Close
Enter your
text here

Preservation

Expanded Sources of ESI May Leave You “Fit” to be Tied – eDiscovery Trends

One of the items that I bought my wife for Christmas (which she really wanted) was an UP 24™ Fitness Tracker, which is a wristband that tracks a variety of fitness metrics, including steps taken, workouts logged and calories burned (not to mention sleep cycles) and enables you to share and compare your stats with your friends via an app on your mobile device. Another example of a similar device is a Fitbit®. Based on a recent case, these devices are just another example of new devices from which relevant ESI may be collected for discovery.

In the recent Forbes article (Fitbit Data Now Being Used In The Courtroom, written by Parmy Olson), a law firm in Calgary is working on the first known personal injury case that will use activity data from a Fitbit to help show the effects of an accident on their client.

As the article notes, “The young woman in question was injured in an accident four years ago. Back then, Fitbits weren’t even on the market, but given that she was a personal trainer, her lawyers at McLeod Law believe they can say with confidence that she led an active lifestyle. A week from now, they will start processing data from her Fitbit to show that her activity levels are now under a baseline for someone of her age and profession.

It will ‘back up what she’s been saying,’ says her lawyer, Simon Muller of McLeod Law.

The lawyers aren’t using Fitbit’s data directly, but pumping it through analytics platform Vivametrica, which uses public research to compare a person’s activity data with that of the general population.”

More and more, everyday objects are able to connect to the Internet and these devices are gathering, sending and receiving data. Glasses, fitness wristbands, even your thermostat is sending and receiving data. On one hand, the “Internet of Things” is making our lives easier by enabling us to access more information than ever, but, it also increases data security and privacy risks, not to mention potentially complicates discovery from an information governance, collection and preservation standpoint. Now, in certain types of cases, we may need to collect or request data from devices never before considered as discoverable.

So, what do you think? What’s the most unusual device that you have ever had to collect potentially responsive ESI? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

2014 eDiscovery Case Law Year in Review, Part 4

As we noted yesterday, Wednesday and Tuesday, eDiscoveryDaily published 93 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 68 unique cases! Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to privilege and inadvertent disclosures, requests for social media, cases involving technology assisted review and the case of the year – the ubiquitous Apple v. Samsung dispute. Today, let’s take a look back at cases related to sanctions and spoliation.

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

SPOLIATION / SANCTIONS

I’ll bet that you won’t be surprised that, once again, the topic with the largest number of case law decisions related to eDiscovery are those related to sanctions and spoliation issues. Of the 68 cases we covered this past year, 28 percent of them (19 total cases) related to sanctions and spoliation issues. Sometimes requests for sanctions are granted, sometimes they’re not. Here they are.

Plaintiff Sanctioned After its “Failure to Take the Most Basic Document Preservation Steps”: In SJS Distribution Systems, Inc. v. Sam’s East, Inc., New York Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy found the plaintiff’s failure to take “the most basic document preservation steps,” including issuing a litigation hold – “even after it discovered the packaging nonconformities and filed this action” – constituted gross negligence. As a result, an adverse inference instruction sanction was issued against the plaintiff and the defendant was awarded its costs and attorney’s fees associated with its motion to compel.

Sanctions Awarded when Defendant Failed to Preserve Relevant Evidence: In Zest IP Holdings, LLC v. Implant Direct Manufacturing, LLC., California Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo granted the Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions because parties are “required to preserve evidence relevant to litigation and to prevent spoliation.” Judge Gallo found that the Defendant “failed to preserve multiple documents that are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims with the requisite culpable state of mind to support a finding of spoliation of evidence”.

Search Process for ESI Called into Question, but Court Denies Sanctions for Plaintiff: In Brown v. West Corp., the plaintiff filed a motion to compel, claiming the defendant had been insufficient in its handling of searching for Electronically Stored Information (ESI) relevant to discovery. The plaintiff additionally contested a prior order from a magistrate judge, requiring the defendant to explain its search processes to the defendant. Ultimately, Nebraska Senior District Judge Lyle E. Strom denied the requested sanctions and rejected the challenge to the prior order.

Bad Faith Violations in Discovery Lead to Sanctions for Defendant: Regarding the case In re Pradaxa (Dabigatran Etexilate) Products Liability Litigation, the defendants’ repeated failure to preserve and produce documents during discovery was found to be in bad faith. The defendants were ordered to produce the documents, or to explain why they couldn’t be produced, and to pay a hefty fine plus the plaintiff’s costs and fees for pursuing discovery motions. The order left room for additional future sanctions, should the bad faith behavior continue.

Clawback Rights Upheld and Plaintiff Sanctioned for Refusal to Comply Concerning Inadvertently Produced Privileged Documents: In RIPL Corp. v. Google Inc., seven discovery-related motions were heard concerning this trademark infringement action. The various motions to seal, compel, enforce, and sanction were filed after the parties had entered into a stipulated protective order. Washington District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez granted in part, denied in part, and deferred in part the various motions.

