding the whereabouts of the computer and request for additional information by Plaintiff”, stating that the computer he had owned and used during the relevant time period “died” prior to notice or anticipation of any legal action and was discarded in July 2013 (four months after the case was filed) because it was “broken”. He also stated that he had searched USB/Flash drives owned and controlled by him during the relevant time and found no relevant data. Subsequently, the defendant acknowledged in his deposition that he did not attempt to have the hard drive repaired before discarding the computer. On August 18, the plaintiff moved to compel, and the court granted the motion, ordering the defendant to produce his new computer hard drive for forensic inspection and copying.

Following the court’s order compelling the defendant to produce the new computer, the plaintiff’s forensic experts determined that the defendant began using that computer in November 2013, which was a few months after the defendant discarded the old computer and also discovered that the new computer had received a transfer of 10,091 images on January 19, 2014, nine days after the court recommended denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. The experts noted that the approximately 10,000 images had a range of file modification dates reaching as far as February 2011. The plaintiff filed the motion for sanctions in November 2014.

Citing the four factor test in Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916, 920 (10th Cir. 1992), the plaintiff argued that:

  1. The discarded computer was the only source of evidence relating to the alteration of his Copyrighted works, so it was “severely prejudicial” to him;
  2. The defendant interfered with the judicial process when he lied under oath on his initial 26(a)(1) disclosures;
  3. The defendant was highly culpable as he discarded the equipment after the commencement of litigation; and
  4. A court-issued warning of dismissal is not necessary where the violation is severe.

Judge’s Opinion

For the most part, Judge Wang agreed with the plaintiff, stating “I find that Mr. Brodersen despoiled relevant evidence that he had an obligation to preserve. I further find that Mr. Brodersen violated Rule 26(g) by not specifying in his Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures dated February 27, 2014 which computer equipment was in his custody and control.” She also ruled that “This court finds sufficient evidence in the record before it to demonstrate that Defendant acted intentionally and with bad faith in discarding the old computer.”

As for the appropriate sanction, however, Judge Wang did not agree with the plaintiff, stating “However, in heeding the direction of the Tenth Circuit to consider the efficacy of lesser sanctions, I find that an entry of default judgment is too severe. The dual objective of protecting a litigant’s right to obtain discoverable evidence and punishing the disobedient party to deter future violative conduct is met by imposing an adverse jury instruction regarding the despoiled evidence.” So, she granted the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions in part ordering the adverse inference instruction sanction as well awarding as the plaintiff’s reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in pursuing the motion.

So, what do you think? Was the sanction severe enough? 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 Does Not Take the Fall for Spoliation in Slip and Fall Case: eDiscovery Case Law

In Harrell v. Pathmark et al., Civil Action No. 14-5260 (E.D.Penn. Feb. 26, 2015), Pennsylvania District Judge Gene E. K. Pratter, after a hearing to consider whether to draw an adverse inverse instruction due to the defendant’s possible spoliation of video evidence, determined that “a spoliation inference would not be appropriate here”. Finding that the plaintiff had presented no evidence that the defendant had constructive notice of a dangerous condition resulting in her slip and fall, Judge Pratter also granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Case Background

The plaintiff filed suit claiming the defendant’s negligence “resulted in her slipping on a dangerously slick surface” in the defendant’s store in May 2013. The defendant moved for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the wet condition of the floor.

The plaintiff’s memorandum opposing the summary judgment noted that the defendant had working security cameras in the store, but the video footage from the time and date of the accident was recorded over and not preserved. As a result, the Court sua sponte scheduled a hearing to prompt the parties to address the issue on whether the Court could or should draw an adverse spoliation inference due to the absence of video evidence.

Judge’s Opinion

Stating that “Ms. Harrell has not presented the Court with evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that Pathmark had constructive notice of the wet condition of the floor”, Judge Pratter turned to the potential spoliation of video evidence, noting that “although Ms. Harrell does not specifically invoke the issue, one could read the concluding paragraphs of her Memorandum opposing summary judgment as contending that the Court should draw an adverse spoliation inference against Pathmark.”

