Close
Enter your
text here

Preservation

JP Morgan Chase Sanctioned for a Failure to Preserve Skill Codes – eDiscovery Case Law

Last week, we discussed how the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was sanctioned for failing to comply with a motion to compel production of social media data that they had been previously ordered to produce.  Now, the “shoe is on the other foot” as their opponent in another case has been sanctioned for spoliation of data.

In EEOC v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 2:09-cv-864 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 28, 2013), District Judge Gregory L. Frost granted the EEOC’s motion for sanctions for spoliation of data, entitling the plaintiff to “a permissive adverse jury instruction related to the spoliation if this litigation proceeds to a jury trial”, and denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

In this gender discrimination case, the plaintiff requested skill codes from the defendant that determined how calls were routed, contending that statistical analysis of the skill code data would reveal discrimination by illustrating that skill codes resulted in the more lucrative calls being directed to male employees.  When defendant did not provide the plaintiff with select skill code data records and other information, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel, which was granted (for most of the requested date range).  When the defendant again failed to produce the data, the plaintiff filed a second motion to compel, then withdrew it after the parties appeared to agree to resolve issues (documented in the Magistrate Judge’s order), then filed the motion for sanctions after the defendant failed to comply, indicating that the defendant had purged data from July 8, 2006 through March 10, 2007.

Noting that it is “curious to this Court that defendant began to preserve some other electronic information shortly thereafter” class notices from the plaintiff in 2008 and 2009, “but not all skill login data until late 2010”, Judge Frost stated that “Defendant’s failure to establish a litigation hold is inexcusable. The multiple notices that should have triggered a hold and Defendant’s dubious failure if not outright refusal to recognize or accept the scope of this litigation and that the relevant data reaches beyond the statutory period present exceptional circumstances that remove the conduct here from the protections provided by Rule 37(e).”

As a result, indicating that “Defendant’s conduct constitutes at least negligence and reaches for willful blindness bordering on intentionality”, Judge Frost granted the EEOC’s motion for sanctions for spoliation of data, entitling the plaintiff to “a permissive adverse jury instruction related to the spoliation if this litigation proceeds to a jury trial”, and denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

So, what do you think?  Did the defendant’s conduct warrant the sanctions?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

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

This is the sixth of the 2013 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily 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?
  2. If last year’s “next big thing” was the emergence of predictive coding, what do you feel is this year’s “next big thing”?
  3. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Alon Israely.  Alon is a Manager of Strategic Partnerships at Business Intelligence Associates (BIA) and currently leads the Strategic Partner Program at BIA.  Alon has over seventeen years of experience in a variety of advanced computing-related technologies and has consulted with law firms and their clients 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 Certified Information Security Specialist (CISSP).

What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends?

{Interviewed on the second afternoon}  Looking at the show and walking around the exhibit hall, I feel like the show is less chaotic than in the past.  It seems like there are less vendors, though I don’t know that for a fact.  However, the vendors that are here appear to have accomplished quite a bit over the last twelve months to better clarify their messaging, as well as to better fine tune their offerings and the way they present those offerings.  It’s actually more enjoyable for me to walk through the exhibit hall this year – last year felt so chaotic and it was really difficult to differentiate the offerings.  That has been a problem in the legal technology business – no one really knows what the different vendors really do and they all seem to do the same thing.  Because of better messaging, I think this is the first year I started to truly feel that I can differentiate vendor offerings, probably because some of the vendors that entered the industry in the past few years have reached a maturity level.

So, it’s not that I am not seeing new technologies, methods or ways of doing things in eDiscovery; instead, I am seeing better ways of doing things.  As well as vendors simply getting better at their own pitch and messaging.  And, by that, I mean everything involved in the messaging – the booth, the sales reps in the booth, the product being offered, everything.

If last year’s “next big thing” was the emergence of predictive coding, what do you feel is this year’s “next big thing”?

I think this year’s “next big thing” follows the same theme as last year’s “next big thing”, only you’re going to see more mature Technology Assisted Review (TAR) solutions and more mature predictive coding.  It won’t be just that people provide a predictive coding solution; they will also provide a work flow around the solution and a UI around the solution, as well as a method, a process, testing and even certification.  So, what will happen is that the trend will still be technology assisted review and predictive coding and analytics, just that it won’t be so “bleeding edge”.  The key is presentation of data such that it helps attorneys get through the data in a smarter way – not necessarily just culling, but understanding the data that you have and how to get through it faster and more accurately.  I think that the delivery of those approaches through solution providers, software providers and even service providers seems to be more mature and more focused.  Now, there is an actual tangible “thing” that I can touch that shows it is not just a bullet point – “Hey, we do predictive coding!” – instead, there is actually a method in which it is deployed to you, and to your case or your matter.