Sanctions Denied over Destruction of Audio Evidence in Discrimination Lawsuit: In Sokn v. Fieldcrest Cmty. Unit School Dist. No. 8, the plaintiff filed a motion for default and sanctions relating to spoliation of evidence with a federal court, after a district court issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) to deny the motion. Illinois Senior District Judge Joe Billy McDade ultimately declined to impose sanctions, due to a lack of evidence regarding the timing of alleged spoliation, and the plaintiff’s inability to establish bad faith on the part of the defendants.

Plaintiff Sanctioned for Spoliation of Digital Evidence in Sexual Harassment Lawsuit: In Calderon v. Corporacion Puertorrique a de Salud, the plaintiff was found to have violated his duty to preserve evidence during the discovery phase of this sexual harassment lawsuit. Sanctions were imposed, though not to the extent requested by the defendants.

Use of a Bulk File Changer to Manipulate Metadata Leads to Sanctions for Defendant: In T&E Investment Group, LLC v. Faulkner, Texas District Judge Jorge A. Solis upheld the earlier recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to order an adverse inference sanction, along with monetary sanctions, against the defendant for manipulation of metadata.

Defendants – and Defendants’ Counsel – Sanctioned for Delays in Producing ESI: In Knickerbocker v Corinthian Colleges, Washington District Judge James L. Robart imposed sanctions against the defendants and the defendants’ counsel for their delays in producing Electronically Stored Information (ESI) during discovery, despite the fact that spoliation of evidence was ultimately avoided.

Court Refuses to Dismiss Spoliation Claim Due to Defendant’s Failure to Produce Key Native File with Metadata: In Raines v. College Now Greater Cleveland, Inc., Ohio District Judge James S. Gwin refused to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim of tortious spoliation of evidence due to the defendant’s failure to produce the metadata associated with a key report authored by the plaintiff.

Court Denies Sanctions for Deletion of “Smoking Gun” Email, Grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment: In the case In re Text Messaging Antitrust Litig., Illinois District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly not only denied the plaintiffs’ request for an adverse inference sanction against the defendants for destroying emails, but also granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, as the plaintiffs failed to provide any supporting circumstantial evidence to meet their burden of proof.

Failure to Preserve Cloud-Based Data Results in Severe Sanction for Defendant: In Brown v. Tellermate Holdings, Magistrate Judge Terence Kemp granted plaintiffs’ motion for judgment and motion to strike, ruling that the defendant could not “present or rely upon evidence that it terminated the Browns’ employment for performance-related reasons” and enabling the plaintiffs to use documents produced by the defendant “designated as attorneys’-eyes-only” to be used by the plaintiffs “without restriction”, due to the defendant’s failure to preserve or produce data from their Salesforce.com database.

Texas Supreme Court Reverses Spoliation Ruling, Remands Case for New Trial: In Brookshire Bros., Ltd. v. Aldridge, the Supreme Court of Texas determined “that imposition of the severe sanction of a spoliation instruction was an abuse of discretion” in the trial court, reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Circuit Court Affirms Denial of Sanctions Over Spoliation by Defendant: In Automated Solutions Corp. v. Paragon Data Sys., Inc., the Sixth Circuit court affirmed the holdings of the district court, rejecting the plaintiff’s arguments that the district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions due to defendant’s failure to preserve information on a hard drive and server. The circuit court also affirmed the ruling by both the magistrate and district judge that the defendant’s back-up tapes were not subject to the duty to preserve.

Court Grants Motion for Spoliation Sanctions Due to Data that is “Less Accessible”: In Mazzei v. Money Store, New York Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis granted the plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions against the defendant, ordering the defendant to bear the cost of obtaining all the relevant data in question from a third party as well as paying for plaintiff attorney fees in filing the motion.

Failure to Preserve Data on Various Devices Causes Special Master to Recommend Default Judgment: In Small v. University Medical Center of Southern Nevada, Special Master Daniel B. Garrie, calling the defendant’s widespread failure to preserve data a “mockery of the orderly administration of justice”, recommended that the court enter an order of default judgment, along with further sanctions, in favor of the plaintiffs.

Plaintiff Slips, But Defendant Takes the Fall: In Riley v. Marriott Int’l, New York Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson agreed with the plaintiffs that spoliation of data had occurred when the defendant failed to preserve video surveillance and “sweep logs” after one of the plaintiffs slipped and fell in the defendant’s hotel garage and that the defendant was at least grossly negligent for not preserving the information. However, the judge denied the plaintiffs request for summary judgment, granting an adverse inference instruction instead.