Judge Pratter found that the plaintiff “has not satisfied her burden of demonstrating that the video footage would have been relevant” and also determined that the court “cannot conclude based on the evidence before it that the video evidence was actually suppressed or withheld. Nor can it conclude that litigation was reasonably foreseeable at a time when the video footage presumably still existed.” His ruling quoted Bull v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 665 F.3d 68, 77 (3d Cir. 2012) as follows:

“Ordinary negligence does not suffice to establish spoliation. The party asserting spoliation must prove that evidence was intentionally withheld, altered, or destroyed. Thus, no unfavorable inference of spoliation arises if the evidence was lost, accidentally destroyed, or where the failure to produce it is otherwise properly accounted for.”

With regard to this case, Judge Pratter remarked “Here, Ms. Harrell has not presented evidence of bad faith. Even in a highly litigious community or culture, just because a person falls in a grocery store does not mean that litigation is imminent. Here, the lawsuit was not filed until August 2014, over a year after the incident and far past the maximum of about 90 days that the video footage would have survived before being automatically re-recorded. While the incident itself did cause Mr. Lewis to create an incident report, nothing about it was so immediately dramatic to create an objectively foreseeable likelihood of litigation…Pathmark’s actions, in this context, appear to the Court to be at the very most mere inadvertent negligence.”

Therefore, Judge Pratter determined that “a spoliation inference would not be appropriate here” and with no evidence to support the plaintiff’s claim, granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Click here and here for a couple of previous slip and fall cases we’ve covered where potential spoliation of video evidence was debated.

So, what do you think? Was the court right to grant the motion for summary judgment? 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 Rules that Australian Company’s Duty to Preserve Only Begins when US Court Has Jurisdiction: eDiscovery Case Law

In Lunkenheimer Co. v. Tyco Flow Control Pacific Party Ltd., No. 1-11-cv-824 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 12, 2015), Ohio District Judge Timothy S. Black ruled that the duty to preserve for the defendant (an Australian company with offices and facilities only in Australia) did not begin until the complaint was filed in US courts in December 2011, denying the assertion of the intervenor/counter defendant that the duty to preserve arose in 2002.

Case Background

The intervenor/counter defendant alleged that the defendant refused to fully comply with the court’s October 2014 discovery order by failing to preserve, or satisfactorily search for and produce, evidence relating to the case and requested sanctions including striking the defendant’s counterclaims and what amounted to a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $24.7 million.

With regard to the duty to preserve, the intervenor/counter defendant argued that the defendant’s duty to preserve began no later than October 1, 2002, about a month after the License had been signed, when an email from an executive at the defendant company questioned ownership of the assets and intellectual property associated with the license and the intervenor/counter defendant claimed that, from at least that date, the parties were in constant dispute over the existence of, and the defendant’s compliance with, the License.

The defendant argued that any duty to preserve under U.S. law could not have arisen before August 3, 2012, the date when the defendant answered the complaint and consented to U.S. jurisdiction, and, even if it had, it was not before the defendant was served on December 8, 2011. The defendant also noted that, throughout the nine years prior to Plaintiffs’ filing of this lawsuit, the plaintiffs continued to accept regular royalty payments of over $1.6 million for the first five years, took no action for another four years while the defendant continued to use the IP and never sent a dispute notice or termination notice during that time.

Judge’s Opinion

Citing In re Uranium Antitrust Litigation, 480 F. Supp. 1138 (N.D. Ill. 1979) in a footnote, Judge Black stated the following:

“The power of a U.S. Court to require compliance with U.S. discovery obligations does not arise until and unless the Court has jurisdiction.”

