Close
Enter your
text here

Preservation

eDiscovery Case Law: "Untimely" Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation Denied

A recent ruling by the US District Court of Tennessee has denied a motion for sanctions for spoliation on the grounds that the motion was “untimely.”

In Am. Nat’l Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Campbell Ins., Inc., No. 3:08-cv-00604, 2011 WL 3021399 (M.D. Tenn. July 22, 2011), the plaintiff argued that the defendants’ admitted failure to preserve evidence “warrants a harsh penalty,” but the court found in favor of the defense that the motion was untimely.

  • The defendants, Tommy Campbell, Marshall C. Campbell and Campbell Insurance, Inc. were previously found to have failed to preserve email evidence from the period between April and July 2009. The plaintiff claimed that these emails contained “damning evidence” and that this discovery spoliation was deliberate.
  • This spoliation was discovered in May 2010, but the plaintiff did not file a motion for sanctions until July 16, 2011 – more than fourteen months after the spoliation was discovered and almost five months after discovery closed in February of 2011.
  • With the trial less than seven weeks way, the court considered this motion for sanctions for spoliation in the light of the summary of the law on spoliation that was provided in Goodman v. Praxair Services, Inc., 632 F.Supp.2d 494 (D.Md.2009). Among other points, the district court in Goodman v. Praxair encouraged courts to be aware of the time between the close of discovery and a motion related to spoliation, as well as cautioning against spoliation motions “made on the eve of trial.”
  • The court rejected the plaintiff’s excuse for the timing on the basis that “because the relevant emails were deleted and cannot possibly be produced, the Motion for Sanctions ‘is not a discovery motion.'”
  • Because of the “disruptive” timing of the motion, and the inability of the plaintiff to effectively explain why they delayed so long in filing a motion after this spoliation was encountered in discovery, the court ultimately ruled against the motion for sanctions, calling it “untimely”.

So, what do you think? Does spoliation of evidence “expire” or should timeliness matter at all in a case like this one? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Cloud Covered by Ball
 

What is the cloud, why is it becoming so popular and why is it important to eDiscovery? These are the questions being addressed—and very ably answered—in the recent article Cloud Cover (via Law Technology News) by computer forensics and eDiscovery expert Craig Ball, a previous thought leader interviewee on this blog.

Ball believes that the fears about cloud data security are easily dismissed when considering that “neither local storage nor on-premises data centers have proved immune to failure and breach”. And as far as the cloud's importance to the law and to eDiscovery, he says, "the cloud is re-inventing electronic data discovery in marvelous new ways while most lawyers are still grappling with the old."

What kinds of marvelous new ways, and what do they mean for the future of eDiscovery?

What is the Cloud?

First we have to understand just what the cloud is.  The cloud is more than just the Internet, although it's that, too. In fact, what we call "the cloud" is made up of three on-demand services:

  • Software as a Service (SaaS) covers web-based software that performs tasks you once carried out on your computer's own hard drive, without requiring you to perform your own backups or updates. If you check your email virtually on Hotmail or Gmail or run a Google calendar, you're using SaaS.
  • Platform as a Service (PaaS) happens when companies or individuals rent virtual machines (VMs) to test software applications or to run processes that take up too much hard drive space to run on real machines.
  • Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) encompasses the use and configuration of virtual machines or hard drive space in whatever manner you need to store, sort, or operate your electronic information.

These three models combine to make up the cloud, a virtual space where electronic storage and processing is faster, easier and more affordable.

How the Cloud Will Change eDiscovery

One reason that processing is faster is through distributed processing, which Ball calls “going wide”.  Here’s his analogy:

“Remember that scene in The Matrix where Neo and Trinity arm themselves from gun racks that appear out of nowhere? That's what it's like to go wide in the cloud. Cloud computing makes it possible to conjure up hundreds of virtual machines and make short work of complex computing tasks. Need a supercomputer-like array of VMs for a day? No problem. When the grunt work's done, those VMs pop like soap bubbles, and usage fees cease. There's no capital expenditure, no amortization, no idle capacity. Want to try the latest concept search tool? There's nothing to buy! Just throw the tool up on a VM and point it at the data.”

Because the cloud is entirely virtual, operating on servers whose locations are unknown and mostly irrelevant, it throws the rules for eDiscovery right out the metaphorical window.

Ball also believes that everything changes once discoverable information goes into the cloud. "Bringing ESI beneath one big tent narrows the gap between retention policy and practice and fosters compatible forms of ESI across web-enabled applications".

"Moving ESI to the cloud," Ball adds, "also spells an end to computer forensics." Where there are no hard drives, there can be no artifacts of deleted information—so, deleted really means deleted.

What's more, “[c]loud computing makes collection unnecessary”. Where discovery requires that information be collected to guarantee its preservation, putting a hold on ESI located in the cloud will safely keep any users from destroying it. And because cloud computing allows for faster processing than can be accomplished on a regular hard drive, the search for discovery documents will move to where they're located, in the cloud. Not only will this approach be easier, it will also save money.