The Watergate 18 Minute Gap in Audio Recordings Has Nothing on This Case: In Novick v. AXA Network, LLC, New York Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox granted the plaintiff’s request for sanctions against the defendant, awarding an adverse inference jury instruction for several weeks of spoliated audio recordings and also awarding “reasonable attorney’s fees and costs” associated with the motion as well as retaking several depositions.

Finding Defendant’s Destruction of Documents to be “Planned, Repeated and Comprehensive”, Court Awards Judgment to Plaintiff: In Regulatory Fundamentals Group v. Governance Risk Management Compliance, New York District Judge Katherine B. Forrest granted the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and ordered that judgment be entered for the defendant’s “planned, repeated, and comprehensive” destruction of highly-relevant documents.

That concludes our look back at 68 cases from last year – the most we’ve ever covered! Do you think discovery issues are being disputed more than ever before? If so, do you think the new Federal rules changes (once they’re implemented) will reverse that trend? 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.

2014 eDiscovery Case Law Year in Review, Part 1

It’s time for our annual review of eDiscovery case law!  We had more than our share of sanctions granted and denied, as well as disputes over admissibility of electronically stored information (ESI), eDiscovery cost reimbursement, and production formats, even disputes regarding eDiscovery fees.  So, as we did last year and the year before that and also the year before that, let’s take a look back at 2014!

Last year, eDiscoveryDaily published 93 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 68 unique cases! And, believe it or not, we still didn’t cover every case that had eDiscovery impact. Sometimes, you want to cover other topics too.

Nonetheless, for the cases we did cover, we grouped them into common subject themes and will review them over the next few posts (a few of them could be categorized in more than one category, so we took our best shot). Perhaps you missed some of these? Now is your chance to catch up!

ADMISSIBILITY AND PROPORTIONALITY

As always, there are numerous disputes about data being produced and not being produced and whether the costs to do so are overly burdensome. Here are twelve cases related to admissibility, the duty to preserve and produce ESI and the proportionality for preserving and producing that ESI:

Split Decision between Plaintiff and Defendant Regarding Search Terms: In Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Giannoulias, Illinois District Judge John F. Grady resolved several motions regarding discovery proceedings in a $114 million lawsuit. Two of the motions concerned search terms for documents and electronically stored information (ESI), in which the plaintiff opposed the defendants’ request for six additional terms to be included in retrieving discovery documents. The court ruled that four additional search terms would be added, while two would be excluded.

Court Grants Motion to Compel Defendant to Produce Documents as Requested and Chronicle Approach: In Home Instead, Inc. v. Florance, following a motion to compel discovery on behalf of the plaintiff, Nebraska Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart ordered the defendant to produce documents requested during discovery and required the defendant to produce a sworn affidavit chronicling the methods used in their search for production of the discovery documents.

Electronic Discovery Dispute Sees Court Requesting Cooperation from Both Parties to Avoid “Court-Ordered Middle Ground”: In Fort Worth Employees’ Retirement Fund v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., a complex discovery dispute arose during the process of this securities action lawsuit revolving around the defendants’ loan products and offerings with regards to a specific consumer class, in which the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel an expanded discovery.

Definition of “Electronic Storage” Considered in Invasion of Privacy Lawsuit: In Cheng v. Romo, the interpretation of laws enacted prior to the modern Internet age served as a deciding factor in the outcome of this invasion of privacy lawsuit, which alleged a violation of the Stored Communications Act (SCA).

Government Ordered to Maintain Expensive Custom Database Shared with Criminal Defendant: In the criminal case of United States v. Shabudin, California Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas ordered the Government to continue to provide access to a Relativity Database used by the parties to review documents produced by the Government, instead of discontinuing access for the defendants several weeks before trial was to begin due to budgetary issues.

Portions of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel eDiscovery Ruled as “Overbroad” and “Moot” Reaffirmed by District Court: In Elkharwily v. Mayo Holding Co., Minnesota District Judge David S. Doty overruled the plaintiff’s objection to a magistrate judge’s order that denied in part the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, labeling some requests as overbroad or moot, particularly after the defendant contended it had already produced the requested discovery materials.

Court Denies Defendant’s Request to Image Plaintiff’s PCs Three Years after Termination: In Downs v. Virginia Health Systems, 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.

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Fallback Request for Meet and Confer after Quashing its Subpoena: In Boston Scientific Corporation v. Lee, 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.

Court Rules to Limit Scope of Discovery, Noting that “Searching for ESI is only one discovery tool”: In United States v. Univ. of Neb. at Kearney, Nebraska Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart denied the government’s motion to compel discovery, finding that “ESI is neither the only nor the best and most economical discovery method for obtaining the information the government seeks” and stating that searching for ESI “should not be deemed a replacement for interrogatories, production requests, requests for admissions and depositions”.

Defendant Ordered to Produce Archived Emails Even Though Plaintiff Failed to Produce Theirs: In Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal granted the plaintiff’s motion ordering the defendant to produce relevant emails from its eight custodians, even though the plaintiff was unable to provide its own archival emails.