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

BIA is really redefining eDiscovery with respect to how the corporate customer looks at it.  How does the corporation look at eDiscovery?  They look at it as part of information security and information management and we find that IT departments are very much more involved in the decision making process.  Having information security roots, BIA is leveraging our preservation technology and bringing in an eDiscovery tool kit and platform that a company can use that will get them where they need to be with respect to compliance, defensibility and efficiency.  We also have the only license model for eDiscovery in the business with respect to the kind of corporate license model, the per seat model that we offer.  We are saying “look, we have been doing this for 10 years and we know exactly what we are doing”.  We use cutting edge technology and while other cloud providers have claimed that they are leveraging utility computing, we are not only saying that, we are actually doing it.  If you don’t believe us, check it out and bring your best technology people and they will see we are telling the truth on that.  We are leveraging our technology for what happens from the corporate perspective.

We are not a review tool and you cannot produce documents out of our software, but that is why clients have software products like OnDemand®; with it, they can do all the different types of review they want and batch it out and use 100 reviewers or 10 reviewers or whatever.  BIA supports the corporations who care about legal hold and preservation and collections and insuring that they are not sending millions of gigs over for costly review.  We support from the corporate perspective, whether you want to call it on the left side of the EDRM model or not, what the GC needs.  GCs want to make sure that they have not deleted some piece of data that will be needed in court.  Notifying clients of that requirement, taking a “snap shot” of that data, locking it down, collecting that data and then insuring that our clients are following the right work flow is basically what we bring to the table.  We have also automated about 80% of the manual tasks with TotalDiscovery, which makes the GC happy and brings that protection to the organization at the right price.  Between TotalDiscovery and a review application like OnDemand, you don’t need anything else.  You don’t need twenty applications for a full solution – two applications are all you need.

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 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.

Laura Zubulake, Author of “Zubulake's e-Discovery” – eDiscovery Trends

This is the fifth of the 2013 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily 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?
  2. If last year’s “next big thing” was the emergence of predictive coding, what do you feel is this year’s “next big thing”?
  3. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Laura Zubulake.  Laura worked on Wall Street for 20 years in institutional equity departments and, in 1991, authored the book The Complete Guide to Convertible Securities Worldwide. She was the plaintiff in the Zubulake vs. UBS Warburg case, which resulted in several landmark opinions related to eDiscovery and counsel’s obligations for the preservation of electronically stored information. The December 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were influenced, in part, by the Zubulake case. Last year, Laura published a book titled Zubulake’s e-Discovery: The Untold Story of my Quest for Justice, previously discussed on this blog here and she speaks professionally about eDiscovery topics and her experiences related to the case.

What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends?

{Interviewed the second day of the show}  The crowd is similar in size to last year’s conference.  As always, there is that buzz of activity. There is a diversity of speakers and panels.  The Judge’s panels should be informative as usual,  Ted Olsen’s keynote was an interesting and different introduction to the conference.  I’m also looking forward to the Thursday Closing Plenary Address on cyber security by Mary Galligan from the FBI.  As far as trends are concerned, based on the agenda it is clear that information governance is becoming more of an important topic.  Cyber security is also more of a focus.    Next year, I think cyber security, information governance, and big data will continue to be trends.  I think that by next year, predictive coding will be less of a hot topic.

Speaking of predictive coding, if last year’s “next big thing” was the emergence of predictive coding, what do you feel is this year’s “next big thing”?

At this point, I think that predictive coding has moved along the learning curve. Personally, I like to use the word algorithms with regard to predictive coding.  For years, algorithms have been used in government, law enforcement, and Wall Street.  It is not a new concept.  I think there will be an increasing acceptance of using them.  A key to acceptance will be to get cases where both parties agree to use algorithms voluntarily (instead of being forced to use them) and both sides are comfortable with the results.

As for the next big thing, as I said earlier,  there will probably be increased attention on information governance.  As the eDiscovery industry matures, information governance will become more of a focus for corporations.  They will realize that, while they have legal obligations (with regard to electronic information), they also need to proactively manage that information. This will not only mitigate costs and risk but also leverage that information for business purposes.  So far, I have found the panel discussions regarding information governance to be most interesting.

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

My goal this past year was to publish my book.  Reviews have been  good and I’m very thankful for that – especially given that I worked on it for several years.  The feedback has been rewarding in two aspects.  First, those in the eDiscovery industry are appreciating the book, because they are getting the background story to the making of the precedents.  Second, and even more rewarding to me personally, are reactions from readers who are not in the in the industry and not familiar with eDiscovery.  They appreciate the human-interest side of the story.  There are two stories in the book.  The broader audience finds the legal story interesting, but finds the human-interest story compelling.  I am also encouraged that readers are recognizing my story is really more about information governance than eDiscovery.  It was my understanding of the value of information and desire to search for it that resulted in the eDiscovery opinions.  As I state in my book, Zubulake I was the most important opinion because it gave me the opportunity to search for information.

Going forward, I will continue to market the book, plan events to market it and work towards getting more reviews in what I would call the broader media, not just in eDiscovery or legal media outlets.  Another one of my goals for this year and next year is to get back into the workforce in the area of information governance.  I think my Wall Street background and eDiscovery experiences are a perfect combination for information governance.  I also hope to use my book as a platform for my job search.

Thanks, Laura, 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 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.