Ball concludes his analysis with the statement, "That e-discovery will live primarily in the cloud isn't a question of whether but when."

So, what do you think? Is cloud computing the future of eDiscovery? Is that future already here? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Court Upholds Sanctions for Intentional Spoliation of Unallocated Space Data

The Supreme Court of Delaware recently upheld the sanctions against the defendant for wiping the unallocated space on his company’s computer system, despite a court order prohibiting such destruction.

In Genger v. TR Investors, LLC, No. 592,2010, 2011 WL 2802832 (Del. July 18, 2011), Arie Genger, CEO of Trans-Resources, Inc., argued that sanctions against him were unreasonable and made a motion for the court to overturn its previous decision regarding spoliation of discovery materials. Instead, after due process, the court upheld its earlier decision, as follows:

  • In TR Investors, LLC v. Genger, 2009 WL 4696062 (Del. Ch. Dec. 9, 2009), the defendant was found to have intentionally spoliated electronic discovery documents by instructing an IT consultant to wipe unallocated space on his company’s computers. This action was taken in contempt of court and in contravention of a Status Quo order directing all parties to prevent alteration or destruction of any company documents.
  • Genger was penalized with an order to produce 10 documents for discovery that had previously been considered privileged, the raising of the burden of persuasion with regard to his defense, a preclusion from his testimony being permitted as factual evidence, and several sanctions.
  • The sanctions included attorney’s fees and expenses related to the sanctions motions, which totaled roughly $3.2 million. At the time, this amount was agreed upon by all parties.
  • Following this 2009 order, the defendant appealed the sanctions, arguing that because the court’s Status Quo order did not explicitly refer to unallocated hard drive space, the obligation to preserve documents and discoverable materials found there became “an impossible burden… effectively requiring the company to refrain from using its computers entirely.”
  • On July 18, the court decided in favor of upholding the sanctions against Genger. The reasoning behind this decision revolved around the fact that Genger did not unknowingly delete discoverable documents in the normal course of using his company’s computers, but instead, deliberately set out to destroy information that was included in the court’s Status Quo order.
  • The court was clear in emphasizing that this decision is meant to apply only in such a situation, “where a party is found intentionally to have taken affirmative steps to destroy or conceal information to prevent its discovery at a time that party is under an affirmative obligation to preserve that information.”
  • The court also recommended that, in the future, parties be clear in discussing unallocated space on computer hard drives and in deciding to either include or exclude such space from preservation orders like this one.

So, what do you think? Have you been involved in any cases resulting in sanctions associated with deletion of unallocated space data? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Court Orders Sanctions in Response to "Callous and Careless Attitude" of Defendant in Discovery

A Special Master determined that multiple discovery failures on the part of the defendant in an indemnity action were due to discovery procedures “wholly devoid of competence, yet only once motivated by guile”. Accordingly, the court ordered sanctions against the defendant and also ordered the defendant to pay all costs associated with its discovery failures, including plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs.

The defendant’s discovery efforts in PIC Group, Inc. v. LandCoast Insulation, Inc., No. 1:09-CV-662-KS-MTP, 2011 WL 2669144 (S.D. Miss. July 7, 2011) resulted in several discovery failures, including spoliation of data, mostly through carelessness and incompetence:

  • After consideration of the computer forensics experts recommended by the parties in this case, the court rejected all seven recommendations and appointed its own Special Master (Craig Ball, a previous thought leader interviewee on eDiscovery Daily) to conduct an investigation into the indemnity case, which would revolve around the collapse of scaffolding erected by the defendant.
  • The defendant’s efforts resulted in multiple discovery failures, including: 1) failure to impose “any corporate policy, procedure, or concerted effort [to] preserve electronic data”; 2) no effort to preserve or collect ESI until it was too late to protect the relevant data; 3) the theft of an employee’s laptop and subsequent loss of the backup of that hard drive; and 4) the erasure of another computer containing relevant ESI sometime two or three months after the collapse of the scaffolding at issue in this lawsuit.
  • As a result, the Special Master recommended sanctions against the defendant for its “callous and careless attitude” and sloppy measures taken in the course of discovery.
  • In response to these proposed sanctions, the defendant argued that none of its failures in the course of discovery were due to bad faith, and demonstrated that the plaintiff suffered only minimal prejudice.
  • Although the Special Master determined that the discovery failures were caused by a lack of caution while collecting and preserving evidence, rather than willful intent to alter discovery, he still recommended, and the court ordered, sanctions against the defendant.
  • Accordingly, the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff’s attorney fees and expenses accrued as a result of the defendant’s discovery failures, as well as pay the Special Master’s fees and expenses.  The defendant was also compelled to produce an image of the laptop that had been erased (from imaging conducted after the erasure) and the court reopened discovery in this case.  The court declined the Special Master’s recommendation for additional monetary sanctions ($50,000), though it did adopt his recommendation that the defendant “shall not seek indemnification or reimbursement from their insurance company” to pay the assessed fees.