Court Determines that Software License Agreement Does Not Eliminate Production Obligation of Video: In Pero v. Norfolk Southern Railway, Co., Tennessee Magistrate Judge C. Clifford Shirley, Jr. granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery of a video declining to require the plaintiff to view the video at the defendant’s counsel’s office or obtain a license for the proprietary viewing software, ordering the defendant instead to either produce a laptop with the video loaded on it or to reimburse the plaintiff for the cost of a software license.

Image Isn’t Everything, Court Says, Denying Plaintiff’s Request for Imaging on Defendant’s Hard Drives: In Design Basics, LLC. v. Carhart Lumber Co., Nebraska Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart, after an extensive hearing on the plaintiff’s motion to compel “full disk imaging of Defendant’s hard drives, including Defendant’s POS server, secretaries’ computers, UBS devices. . .”, denied the motion after invoking the mandatory balancing test provided in FRCP Rule 26(b)(2)(C).

DISCOVERY ON DISCOVERY

Some cases are becoming so contentious that parties (or sometimes the courts themselves) are requesting for discovery on their opponent’s discovery process. Sometimes those requests were granted, sometimes not. Here were six cases in 2014 which involved requests for “discovery on discovery”:

‘Discovery About Discovery’ Motions Lead to Unusual Court Decision: In Ruiz-Bueno v. Scott, a discovery dispute in this wrongful death case arose, leading Ohio Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp to arrive at the unusual decision to direct a party to provide ‘discovery about discovery.’

Ruling on ESI Discovery Dispute Delayed as Court Requests Specific Information: In Worley v. Avanquest North America Inc., a putative class action involving PC security software, California Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler required the defendant to produce further information related to discovery disputes before a ruling would be issued.

Parties’ Failure to Cooperate Sparks Denial of Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider Court Ordered Discovery: In In Cactus Drilling Co. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., a largely contentious discovery phase was a major contributor to the decision of Oklahoma Chief District Judge Vicki Miles LaGrange regarding the defendant’s Motion to Reconsider, or Alternately, Motion for Clarification of the Court’s Order.

Plaintiffs Denied Motion to Depose Defendants Regarding ESI Processes Prior to Discovery Requests: In Miller v. York Risk Servs. Grp., Arizona Senior District Judge John W. Sedwick denied the plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, requesting permission to conduct depositions in order to determine the defendant’s manner and methods used for storing and maintaining Electronically Stored Information (ESI) prior to submitting their discovery requests.

Court Denies Defendant’s Request for Deposition Regarding Plaintiff’s Discovery Search Tools: In Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Hunt Control Sys., Inc., New Jersey Magistrate Judge James B. Clark III granted the plaintiff’s protective order to prevent the defendant from proceeding with a new deposition to review whether the plaintiff had used “appropriate search tools for ESI discovery,” after the requested discovery documents had already been produced.

Despite 18 Missing Emails in Production, Court Denies Request for “Discovery on Discovery”: In Freedman v. Weatherford Int’l, New York Magistrate Judge James C. Francis, IV denied the plaintiff’s request to, among other things, require the defendant to produce “certain reports comparing the electronic search results from discovery in this action to the results from prior searches” – despite the fact that the plaintiff identified 18 emails that the defendant did not produce that were ultimately produced by a third party.

We’re just getting started! Tomorrow, we will cover cases related to eDiscovery cost reimbursement, fee disputes and production format disputes. Stay tuned!

So, what do you think? Did you miss any of these? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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.

Image Isn’t Everything, Court Says, Denying Plaintiff’s Request for Imaging on Defendant’s Hard Drives – eDiscovery Case Law

In Design Basics, LLC. v. Carhart Lumber Co., 8:13CV125 (D. Neb. Nov. 24, 2014), Nebraska Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart, after an extensive hearing on the plaintiff’s motion to compel “full disk imaging of Defendant’s hard drives, including Defendant’s POS server, secretaries’ computers, UBS devices. . .”, denied the motion after invoking the mandatory balancing test provided in FRCP Rule 26(b)(2)(C).

In this design misappropriation case, the plaintiff filed the motion to compel, arguing “that it is entitled to a full forensic image of the defendant’s server, and every computer or computer data storage device or location used by the company and any of its employees”.  The plaintiff’s counsel stated that he litigates design misappropriation cases nationwide, and he always (except perhaps in a rare case) is granted the right to image a defendant company’s entire computer system. Judge Zwart noted that, after being afforded an opportunity to brief the issue and submit further evidence, the plaintiff’s counsel cited no cases supporting this argument.

The defendant filed a motion for protective order seeking relief from that request and arguing that it had determined that the secretaries’ computers did not contain relevant information.