Brad Jenkins of CloudNine Discovery – eDiscovery Trends

This is the first of the 2013 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily 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?
  2. If last year’s “next big thing” was the emergence of predictive coding, what do you feel is this year’s “next big thing”?
  3. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Brad Jenkins of CloudNine Discovery.  Brad has over 20 years of experience as an entrepreneur, as well as 14 years leading customer focused companies in the litigation support arena. Brad also writes the Litigation Support Industry Blog, which covers news about litigation support and e-discovery companies’ funding activities, acquisitions & mergers and notable business successes. He has authored many 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?

Well, clearly the technology assisted review/predictive coding wave is the most popular topic here at the show.  I think I counted at least six sessions discussing the topic and numerous vendors touting their tools.  And, this blog covered it and the cases using quite a bit last year.  I’m sure you’ll hear that from a lot of the folks you’re interviewing.

Another trend that I’m seeing is integration of applications to make the discovery process more seamless, especially the integration of cloud-based collection and review applications.  We have an alliance with BIA and their TotalDiscovery legal hold and collection tool, which can export data into our review application, OnDemand®, which our clients are using quite successfully to collect data and move it along the process.  I think the “best of breed” approach between an application that’s focused on the left side of the EDRM model and one that’s focused on the right side is an approach that makes sense for a lot of organizations.

If last year’s “next big thing” was the emergence of predictive coding, what do you feel is this year’s “next big thing”?

I’m not sure that I see just one thing as the “next big thing”.  I certainly see the continued focus on integration of applications as one big thing.  Another big thing that I see is a broadening acceptance of technology assisted review from more than just predictive coding.  For example, clustering similar documents together can make review more efficient and more accurate and we provide that in OnDemand through our partnership with Hot Neuron’s Clustify™.

Perhaps the biggest thing that I see is education and adoption of the technology.  Many lawyers still don’t actively use the technology and don’t find the applications intuitive.  We’ve worked hard to make OnDemand easy to use, requiring minimal or no training.  A lot of vendors tout their products as easy to use, but we’re backing our claim with our free no risk trial of OnDemand that includes free data assessment, free native processing, free data load and free first month hosting for the first data set on any new OnDemand project.  We feel that we have a team of “Aces” and a hand full of aces is almost impossible to beat.  So, the free no risk trial reflects our confidence that clients that try OnDemand will embrace its ease-of-use and self-service features and continue to use it and us for their discovery needs.

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

In addition to our integration success with BIA, our partnership with Clustify and our free no risk trial, we’re also previewing the initial release of the mobile version of OnDemand.  The first mobile version will be designed for project administrators to add users and maintain user rights, as well as obtain key statistics about their projects.  It’s our first step toward our 2013 goal of making OnDemand completely platform independent and we are targeting a third quarter release of a new redesigned version of OnDemand that will support that goal.

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 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.

2012 eDiscovery Year in Review: eDiscovery Case Law, Part 4

As we noted the past three days, eDiscoveryDaily published 98 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 62 unique cases!  Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to admissibility and the duty to preserve and produce electronically stored information (ESI).  Today, let’s take a look back at cases related to sanctions and spoliation.

We grouped those cases into common subject themes and have reviewed them over the past few posts, ending today.  Perhaps you missed some of these?  Now is your chance to catch up!

SPOLIATION / SANCTIONS

All hail the returning champion!  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 62 cases we covered this past year, almost a third of them (20 total cases) related to sanctions and spoliation issues.  We found them in a variety of sources, even The Hollywood Reporter!  Here they are.  And, as you’ll see by the first case (and a few others), sanctions requested are not always granted – at least not yet.

Sanctions for Violating Motion to Compel Production? Not Yet.  In Fidelity National Title Insurance Co. v. Captiva Lake Investments, LLC, where a party’s “conduct [did not] rise[ ] to the level of a willful violation of the order compelling production” because it was continually working toward the proper production of documents requested by its adversary, a court concluded that the adversary’s motion for sanctions was premature.

“Rap Weasel” Forced to Honor $1 Million Reward Offered via YouTube.  It isn’t every day that eDiscoveryDaily has reason to reference The Hollywood Reporter in a story about eDiscovery case law, but even celebrities have eDiscovery preservation obligations during litigation. In Augstein v. Leslie, New York District Judge Harold Baer imposed an adverse inference sanction against hip hop and R&B artist Ryan Leslie for “negligent destruction” of a hard drive returned to him by the plaintiff after a $1 million reward was offered via YouTube. On November 28, a jury ordered him to pay the $1 million reward to the plaintiff.

Plaintiff Hammered with Case Dismissal for “Egregious” Discovery Violations.  Apparently, destroying your first computer with a sledgehammer and using Evidence Eliminator and CCleaner on your second computer (when you have a duty to preserve both) are not considered to be best practices for preservation. Who knew? 😉

Rambus’ “Shred Days” Result in Sanctions Yet Again.  In Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., California District Judge Ronald Whyte used his discretion to fashion an appropriate fact-specific sanctions award after it found a party willfully destroyed evidence despite reasonably foreseeable litigation, it destroyed such evidence in bad faith, and the opposing party suffered prejudice.

Defendant Ordered to Retain Outside Vendor, Monetary Sanction Awarded.  In Carrillo v. Schneider Logistics, Inc., California Magistrate Judge David Bristow ordered the defendant to “retain, at its expense, an outside vendor, to be jointly selected by the parties, to collect electronically stored information and email correspondence”. The defendant was ordered to produce all surveillance videotapes responsive to plaintiffs’ discovery requests and monetary sanctions were awarded for plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs incurred as a result of the defendant’s discovery violations.