Judge Black noted that the defendant “is an Australian company with offices and facilities only in Australia”, that “Australian Law governs the License and was the anticipated jurisdiction for License-related disputes” and that “[n]o significant sales of Licensed Products were made into the U.S.” While acknowledging that the defendant “is not excused from an obligation to preserve evidence simply because it is a foreign company”, Judge Black ruled that “the only place litigation might at some point have been anticipated was in New South Wales, Australia—not Ohio or anywhere else in U.S. Accordingly, notwithstanding the fact that it may not have had jurisdiction over the PFCP until 2012, and in the absence of evidence that PFCP should have reasonably anticipated litigation in the United States any earlier, the Court finds that the duty to preserve began on December 8, 2011.”

So, what do you think? Do you agree that the defendant did not have a duty to preserve any earlier than the filing of the complaint? 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.

Alon Israely, Esq., CISSP of BIA: eDiscovery Trends

This is the third of the 2015 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series. eDiscovery Daily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends? Do you think American Lawyer Media (ALM) should consider moving LTNY to a different time of year to minimize travel disruptions due to weather?
  2. After our discussion last year regarding the new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, additional changes were made to Rule 37(e). Do you see those changes as being positive and do you see the new amendments passing through Congress this year?
  3. Last year, most thought leaders agreed that, despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery. Do you think anything has been done in the past year to improve the situation?
  4. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Alon Israely. Alon is the Manager of Strategic Partnerships at Business Intelligence Associates, Inc. (BIA) and currently leads the Strategic Partner Program at BIA. Alon has over eighteen years of experience in a variety of advanced computing-related technologies and has consulted with law firms and corporations on a variety of technology issues, including expert witness services related to computer forensics, digital evidence management and data security. Alon is an attorney and a Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP).

What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends? Do you think American Lawyer Media (ALM) should consider moving LTNY to a different time of year to minimize travel disruptions due to weather?

I didn’t get to spend as much time on the floor and in the sessions as I would like because, for me, LTNY has become mostly meetings. On the one hand, that doesn’t help me answer your question as completely as I could but, on the other hand, it’s good for ALM because it shows that there’s business being conducted. A big difference between this year and last year (which may be reflective of our activity at BIA, but others have said it as well), is that there has been more substantive discussions and deal-making than in the past. And, I think that’s what you ultimately want from an industry conference.

Also, and I’m not sure if this is because of attrition or consolidation within the industry, but there seems to be more differentiation among the exhibitors at this year’s show. It used to be that I would walk around LegalTech with outside investors who are often people not from the industry and they would comment that “it seems like everybody does the same thing”. Now, I think you’re starting to see real differentiation, not just the perception of differentiation, with exhibitors truly offering solutions in niche and specialized areas.

As for whether ALM should consider moving the show, absolutely! It seems as though the last few years that has been one of the conversation topics among many vendors as they’re setting up before LegalTech as they ask “why is this happening again” with the snow and what-not. We’ve certainly had some logistics problems the past couple of years.

I do think there is something nice about having the show early in the year with people having just returned from the holidays, getting back into business near the beginning of Q1. It is a good time as we’re not yet too distracted with other business, but I think that it would probably be smart for ALM to explore moving LTNY to maybe the beginning of spring. Even a one-month move to the beginning of March could help. I would definitely keep the show in New York and not move the location; although, I would think that they could consider different venues besides the Hilton without affecting attendance. While some exhibitors might say keep it at this time of year to coordinate with their release schedules, I would say that’s a legacy software answer. Being in the SaaS world, we have updates every few weeks, or sooner, so I think with the new Silicon Valley approach to building software, it shouldn’t be as big a deal to match a self- created release schedule. Marketing creates that schedule more than anything else.

After our discussion last year regarding the new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, additional changes were made to Rule 37(e). Do you see those changes as being positive and do you see the new amendments passing through Congress this year?