In issuing her ruling denying the plaintiff’s motion to compel and granting the defendant’s motion for protective order, Judge Zwart stated:

“Plaintiff’s demand for all of the defendant’s computer data is consistent with the position of its expert, but it is not consistent with the balancing required under Rule 26(b)(2)(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Based on the arguments of counsel held today and the evidence of record, Defendant’s counsel has provided both electronic and paper copies of all blue prints, has performed Plaintiff’s requested search on the emails copied from the 11 computers, and has already invested many hours reviewing thousands of documents for privilege. Defense counsel offered to produce the nonprivileged emails to Plaintiff’s counsel for his review, and has provided dates for taking the deposition of Defendant’s president. Plaintiff’s counsel has neither reviewed the emails nor deposed anyone. This case is more than 18 months old.

In the end, the plaintiff failed to show good cause why additional computer data must be collected from the defendant. Taking into consideration the factors listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C), the court is convinced that allowing imaging of every computer or data storage device or location owned or used by the defendant, including all secretaries’ computers, is not reasonable and proportional to the issues raised in this litigation.”

So, what do you think?  Was the plaintiff overreaching in its request?  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.

Finding Defendant’s Destruction of Documents to be “Planned, Repeated and Comprehensive”, Court Awards Judgment to Plaintiff – eDiscovery Case Law

In Regulatory Fundamentals Group v. Governance Risk Management Compliance, 13 Civ. 2493 (KBF) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2014), New York District Judge Katherine B. Forrest granted the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and ordered that judgment be entered for the defendant’s “planned, repeated, and comprehensive” destruction of highly-relevant documents.

Case Background

In this copyright infringement action, after the parties engaged in limited discovery, the defendant informed the plaintiff that it “might be missing certain emails.” The defendant later revealed that he had canceled his email account with a third-party vendor, which had hosted his corporate defendants’ websites and email domains.  After the plaintiff noticed the defendant for a deposition to investigate the cancellation and he failed to appear, the plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions alleging that the defendant had engaged in spoliation.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Forrest began her ruling this way:

“A party to a lawsuit may not destroy relevant evidence without consequence. The nature and magnitude of the consequence follows from the level of culpability. Was, for instance, the destruction of evidence inadvertent and the result of an oversight? Or was it the product of a plan?

The individual defendant in this lawsuit destroyed a large number of highly relevant documents — preventing plaintiff and any finder of fact from ever knowing the full truth of what occurred. Following discovery, lengthy briefing, and an evidentiary hearing, the Court has found that defendant’s destruction was planned, repeated, and comprehensive. It was malicious. This finding is particularly unfortunate in light of the plain fact that the spoliation has turned what was a straightforward commercial dispute into a far more serious issue.

The spoliator here — defendant Gregory V. Wood — is a graduate of Cornell Law School and a member of the bar of the State of New York. His conduct has resulted in entry of judgment against him.”

Judge Forrest noted that “to support the imposition of sanctions, ‘the innocent party must prove the following three elements: that the spoliating party (1) had control over the evidence and an obligation to preserve it at the time of destruction or loss; (2) acted with a culpable state of mind upon destroying or losing the evidence; and that (3) the missing evidence is relevant to the innocent party’s claim or defense.’”

Finding that all three elements were satisfied in this case caused Judge Forrest to issue the following analysis:

“RFG has clearly been prejudiced by Wood’s intentional spoliation. The Court has considered whether sanctions less severe than termination are warranted. For example, the Court has considered monetary sanctions or the imposition of an adverse inference. Neither would be sufficient under the circumstances. The lack of emails prevents RFG from proving the full extent or scope of Wood’s conduct.

Wood’s deletion of emails and his attempted cover-up put RFG in an untenable litigation position — the evidence of the scope of defendants’ alleged misconduct is gone forever. Any sanction short of a terminating sanction would fail to account for the prejudice or to sufficiently penalize Wood or deter others from engaging in such misconduct. Accordingly, the Court grants RFG’s request for a terminating sanction.”

So, what do you think?  Did the defendant’s actions justify the ultimate sanction?  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 Might “Bug” You if You Want to Retrieve Archive Data – eDiscovery Best Practices
 

Thanks to the Google Alerts that I set up to send me new stories related to eDiscovery, I found an interesting blog post from an attorney that appears to shed light on an archival bug within Twitter that could affect people who may want to retrieve Twitter archival data for eDiscovery purposes.

In Erik J. Heels’ blog, his latest post (Twitter Bug Makes Tweet Archives Unreliable For eDiscovery), he starts by noting that his very first tweet of October 30, 2008 is no longer active on his site – his earliest tweet was dated September 5, 2010.  All attempts to try to locate the tweets were unsuccessful and customer service was no help.