Government Document Productions Can Be Like Water Torture.  In Botell v. United States, Magistrate Judge Gregory Hollows noted that the US Government’s “document production performance in these proceedings has been akin to a drop-by-drop water torture” and ordered a preclusion order prohibiting the US Government “from presenting evidence in its case that had been requested by plaintiffs in the Requests for Production, but which has not been produced” as of the date of the order. The US was also still required to produce the documents, whether they planned to use them or not. Judge Hollows also noted that the “Plaintiff has not waived any motion to seek further sanctions regarding non-production of documents, or spoliation of documents.”

Defendant Appeals Sanctions, Only to See Sanction Amount Raised on Appeal.  In Multifeeder Tech. Inc. v. British Confectionery Co. Ltd., the defendant had been previously sanctioned $500,000 ($475,000 to the plaintiff and $25,000 to the court) and held in contempt of court by the magistrate judge for spoliation, who also recommended an adverse inference instruction be issued at trial. The defendant appealed to the district court, where Minnesota District Judge John Tunheim increased the award to the plaintiff to $600,000. Oops!

eDiscovery Sanctions Can Happen in Police Brutality Cases Too.  As reported in the Seattle Times, Pierce County (Washington) Superior Court Judge Stephanie Arend issued a $300,000 sanction against King County for failure to produce key documents illustrating the previous troubling behavior of a sheriff deputy who tackled Christopher Sean Harris and left him permanently brain-damaged. Judge Arend also indicated that the county would be liable for attorneys’ fees and possibly compensatory damages for the Harris family. This after King County had settled with the Harris family for $10 million in January 2011 during a civil trial in King County Superior Court.

When is a Billion Dollars Not Enough?  When it’s Apple v. Samsung, of course! According to the Huffington Post, Apple Inc. requested a court order for a permanent U.S. sales ban on Samsung Electronics products found to have violated its patents along with additional damages of $707 million on top of the $1.05 billion dollar verdict won by Apple last month, already one of the largest intellectual-property awards on record.

No Sanctions For Spoliation With No Bad Faith.  In Sherman v. Rinchem Co., the plaintiff in a defamation case against his former employer appealed the district court’s denial of both his summary judgment motion and request for an adverse inference jury instruction. The district court had decided the case under Minnesota law, which “provides that ‘even when a breach of the duty to preserve evidence is not done in bad faith, the district court must attempt to remedy any prejudice that occurs as a result of the destruction of the evidence.’” In contrast, as the Eighth Circuit pointed out, in this case where the parties had diversity, and a question remained as to whether state or federal spoliation laws were applicable, federal law requires “a finding of intentional destruction indicating a desire to suppress the truth” in order to impose sanctions.

Pension Committee Precedent Takes One on the Chin.  In Chin v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it was within a district court’s discretion not to impose sanctions against a party for its failure to institute a litigation hold.

More Sanctions for Fry’s Electronics.  In E.E.O.C. v Fry’s Electronics, Inc., Washington District Judge Robert S. Lasnik ordered several sanctions against the defendant in this sexual harassment case (including ordering the defendant to pay $100,000 in monetary sanctions and ordering that certain evidence be considered presumptively admissible at trial), but stopped short of entering a default judgment against the defendant. This ruling came after having previously ordered sanctions against the defendant less than two months earlier.

No Sanctions When You Can’t Prove Evidence Was Destroyed.  In Omogbehin v. Cino, the plaintiff claimed that the District Court erred in denying his motion for spoliation sanctions and appealed to the US Third Circuit Court of Appeals, but lost as the appellate court upheld the rulings by the district judge and magistrate judge.

“Naked” Assertions of Spoliation Are Not Enough to Grant Spoliation Claims.  In Grabenstein v. Arrow Electronics, Inc., Colorado Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix denied the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, finding that their claims of spoliation were based on “naked” assertions that relevant eMails must exist even though the plaintiff could not demonstrate that such other eMails do or did exist. The motion was also denied because the plaintiff could not establish when the defendant had deleted certain eMail messages, thereby failing to prove claims that the defendant violated its duty to preserve electronic evidence. Judge Mix noted that sanctions are not justified when documents are destroyed in good faith pursuant to a reasonable records-retention policy, if that’s prior to the duty to preserve such documents.

Spoliation of Data Can Lead to Your Case Being Dismissed.  In In 915 Broadway Associates LLC v. Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP, the New York Supreme Court imposed the severest of sanctions against the plaintiffs for spoliation of evidence – dismissal of their $20 million case.

Better Late Than Never? Not With Discovery.  In Techsavies, LLC v. WFDA Mktg., Inc., Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman of the United States District Court for the District of Northern California sanctioned the defendant for repeated failures to produce responsive documents in a timely manner because of their failure to identify relevant data sources in preparing its initial disclosures.