I think that they’re going to pass Congress. I’ve been focusing on the changes related to preservation as it seems that most noteworthy cases, especially those involving Judge (Shira) Scheindlin, involve a preservation mistake somewhere. For us at BIA, we feel the Rules changes are quite a validation of what we’re doing with respect to requiring counsel to meet early to discuss discovery issues, and to force the issue of preservation to the forefront. Up until these changes, only savvy and progressive counsel were focused on how legal hold and preservation was being handled and making sure, for example, that there wasn’t some question eight months down the road about some particular batch of emails. The fact that it is now codified and that’s part of the pre-trial “checklist” is very important in creating efficiencies in discovery in general and it’s great for BIA, frankly, because we build preservation software. It validates needing an automated system in your organization which will help you comply.

Last year, most thought leaders agreed that, despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery. Do you think anything has been done in the past year to improve the situation?

I hate to sound pessimistic, and obviously I’m generalizing from my experience, but it feels like attorneys are less interested in learning about eDiscovery and more interested in being able to rely on some sort of solution, whether that solution is software or a service provider, to solve their problems. It’s a little bit of a new “stick your head in the sand” attitude. Before, they ignored it; now, they just want to “find the right wrench”. It’s not always just one wrench and it’s not that easy. It is important to be able to say “we use this software and that software and this vendor and here’s our process” and rely on that, but the second step is to understand why you are relying on that software and that vendor. I think some lawyers will just say “great, I’ll buy this software or hire this vendor and I’m done” and check that check box that they now have complied with eDiscovery but it’s important to do both – to purchase the right software or hire the right vendor AND to understand why that was done.

Certainly, vendors may be part of the problem – depending upon how they educate. At BIA, we promote TotalDiscovery as a way of not having to worry about your preservation issues, not having data “fall through the cracks” and that you’ll have defensible processes. We do that but, at the same time, we also try to educate our clients too. We don’t just say “use the software and you’re good to go”, we try to make sure that they understand why the software benefits them. That’s a better way to sell and attorneys feel better about their decision to purchase software when they fully understand why it benefits them.

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

As I already mentioned, BIA has TotalDiscovery, our SaaS-based preservation software and we are about to release what we call “real-time processing”, which effectively allows for you to go from defensible data collections to searching that collected data in minutes. So, you can perform a remote collection and, within a few minutes of performing that collection, already start to perform eDiscovery caliber searches on that data. We call it the “time machine”. In the past, you would send someone out to collect data, they would bring it back and put it into processing software, then they would take the processed data and they’d search it and provide the results to the attorneys and it would be a three or four week process.

Instead, our remote collection tool lets you collect “on the fly” from anywhere in the world without the logistics of IT, third-party experts and specialized equipment and this will add the next step to that, which is, after collecting the data in a forensically sound manner, almost immediately TotalDiscovery will allow you to start searching it. This is not a local tool – we’re not dropping agents onto someone’s machine to index the entire laptop, we’re collecting the data and, using the power of the cloud and new technology to validate and index that data at super high speeds so that users (corporate legal departments and law firms) can quickly perform searches, view the documents and the hit highlights, as well as tag and export documents and data as needed. It changes the way that the corporate user handles ECA (early case assessment). They get defensible collection and true eDiscovery processing in one automated workflow. We announced that new release here at LegalTech, we’ll be releasing it in the next few weeks and we’re very excited about it.

Thanks, Alon, for participating in the interview!

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

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. 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.

Brad Jenkins of CloudNine: eDiscovery Trends

This is the first of the 2015 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series. eDiscovery Daily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends? Do you think American Lawyer Media (ALM) should consider moving LTNY to a different time of year to minimize travel disruptions due to weather?
  2. After our discussion last year regarding the new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, additional changes were made to Rule 37(e). Do you see those changes as being positive and do you see the new amendments passing through Congress this year?
  3. Last year, most thought leaders agreed that, despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery. Do you think anything has been done in the past year to improve the situation?
  4. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Brad Jenkins of CloudNine™. Brad has over 20 years of experience as an entrepreneur, as well as 15 years leading customer focused companies in the litigation support arena. Brad has authored several articles on document management and litigation support issues, and has appeared as a speaker before national audiences on document management practices and solutions. He’s also my boss! 🙂

What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends? Do you think American Lawyer Media (ALM) should consider moving LTNY to a different time of year to minimize travel disruptions due to weather?