After some digging, Erik found out that, on October 13, 2010, Twitter announced the “new Twitter” which included a new user interface.  As part of that revamping, Twitter changed the format for its status URLs (Tweets) so that the sequential number at the end of each Tweet (the Tweet ID) changed length, eventually doubling from nine digits in 2008 to 18 digits today (which supports up to one quintillion tweets).

Then, on December 12, 2012, Twitter announced that users could export archives of their Tweets (via your account’s Settings page).  The result is a nine field comma-separated values (CSV) file with information, including the tweet ID.  So, now you could retrieve your old tweets that were no longer actively stored, right?  Not necessarily.

As Erik found out, when he exported the file and went to retrieve old tweets, some of his tweet IDs actually pointed to other people’s tweets!  You can see the details of his tests in his blog post or via his 60 second YouTube video here.

Obviously, if you need to retrieve archived tweets for eDiscovery purposes, that’s not a good thing.

As it happens, CloudNine Discovery has our own Twitter account (@Cloud9Discovery) and has since August of 2009 (we were known as Trial Solutions back then), so I decided to run my own test and exported our archive.  Here’s what I found:

  • Our very first tweet was August 17, 2009 (Trial Solutions Ranks 2,830 on the Exclusive 2009 Inc. 5000).  It retrieved correctly.  The bit.ly link within the tweet isn’t hyperlinked, but if you copy and paste it into the browser address, it correctly retrieves (obviously, this will only be the case if the referenced web page still exists).
  • In fact, all of the early tweets that I tested retrieved with no problem.
  • Then, on December 1, 2010, I encountered the first tweet that didn’t retrieve correctly (one of our blog posts titled eDiscovery Project Management:  Effectively Manage Your Staff) with a tweet ID of 9924696560635900 (Full URL: https://twitter.com/Cloud9Discovery/status/9924696560635900).  It didn’t point to a different person’s tweet, it simply said “Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!”
  • From that point on, none of the tweets that I tried to retrieve would retrieve – all gave me the “page doesn’t exist” message.
  • I even tried to retrieve our tweet of yesterday’s blog post (Defendant Ordered to Produce Archived Emails Even Though Plaintiff Failed to Produce Theirs – eDiscovery Case Law) via the tweet ID provided in the archive file (535098008715538000).  Even it wouldn’t retrieve.  Wait a minute, what’s going on here!

I then retrieved our tweet of yesterday’s blog post by clicking on it directly within Twitter.  Here is the URL to the tweet with the ID at the end: https://twitter.com/Cloud9Discovery/status/535098008715538434.

See the problem?  The tweet IDs don’t match.

I ultimately determined that all of the tweet IDs provided in the archive file starting on December 1, 2010 end with two or more zeroes.  Starting on November 5, 2010, they all end with at least one zero.  When I started testing those, I re-created Erik’s problem:

Our tweet on November 29, 2010 titled eDiscovery Trends: Sanctions at an All-Time High, (tweet ID: 9199940811100160) actually retrieves a tweet by @aalyce titled @StylesFever snog liam marry louis and niall can take me out 😉 hehe.  Whoops!

It appears as though the archive file provided by Twitter is dropping all digits of the tweet ID after the fifteenth digit and replacing them with zeroes, effectively pointing to either an invalid or incorrect page and rendering the export effectively useless.  Hopefully, Twitter can fix it – we’ll see.  In the meantime, don’t rely on it and be prepared to address the issue if your case needs to retrieve archived data from Twitter.  Thanks, Erik, for the heads up!

So, what do you think?  Have you ever had to preserve or produce data from Twitter in litigation?  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.

The Watergate 18 Minute Gap in Audio Recordings Has Nothing on This Case – eDiscovery Case Law

Anybody who remembers Watergate remembers the big deal made about an 18 1/2 minute gap in audio recordings reported by President Nixon’s secretary, Rose Mary Woods.  This case involves a gap in audio recordings much longer than that.

In Novick v. AXA Network, LLC, 07-CV-7767 (AKH) (KNF) (S.D.N.Y.Oct. 22, 2014), New York Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox granted the plaintiff’s request for sanctions against the defendant, awarding an adverse inference jury instruction for several weeks of spoliated audio recordings and also awarding “reasonable attorney’s fees and costs” associated with the motion as well as retaking several depositions.

Case Background

In this wrongful termination case, the plaintiff contended that the defendants committed several “strikes” justifying his request for sanctions, including spoliating audio recordings because “audio recordings from the time period August 28, 2006 through November 5, 2006 (approximately one-third of the entire time period ordered) are missing,” and “Defendants admit that they were likely erased and taped over” (per defendants letter to the plaintiff on October 25, 2013).  According to the plaintiff, “these recordings are from the most important time period of all – directly before and directly after Mr. Novick’s termination.”  The plaintiff also contended that the defendant had numerous deficiencies in their email production, where the defendant again made several promises to rectify the mistakes.