The Zubulake Rules of Civil Procedure.  As noted in Law Technology News, the New York Appellate Division has embraced the federal standards of Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, in two case rulings within a month’s time, one of which resulted in sanctions against one of the parties for spoliation of data.

eDiscovery Violations Leave Delta Holding the Bag.  In the case In re Delta/AirTran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litig., U.S. District Judge Timothy Batten ordered Delta to pay plaintiff attorney’s fees and costs for eDiscovery issues in consolidated antitrust cases claiming Delta and AirTran Holdings, Inc. conspired to charge customers $15 to check their first bag. Noting that there was a “huge hole” in Delta’s eDiscovery process, Judge Batten reopened discovery based on defendants’ untimely production of records and indications that there was overwriting of backup tapes, inconsistencies in deposition testimony and documents, and neglect in searching and producing documents from hard drives.

Burn Your Computer and the Court Will Burn You.  In Evans v. Mobile Cnty. Health Dept., Alabama Magistrate Judge William Cassady granted a motion for sanctions, including an adverse inference instruction, where the plaintiff had burned and destroyed her computer that she used during the time she claimed she was harassed.

Appeals Court Decides Spoliation Finding For Not Producing Originals is Bull.  In Bull v. UPS Inc., the Third Circuit court conceded that “producing copies in instances where the originals have been requested may constitute spoliation if it would prevent discovering critical information”. However, it found that in this case, the District Court erred in finding that spoliation had occurred and in imposing a sanction of dismissal with prejudice.

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.

2012 eDiscovery Year in Review: eDiscovery Case Law, Part 3

As we noted the past two days, eDiscoveryDaily published 98 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 62 unique cases!  Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to social media and the first cases approving technology assisted review.  Today, let’s take a look back at cases related to admissibility and the duty to preserve and produce electronically stored information (ESI).

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!

ADMISSIBILITY AND DUTY TO PRESERVE AND PRODUCE

Admissibility of ESI, and the duty to preserve and produce it, is more at issue than ever.  Whether the issue is whether certain emails should be considered privileged, whether cloning of computer files is acceptable or whether text messages require substantiation of authorship, parties are disputing what ESI should actually be admissible in litigation.  Parties are also disputing when and where litigation holds are required and whether collection and search practices are acceptable.  In short, there are numerous disputes about data being produced and not being produced.  Here are (a whopping) sixteen cases related to admissibility and the duty to preserve and produce ESI:

Emails Between Husband and Wife Are Not Privileged, If Sent from Work Computer.  In United States v. Hamilton, the Fourth Circuit found that the district court had not abused its discretion in finding that e-mails between the defendant and his wife did not merit marital privilege protection because the defendant had used his office computer and his work e-mail account to send and receive the communications and because he had not taken steps to protect the e-mails in question, even after his employer instituted a policy permitting inspection of e-mails and he was on notice of the policy.

Defendant Had Duty to Preserve Despite No Physical Possession of Documents.  In Haskins v. First American Title Insurance Co., a court found that an insurance company had a duty to issue a litigation hold to its independent title agents because litigation was reasonably foreseeable and the duty to preserve extends to third parties, as long as the documents are “within a party’s possession, custody, or control.” Although it did not have physical possession, the insurance company controlled the agents’ documents because it had “‘the legal right or ability to obtain the documents from [the agents] upon demand.’”

Defendant Compelled to Produce Additional Discovery to Plaintiff.  In Freeman v. Dal-Tile Corp., a case alleging harassment and discrimination, among other claims, against her former employer Dal-Tile Corporation, the plaintiff brought a motion to compel, asserting that some of the defendant’s discovery responses related to its search for ESI were deficient.

Defendant Claiming Not Reasonably Accessible Data Has Some ‘Splaining To Do.  In Murray v. Coleman, the plaintiff alleged harassment and retaliation in connection with his employment with the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS). This discovery dispute arose when the plaintiff requested access to certain electronic records, alleging that the defendants withheld them.

Cloning of Computer Files: When There’s a Will, There’s a Way.  In Matter of Tilimbo, a court held it was permissible to order cloning of computer files where doing so did not place an unreasonable burden on a nonparty, appropriate steps were taken to protect any privileged information, and the nonparty had not previously produced the requested information in hard copy.

Citing Rule 26(g), Court Orders Plaintiff’s Counsel to Disclose Search Strategy.  Our 501st post on the blog addresses S2 Automation LLC v. Micron Technology, where New Mexico District Judge James Browning ordered the plaintiff’s attorneys to disclose the search strategy their client used to identify responsive documents, based on Federal Rule 26(g) that requires attorneys to sign discovery responses and certify that they are “complete and correct.”

Judge Scheindlin Says “No” to Self-Collection, “Yes” to Predictive Coding.  When most people think of the horrors of Friday the 13th, they think of Jason Voorhees. When US Immigration and Customs thinks of Friday the 13th horrors, do they think of Judge Shira Scheindlin?  New York District Judge Scheindlin issued a decision on Friday, July 13, addressing the adequacy of searching and self-collection by government entity custodians in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

Plaintiff Compelled to Produce Mirror Image of Drives Despite Defendant’s Initial Failure to Request Metadata.  In Commercial Law Corp., P.C. v. FDIC, Michigan District Judge Sean F. Cox ruled that a party can be compelled to produce a mirror image of its computer drives using a neutral third-party expert where metadata is relevant and the circumstances dictate it, even though the requesting party initially failed to request that metadata and specify the format of documents in its first discovery request.