LTNY seemed reasonably well attended this year and I think it was a good show. I have noticed a drop in the number of listed exhibitors though, from 225 a couple of years ago to 199 this year. Not sure if that’s a reflection of consolidation in the industry or providers simply choosing to market to prospects in other ways. I guess we’ll see. Nonetheless, I thought there were several good sessions, especially the three judges’ sessions that addressed key cases, the rules changes and general problems with discovery. I liked the fact that those were free and available to all attendees, not just paid ones. Not surprisingly, those sessions were very well attended.

Overall, I thought the primary focus of this show’s curriculum in three areas: information governance (which had its own educational track at the show), cybersecurity and data privacy. With the amazing pace at which Big Data is growing, I expect information governance to be a major topic for some time to come, especially with regard to the use of technology to manage growing data volumes. And, as we discussed in this blog a couple of weeks ago, data breaches continue to be on the rise and we’ve already had a major one involving over 80 million records this year. That’s also going to continue to be a major focus.

One issue at the show that I think affected several attendees was the sudden lack of meeting space. The Hilton got rid of its lobby lounge, replacing it with a smaller executive lounge limited to hotel guests. And, ALM booked up the Bridges Bar for private events throughout the show. Meetings and discussions are a big part of LTNY and I hope ALM will take that into account next year and at least make the Bridges Bar available for meetings.

As for whether ALM should consider moving LTNY to a different time of year, there are pros and cons to that. As a person who missed the show entirely last year due to weather and travel issues and was delayed a few hours this year, it would be nice to minimize the chance of weather delays. On the other hand, I suspect that part of the reason that the show is in the winter is that it’s less costly to host then. Certainly, vendors would need an advanced heads up of at least a year if ALM were to decide to move the show to a different time of year. I don’t expect that to happen, despite the recent travel issues for remote attendees.

After our discussion last year regarding the new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, additional changes were made to Rule 37(e). Do you see those changes as being positive and do you see the new amendments passing through Congress this year?

I’m not an attorney and am no expert on the rules, but, based on everything that I’ve heard, it sounds as though they should pass. I know that large organizations are counting on Rule 37(e) to reduce their preservation burden. I think whether it will or not will depend on judges’ interpretation of Rule 37(e)(2) (which enables more severe sanctions “only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use”). That section may result in lesser sanctions in at least some cases, but we’ll see. At eDiscovery Daily, we’ve covered over 60 cases per year each of the past three years, so at some point in a year or two, it will be interesting to look back at trends and what they show.

Last year, most thought leaders agreed that, despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery. Do you think anything has been done in the past year to improve the situation?

I think it’s still a battle. We continue to work with a lot of firms whose attorneys lack basic eDiscovery fundamentals and we continue to provide education through this blog and consulting to attorneys to assist them with technical language in requests for production to ensure that they receive the most useful form of production to them, native files with included metadata. I think it’s imperative for providers like us to continue to do what we can to simplify the discovery process for our clients – through education and through streamlining of processes and process improvement. That’s what our corporate mission is and it continues to be a major focus for CloudNine.

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

Well, speaking of has “anything been done in the past year to improve the situation”, in November, we released CloudNine’s new easy-to-use Discovery Client application to automate the processing and uploading of raw native data into our CloudNine platform. Many of our clients have struggled with having data dumped on their desk at 4:00 on a Friday afternoon and having to fill out forms, swap emails and play phone tag with vendors to get the data up quickly so that they can review it over the weekend. With CloudNine’s Discovery Client, they can get data processed and loaded themselves without having to contact a vendor, whether it is load ready or not.