The defendants contended that “no responsive emails have been withheld and there is no evidence that any emails are missing.”  They did, however, “acknowledge that there are approximately eight weeks of audio recordings, within the period of time for which production of audio recordings was eventually ordered, that cannot be located or produced,” but “[t]his is not a new issue,” and the defendants advised plaintiff of it, on October 17, 2013, when the majority of the recordings were produced to him, and “[t]he fact that these weeks of recordings are missing constitutes the only real issue in plaintiff’s sanctions motion.”  The defendant also acknowledged that they “cannot now explain the absence of these recordings”.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Fox stated that the court “determined that ‘[t]he defendants’ duty to preserve evidence arose when the plaintiff’s counsel notified the defendants, in the October 16, 2006 letter, that the audio recordings should be preserved because they may be relevant to future litigation’” and that the defendants conceded that “‘there are approximately eight weeks of audio recordings that are missing within the period for which defendants have been ordered to produce audio recordings,’ namely the period of August 28-31, 2006, and September 8-November 5, 2006, and they ‘have not been able to determine when, why or how these audio recordings came to be missing from the group of other audio recordings that were stored on DVDs and have been produced.’”  As a result, Judge Fox ruled that “the Court finds that the defendants spoliated relevant evidence, namely, audio recordings for the period August 28-31, 2006, and September 8-November 5, 2006”.

Judge Fox also noted that “Moreover, the defendants’ misconduct respecting the audio recordings was compounded by their deliberate and unjustified failure to search for and locate e-mail messages, as directed by the September 25, 2013 order. The defendants now admit that it was not until March 2014, that they realized that the Frontbridge archive was not searched for responsive documents, but contend this delay was ‘due to human error,’ without explaining what that error was or why they waited until March 2014 to conduct the investigation concerning the production of e-mail messages.”

As a result, Judge Fox Fox granted the plaintiff’s request for sanctions against the defendant, awarding an adverse inference jury instruction for the defendant’s actions and also awarding “reasonable attorney’s fees and costs” associated with the motion as well as retaking several depositions.

So, what do you think?  Did defense counsel’s quick reaction to the disclosure save the email’s privileged status?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

BTW, we also covered a ruling on this case last year here.

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.

Simply Deleting a File Doesn’t Mean It’s Gone – eDiscovery Best Practices
 

I seem to have picked up a bit of a bug and I’m on cold medicine, so my writing brain is a bit fuzzy.  As a result, so I’m revisiting a topic that has come up a few times over the years that we covered early on in the blog’s history.  I should be back in the saddle with new posts next week!

Disk drives use an index or table to keep track of where each file begins and ends on the disk.  You may have heard terms such as “FAT” (file allocation table) or NTFS ({Windows} NT File System) – these filing systems enable the file to be retrieved quickly on the drive.  They’re like a “directory” of all of the active files on the disk.  When a file is “deleted” (i.e., actually deleted, not just moved to the Recycle Bin), the data for that file isn’t actually removed from the disk (in most cases).  Instead, the entry pertaining to it is removed from the filing system.  As a result, the area on the disk where the actual data is located becomes unallocated space.

Unallocated space, also known as inactive data or drive free space, is the area of the drive not allocated to active data. On a Windows machine, deleted data is not actually destroyed, but the space on the drive that can be reused to store new information. Until the unallocated space is overwritten with new data, the old data remains.  This data can be retrieved (in most cases) using forensic techniques. On MAC O/S 10.5 and higher, there is an application that overwrites sectors when a file is deleted. This process more securely destroys data, but even then it may be possible to recover data out of unallocated space.

Because the unallocated space on a hard drive or server is that portion of the storage space to which data may be saved, it is also where many applications “temporarily” store files when they are in use. For instance, temporary Internet files are created when a user visits a web page, and these pages may be “cached” or temporarily stored in the unallocated space.  Rebooting a workstation or server can also clear some data from the unallocated space on its drive.

Since computers are dynamic and any computer operation may write data to the drive, it is nearly impossible to preserve data in the unallocated space on the hard drive and that data is not accessible without special software tools. To preserve data from the unallocated space of a hard drive, the data must be forensically collected, which basically copies the entire drive’s contents, including every sector (whether those sectors contain active data or not). Even then, data in the unallocated space may not be complete. Because the unallocated space is used to store new data, writing a new file may overwrite part of a deleted file, leaving only part of that file in the unallocated space.

Nonetheless, “deleted” files have been recovered, collected and produced in numerous lawsuits, despite efforts of some producing parties to destroy that evidence.

So, what do you think?  Have you ever recovered deleted data that was relevant to litigation?  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.

Dealing with the Departed – eDiscovery Best Practices
 

Having addressed this recently with a client, I thought this was a good topic to revisit here on the blog…

When litigation hits, key activities to get a jump on the case include creating a list of key employees most likely to have documents relevant to the litigation and interviewing those key employees, as well as key department representatives, such as IT for information about retention and destruction policies.  These steps are especially important as they may shed light on custodians you might not think about – the departed.