Court Allows Third Party Discovery Because Defendant is an “Unreliable Source”.  Repeatedly referring to the defendant’s unreliability and untrustworthiness in discovery and “desire to suppress the truth,” Nebraska Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart found, in Peter Kiewit Sons’, Inc. v. Wall Street Equity Group, Inc., that the defendant avoided responding substantively to the plaintiff’s discovery requests through a pattern of destruction and misrepresentation and therefore monetary sanctions and an adverse jury instruction at trial were appropriate.

Inadmissibility of Text Messages Being Appealed.  In October 2011, we covered a case – Commonwealth v. Koch – where a Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled text messages inadmissible, declaring that parties seeking to introduce electronic materials, such as cell phone text messages and email, must be prepared to substantiate their claim of authorship with “circumstantial evidence” that corroborates the sender’s identity. That case, where Amy N. Koch was originally convicted at trial on drug charges (partially due to text messages found on her cell phone), is now being appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Another Case with Inadmissible Text Messages.  Above, we discussed a case where a Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled text messages inadmissible, declaring that parties seeking to introduce electronic materials, such as cell phone text messages and email, must be prepared to substantiate their claim of authorship with “circumstantial evidence” that corroborates the sender’s identity. That case is now being appealed to the state Supreme Court. Today, we have another case – Rodriguez v. Nevada – where text messages were ruled inadmissible.

Court Grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Mirror-Imaging of Defendant’s Computers.  In approving a motion for expedited discovery in United Factory Furniture Corp. v. Alterwitz, Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach granted the plaintiff’s motion for a mirror-imaging order after determining the benefit outweighed the burden of the discovery, and it denied as unnecessary the plaintiff’s motion for an order to preserve evidence and a preliminary injunction from spoliation of evidence.

Court Orders eDiscovery Evidentiary Hearing When Parties Are Unable to Cooperate.  A month ago, in Chura v. Delmar Gardens of Lenexa, Inc., Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse ordered an evidentiary hearing to discuss the sufficiency of the defendant’s search for ESI and format of production in response to the plaintiff’s motion to compel additional searching and production.

At The Eleventh Hour, Encrypted Hard Drive Is Decrypted.  In our previous post regarding the case U.S. v. Fricosu, Colorado district judge Robert Blackburn ruled that Ramona Fricosu must produce an unencrypted version of her Toshiba laptop’s hard drive to prosecutors in a mortgage fraud case for police inspection. Naturally, the defendant appealed. On February 21st, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to get involved, saying Ramona Fricosu’s case must first be resolved in District Court before her attorney can appeal. She would have been required to turn over the unencrypted contents of the drive as of March 1. However, at the last minute, Colorado federal authorities decrypted the laptop.

Court Rules Exact Search Terms Are Limited.  In Custom Hardware Eng’g & Consulting v. Dowell, the plaintiff and defendant could not agree on search terms to be used for discovery on defendant’s forensically imaged computers. After reviewing proposed search terms from both sides, and the defendant’s objections to the plaintiff’s proposed list, the court ruled that the defendant’s proposed list was “problematic and inappropriate” and that their objections to the plaintiff’s proposed terms were “without merit” and ruled for use of the plaintiff’s search terms in discovery.

KPMG Loses Another Round to Pippins.  As discussed previously in eDiscovery Daily, KPMG sought a protective order in Pippins v. KPMG LLP to require the preservation of only a random sample of 100 hard drives from among those it had already preserved for this and other litigation or shift the cost of any preservation beyond that requested scope. Lawyers for Pippins won a ruling last November by Magistrate Judge James Cott to use all available drives and Judge Cott encouraged the parties to continue to meet and confer to reach agreement on sampling. However, the parties were unable to agree and KPMG appealed to the District Court. In February, District Court Judge Colleen McMahon upheld the lower court ruling.

Tune in tomorrow for more key cases of 2012 and, once again, the most common theme of the year!

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.

Defendant Had Duty to Preserve Despite No Physical Possession of Documents – eDiscovery Case Law

In Haskins v. First American Title Insurance Co., No. 10-5044 (RMB/JS), 2012 U.S. Dist. (D.N.J. Oct. 18, 2012), a court found that an insurance company had a duty to issue a litigation hold to its independent title agents because litigation was reasonably foreseeable and the duty to preserve extends to third parties, as long as the documents are “within a party’s possession, custody, or control.” Although it did not have physical possession, the insurance company controlled the agents’ documents because it had “‘the legal right or ability to obtain the documents from [the agents] upon demand.’”

Customers sued First American Title Insurance Company for its alleged scheme to overcharge for title insurance when they refinanced their residential mortgages. During discovery, the plaintiffs sought access to closing documents that were not physically held by First American but by its independent title agents. Because Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a requesting party to seek access only to documents that are within another party’s “possession, custody, or control,” the court considered whether that “control” extended to documents in the hands of the independent title agents.