The application will extract data from archives such as ZIP and PST files, extract metadata, extract and index text (and OCR documents without text) render native files to HTML and identify duplicates based on MD5HASH value. The application will also generate key data assessment analytics such as domain categorization to enable attorneys to develop an understanding of their data more quickly. And, we are just about to release a new version of the Discovery Client that will enable clients to simply process the data and retrieve the processed data to load into their own preferred platform (if it’s not CloudNine), so we can support you even if you use a different review platform.

Our do-It-yourself features such as loading your own data, adding your own users and fields, accessing audit logs and setting user rights gives our clients unique control of their review process and makes it easier for them to understand eDiscovery and feel in control of the process. Simplifying discovery and taking the worry out of it (as much as possible) is what CloudNine is all about.

Thanks, Brad, for participating in the interview!

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

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. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

The First 7 to 10 Days May Make or Break Your Case: eDiscovery Best Practices

Having worked with a client recently that was looking for some guidance at the outset of their case, it seemed appropriate to revisit this topic here.

When a case is filed, several activities must be completed within a short period of time (often as soon as the first seven to ten days after filing) to enable you to assess the scope of the case, where the key electronically stored information (ESI) is located and whether to proceed with the case or attempt to settle with opposing counsel. Here are several of the key early activities that can assist in deciding whether to litigate or settle the case.

Activities:

  • Create List of Key Employees Most Likely to have Documents Relevant to the Litigation: To estimate the scope of the case, it’s important to begin to prepare the list of key employees that may have potentially responsive data. Information such as name, title, eMail address, phone number, office location and where information for each is stored on the network is important to be able to proceed quickly when issuing hold notices and collecting their data. Some of these employees may no longer be with your organization, so you may have to determine whether their data is still available and where.
  • Issue Litigation Hold Notice and Track Results: The duty to preserve begins when you anticipate litigation; however, if litigation could not be anticipated prior to the filing of the case, it is certainly clear once the case if filed that the duty to preserve has begun. Hold notices must be issued ASAP to all parties that may have potentially responsive data. Once the hold is issued, you need to track and follow up to ensure compliance. Here are a couple of posts from 2012 regarding issuing hold notices and tracking responses.
  • Interview Key Employees: As quickly as possible, interview key employees to identify potential locations of responsive data in their possession as well as other individuals they can identify that may also have responsive data so that those individuals can receive the hold notice and be interviewed.
  • Interview Key Department Representatives: Certain departments, such as IT, Records or Human Resources, may have specific data responsive to the case. They may also have certain processes in place for regular destruction of “expired” data, so it’s important to interview them to identify potentially responsive sources of data and stop routine destruction of data subject to litigation hold.
  • Inventory Sources and Volume of Potentially Relevant Documents: Potentially responsive data can be located in a variety of sources, including: shared servers, eMail servers, employee workstations, employee home computers, employee mobile devices, portable storage media (including CDs, DVDs and portable hard drives), active paper files, archived paper files and third-party sources (consultants and contractors, including cloud storage providers). Hopefully, the organization already has created a data map before litigation to identify the location of sources of information to facilitate that process. It’s important to get a high level sense of the total population to begin to estimate the effort required for discovery.
  • Plan Data Collection Methodology: Determining how each source of data is to be collected also affects the cost of the litigation. Are you using internal resources, outside counsel or a litigation support vendor? Will the data be collected via an automated collection system or manually? Will employees “self-collect” any of their own data? If so, important data may be missed. Answers to these questions will impact the scope and cost of not only the collection effort, but the entire discovery effort.

These activities can result in creating a data map of potentially responsive information and a “probable cost of discovery” spreadsheet (based on initial estimated scope compared to past cases at the same stage) that will help in determining whether to proceed to litigate the case or attempt to settle with the other side.

So, what do you think? How quickly do you decide whether to litigate or settle? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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