When key employees depart an organization, it’s important for that organization to have a policy in place to preserve their data for a period of time to ensure that any data in their possession that might be critical to company operations is still available if needed.  Preserving that data may occur in a number of ways, including:

  • Saving the employee’s hard drive, either by keeping the drive itself or by backing it up to some other media before wiping it for re-use;
  • Keeping any data in their network store (i.e., folder on the network dedicated to the employee’s files) by backing up that folder or even (in some cases) simply leaving it there for access if needed;
  • Storage and/or archival of eMail from the eMail system;
  • Retention of any portable media in the employee’s possession (including DVDs, portable hard drives, smart phones, etc.).

As part of the early fact finding, it’s essential to determine the organization’s retention policy (and practices, especially if there’s no formal policy) for retaining data (such as the examples listed above) of departed employees.  You need to find out if the organization keeps that data, where they keep it, in what format, and for how long.

When interviewing key employees, one of the typical questions to ask is “Do you know of any other employees that may have responsive data to this litigation?”  The first several interviews with employees often identify other employees that need to be interviewed, so the interview list will often grow to locate potentially responsive electronically stored information (ESI).  It’s important to broaden that question to include employees that are no longer with the organization to identify any that also may have had responsive data and try to gather as much information about each departed employee as possible, including the department in which they worked, who their immediate supervisor was and how long they worked at the company.  Often, this information may need to be gathered from Human Resources.

Once you’ve determined which departed employees might have had responsive data and whether the organization may still be retaining any of that data, you can work with IT or whoever has possession of that data to preserve and collect it for litigation purposes.  Just because they’re departed doesn’t mean they’re not important.

So, what do you think?  Does your approach for identifying and collecting from custodians include departed custodians?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Image © Warner Bros.

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.

Plaintiff Slips, But Defendant Takes the Fall – eDiscovery Case Law
 

In Riley v. Marriott Int’l, 12-CV-6242P (W.D. N.Y. Sept. 25, 2014), New York Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson agreed with the plaintiffs that spoliation of data had occurred when the defendant failed to preserve video surveillance and “sweep logs” after one of the plaintiffs slipped and fell in the defendant’s hotel garage and that the defendant was at least grossly negligent for not preserving the information.  However, the judge denied the plaintiffs request for summary judgment, granting an adverse inference instruction instead.

Case Background

The plaintiffs filed suit, claiming a slip and fall accident had occurred at the defendant’s hotel in Maui when Linda Riley slipped and fell on the floor of the hotel's parking garage after exiting an elevator because the floor was wet from rainwater that had been permitted to pool there.  The defendant had a surveillance camera that monitored and recorded the area of Linda's accident twenty-four hours a day and the loss prevention manager at the hotel, testified that the recordings are maintained for thirty days, at which time the stored recordings are overwritten by new recordings.  

According to the loss prevention manager, once he is notified of a potential claim against the Hotel, he is responsible for preserving information relating to that claim and he testified that the video showed Linda's fall, her removal from the scene in a wheelchair, and hotel employees placing wet floor signs and sweeping up the water on the floor.  He also testified that he turned the recording over to the hotel's liability insurance carrier.  The plaintiffs stated that the defendant provided only approximately seven minutes of the footage, which begins about one minute before Linda's accident and filed the motion for summary judgment due to the unavailability of more of the video as well as “sweep logs” that kept a record of floor maintenance by employees.  The defendant did not dispute that the sweep logs and video footage existed or that it had a duty to preserve them, but objected, claiming that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate prejudice due to the destruction of data.

Judge’s Ruling

Noting that “Marriott has not challenged the Rileys' contention that it had a duty to preserve the destroyed evidence” and that “no genuine question exists that video footage depicting the scene of an accident and sweep logs reflecting maintenance performed at the scene of an accident is likely to contain relevant information”, Judge Payson “easily conclude[d] that Marriott had a duty to preserve both the sweep logs and the video footage from the day of the accident”.  She also stated that “Marriott has failed to offer any justification for its failure to preserve the evidence” and “failed to offer any facts concerning how or why the evidence was destroyed”; therefore, “Marriott's failure to preserve the entire video footage relating to Linda's accident and the sweep logs for the day in question despite the Hotel's loss prevention employee's testimony that he knew that he had a duty to preserve relevant evidence constitutes, at a minimum, gross negligence.” 

However, Judge Payson stopped short of granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, concluding “that an adverse inference instruction is both appropriate and sufficient to deter Marriott from similar future conduct, to shift the risk of an erroneous judgment to Marriott and to restore the Rileys' position in this litigation.”

So, what do you think?  Did the judge go far enough or should the motion for summary judgment 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 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.