First establishing that control exists when “a party ‘has the legal right or ability to obtain the documents from another source upon demand’” and that “a party is not required to have physical possession of documents for control to be present,” the court highlighted the specific language in contracts between First American and its independent title agents that conferred control upon the company: “make all Documentation available for inspection and examination by COMPANY at any reasonable time” and “permit First American to examine, audit and copy all financial information and records upon reasonable prior notice.”

That some of the contracts contained language indicating that the files were the agent’s property did not negate First American’s “continued right of access to and use of its agents’ files” or disrupt its control “of the files within the meaning of Rule 34.” Moreover, any attempted argument by First American that it could not “‘force’ its agents to comply” with the company’s production request would be without merit because “First American [could] claim that the agent breached its contract if the agent [did] not produce the requested files.”

Concluding that First American possessed control over the agents’ documents requested by the plaintiffs, the court considered next whether First American had a legal obligation to issue a litigation hold ordering its agents to preserve requested documents. Because the “duty to preserve documents arises when a party ‘knows or reasonably should know’ that litigation is foreseeable,” and because the duty extends even to third parties, as long as the documents are “within a party’s possession, custody, or control,” First American, which was already engaged in litigation with the plaintiffs, had a duty to issue the litigation hold to its independent title agents.

Therefore, the court ordered First American to (1) send requests for copies of closing documents to its independent title agents who had closing documents that the parties had agreed would be produced and (2) issue a litigation hold to its agents to preserve the documents requested by the plaintiffs.

So, what do you think?  Was the court correct to order First American to issue the hold?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).  For eDiscovery news and best practices, check out the Applied Discovery Blog 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.

“Rap Weasel” Forced to Honor $1 Million Reward Offered via YouTube – eDiscovery Case Law

It isn’t every day that eDiscoveryDaily has reason to reference The Hollywood Reporter in a story about eDiscovery case law, but even celebrities have eDiscovery preservation obligations during litigation.  In Augstein v. Leslie, 11 Civ. 7512 (HB) (SDNY Oct. 17, 2012), New York District Judge Harold Baer imposed an adverse inference sanction against hip hop and R&B artist Ryan Leslie for “negligent destruction” of a hard drive returned to him by the plaintiff after a $1 million reward was offered via YouTube.  On November 28, a jury ordered him to pay the $1 million reward to the plaintiff.

Reward Offered, then Refused

While Leslie was on tour in Germany in 2010, a laptop and external hard drive (that contained some of Leslie’s songs not yet released) were stolen.  Capitalizing on his popularity on social media, Leslie initially offered $20,000 for return of the items, then, on November 6, 2010, a video on YouTube was posted increasing the reward to $1 million.  The increase of the reward was also publicized on Leslie’s Facebook and Twitter accounts.  After Augstein, a German auto repair shop owner, returned the laptop and hard drive, Leslie refused to pay the reward alleging “the intellectual property for which he valued the laptop was not present on the hard drive when it was returned”.

Plaintiff’s Arguments as to Why Reward was not Warranted

Leslie attempted to make the case that when he used the word “offer,” that he really meant something different. He argued that a reasonable person would have understood mention of a reward not as a unilateral contract, but instead as an “advertisement” – an invitation to negotiate.

Leslie’s other argument was that, regardless whether it was an “offer” or not, Augstein failed to perform because he did not return the intellectual property, only the physical property.  Leslie claimed that he and several staff members tried to access the data on the hard drive but were unable to do so.  Leslie sent the hard drive to the manufacturer, Avastor, which ultimately deleted the information and sent Leslie a replacement drive.  The facts associated with the attempts to recover information from the hard drive and requests by the manufacturer to do the same were in dispute between Leslie, his assistant, and Avastor, who claimed no request for data recovery was made by Leslie or anyone on his team.

Judge’s Responses and Decision

Regarding Leslie’s characterization of the offer as an “advertisement”, Judge Baer disagreed, noting that “Leslie’s videos and other activities together are best characterized as an offer for a reward. Leslie ‘sought to induce performance, unlike an invitation to negotiate [often an advertisement], which seeks a reciprocal promise.’”

Regarding Leslie’s duty to preserve the hard drive, Judge Baer noted: “In this case, Leslie was on notice that the information on the hard drive may be relevant to future litigation and, as a result, had an obligation to preserve that information. Augstein contacted Leslie personally and through his attorney regarding the payment of the reward, and a short time later, the hard drive was sent by Leslie to Avastor….Leslie does not dispute these facts.”  As a result, Judge Baer found that “Leslie and his team were at least negligent in their handling of the hard drive.”

Citing Zubulake among other cases with respect to negligence as sufficient for spoliation, Judge Baer ruled “I therefore impose a sanction of an adverse inference; it shall be assumed that the desired intellectual property was present on the hard drive when Augstein returned it to the police.”  This led to the jury’s decision and award last month, causing the New York Post to characterize Leslie as a “Rap Weasel”, which Leslie himself poked fun at on Instagram.  Only in America!

So, what do you think?  Was the adverse inference sanction warranted?  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.

Plaintiff Hammered with Case Dismissal for “Egregious” Discovery Violations – eDiscovery Case Law

Apparently, destroying your first computer with a sledgehammer and using Evidence Eliminator and CCleaner on your second computer (when you have a duty to preserve both) are not considered to be best practices for preservation.  Who knew?  😉

In Taylor v. Mitre Corp., (E.D. Va. Nov. 8, 2012), Virginia District Court Judge Liam O’Grady upheld the findings by the Magistrate Judge for dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims and payment of the defendant’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs due to “egregious” discovery conduct.  Here’s why:

  • The plaintiff hired counsel back in 2009 “in anticipation of bringing this lawsuit against Mitre for violations of the FMLA and failure to accommodate his disabilities.  Mr. Taylor’s lawyer immediately put him on clear notice that he was required to maintain all files and documents (electronic and otherwise) related to his claim, and that deleting or discarding such files could result in sanctions including dismissal of his claim.”;
  • The plaintiff filed his EEOC claim in November 2010;
  • Sometime in 2011, the plaintiff “wiped” his work desktop, then “took a sledgehammer to it” and disposed of it in the local landfill (as noted in the footnote: “Mr. Taylor has given varying accounts of the size and type of the hammer he used to wreck the computer, but does not deny that he smashed it with some nature of mallet.”);
  • Before destroying his work computer, the plaintiff “attempted” to back up files from it “but was only partially successful”;
  • In November 2011, the plaintiff filed his complaint;
  • On July 1, the Magistrate Judge “ordered Mr. Taylor to submit his current computer, a laptop, to inspection within a week.”  The plaintiff “had represented that whatever documents he maintained during the partially successful backup operation described above had been transferred to the laptop, and the Defendant won permission to inspect the laptop”;
  • A few days later, the defendant’s forensic expert examined the laptop and determined that the plaintiff had “run a program called Evidence Eliminator, a program whose express purpose is removing ‘sensitive material’ from one’s hard drive and defeating forensic software.”  The plaintiff admitted that “he downloaded the program the same day he learned of the Court’s inspection order”;
  • The plaintiff also ran another program CCleaner (which also erases files from the computer so that they cannot be recovered) “at least twice between the time of the Court’s inspection order and the actual inspection.”

The plaintiff claimed “that CCleaner was set to run automatically, and so even if it did delete relevant documents, the deletion was not intentional.” – a claim that the court found to be “highly suspicious”.  However, when it came to the installation of Evidence Eliminator, Judge O’Grady did not mince words:

“For Mr. Taylor to download and run a program whose express purpose is deletion of evidence in direct response to the Magistrate Judge’s order that his computer be produced for inspection was to blatantly disregard his duties in the judicial system under which he sought relief. The Court finds Mr. Taylor’s conduct to be egregious and highly contemptuous of the inspection order. Mr. Taylor has forfeited his right to pursue his claims with this Court any further.”

So, what do you think?  Is this the most egregious example of spoliation you’ve ever seen?  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.

Defendant Compelled to Produce Additional Discovery to Plaintiff – eDiscovery Case Law

During this Thanksgiving week, we at eDiscovery Daily thought it would be a good time to catch up on some cases we missed earlier in the year.  So, we will cover a different case each day this week.  Enjoy!

Where the facts of the case led a court to conclude that certain electronically stored information (ESI) could contain evidence relevant to the case, the court ordered a party to comply with its discovery obligations related to that ESI.

In Freeman v. Dal-Tile Corp., No. 5:10-CV-00522-BR, 2012 U.S. Dist. (E.D.N.C. Oct. 2, 2012), a case alleging harassment and discrimination, among other claims, against her former employer Dal-Tile Corporation, the plaintiff brought a motion to compel, asserting that some of the defendant’s discovery responses related to its search for ESI were deficient.

Specifically, the plaintiff sought to compel a keyword search of preserved e-mails belonging to certain individuals for a time frame that began two months after the plaintiff left Dal-Tile. The defendant objected, arguing that because the plaintiff had already left the company during the time frame for e-mails requested, any such e-mails “could not be relevant to Plaintiff’s harassment claims, because ‘the sole issue is whether Dal-Tile knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take appropriate steps to halt it.’”

North Carolina Magistrate Judge William A. Webb disagreed, stating that it was “reasonable to expect” that e-mails written or received during that time period “could contain historical e-mails, i.e., an e-mail chain, given that the requested search period begins only two months after Plaintiff resigned.” Moreover, the plaintiff’s request hit the mark for other reasons: “The custodians whose e-mail Plaintiff requests to have searched are . . . the human resource officer who investigated Plaintiff’s complaints, and . . . the regional vice-president to whom [the human resources officer] reported her investigation findings.” In addition, the search terms that the plaintiff requested were “appropriately limited in number and scope and, thus, reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

Moreover, Judge Webb noted, Dal-Tile did “not assert[ ] that it would be unduly burdensome to search the e-mail[s requested]” or the hard drive of the human resources officer, a search of which the plaintiff had included in her request.

Therefore, the plaintiff’s motion was granted.

So, what do you think?  Should the plaintiff’s motion have been granted?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

From All of Us at CloudNine Discovery and eDiscovery Daily, Happy Thanksgiving!  eDiscovery Daily will resume with new posts next Monday.

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).  For eDiscovery news and best practices, check out the Applied Discovery Blog 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.