So, what do you think? Were these sanctions merited, or should there be clear intent to deceive for such sanctions to be awarded? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Breaking News: News International to Suspend Deletion of Emails and Other Documents
 

According to The Independent, staff at Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers has been warned to stop deleting any documents that may be relevant to the current investigations, as a suspension of its usual policy about deletion of documents goes into effect.

Over the course of the 2011 investigation into illegal voicemail hacking by News International employees, there has been contention over the ongoing deletion of documents at the newspaper and its subsidiaries. But only during this past weekend did News International's parent company, News Corp, finally send an email to all of its employees instructing them to take measures preventing the deletion of documents that might be related to the investigation, including emails and other ESI.  Specifically, the email instructed employees to “Please suspend any automatic deletion or discarding of any documents, whether electronic or paper, including emails or drafts of documents… If you are uncertain whether a document is relevant… you should preserve it.”

Of course, the News Corp scandal has been not only significant eDiscovery news, but major world news as well.

  • Since January 2011, police have been investigating a list of roughly 4,000 potential targets whose voicemails may have been hacked as part of this scandal – including Hollywood celebrities, sports figures, politicians, and even members of the British Royal Family, most of whom were unaware of how easily their cell phone functions were hacked.
  • The newsroom at News of the World, the newspaper implicated in the systematic phone hacking, has been closed.
  • Sean Hoare, the whistle-blower who disclosed phone hacking at News of the World, was found dead in his home in Watford, Hertfordshire.  No cause of death has yet been identified.
  • During testimony to Parliament last week, Rupert Murdoch was attacked – by a pie wielding comedian, who was thwarted by Murdoch’s wife Wendi.

Although this email sends a positive message about News Corp's willingness to protect eDiscovery information from this point forward, the instruction arguably comes too late to protect the documents and other ESI that have potentially been destroyed in the months since the investigation into the paper's illegal phone hacking began as well as the years when News Corp faced numerous hacking claims during key periods associated with the those claims.  News International has acknowledged that some messages may be recoverable on backup disks, and the police are trying to recover that information now, said Tom Watson, a Labor Party member of Parliament.

From an eDiscovery perspective, this story may become “Enron-esque” before it’s all over.

So, what do you think? Is this instruction from News International a step toward greater openness and responsibility in this investigation, or is it simply a case of too little, too late? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Meet and Confer is Too Late for Preservation Hold

A US District court in Indiana ruled on June 28, 2011 in favor of a motion for an Order to Secure Evidence in an employment discrimination lawsuit.

The defendant in Haraburda v. Arcelor Mittal USA, Inc., No. 2:11 cv 93, 2011 WL 2600756 (N.D. Ind. June 28, 2011) had given the plaintiff reason to believe that emails and other relevant documents might be destroyed prior to Rule 26(f) meeting between the parties or Rule 16(b) discovery conference with the court. As a result, the plaintiff formally requested a litigation hold on all potentially relevant documents, which was approved by US Magistrate Judge Andrew Rodovich.

  • Shortly after filing a complaint of employment discrimination, the plaintiff, Marie A. Haraburda, became concerned that the defendant might destroy evidence that she intended to request in discovery. She emailed Sharon Stillman, a human resources manager of the defendant, Arcelor Mittal, about emails that had previously been deleted from her account and was informed that “files stored on company computers are company property and can be assessed and/or deleted as the company views appropriate”.
  • The defendant refused the plaintiff’s request that the defendant place a litigation hold on evidence or take other measures to protect potentially relevant documents, with the comment that such a request by the plaintiff was “premature”.
  • The plaintiff came to believe that the defendant would destroy relevant evidence before the Rule 26(f) discovery confidence, and, therefore, moved for an Order to Preserve Evidence.

In ruling, the court reminded all parties that they have “a duty to preserve evidence when [they know], or should have known, that litigation was imminent.” “Evidence” includes any materials that are relevant or could be deemed relevant during the litigation, including such emails as the plaintiff had brought to the defendant’s attention via Ms. Stillman. A large corporation, therefore, has a duty to not only create a “comprehensive” data protection plan to ensure that documents are preserved, but to inform its employees of that policy so that it will be scrupulously upheld, said the court.

The court also expressed the belief that given the plaintiff’s potential for difficulty if relevant materials were not protected, and in the absence of additional burden on the defendant to preserve existing evidence, the plaintiff’s motion was reasonable.  Accordingly, the court ordered a litigation hold placed “on any and all documents and information that may reasonably be related to the pending litigation”.

So, what do you think? Given previous case law examples, are you surprised that the defendant tried to delay the litigation hold? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: No Sanctions Ordered for Failure to Preserve Backups

A sanctions motion has been dismissed by the U.S. District Court of Texas in a recent case involving electronic backups and email records, on the grounds that there was no duty to preserve backup tapes and no bad faith in overwriting records.

The plaintiffs in Ajay Gaalla, et al v. Citizens Medical Center, et al, No. V-10-14, 2011 WL 2115670 (S.D. Tex. May 27, 2011) had made a motion for sanctions against the defendant for alleged damage to backup tapes, including emails and other electronic documentation. On May 27, the court denied the motion for sanctions against the defendant, although new instructions on maintaining copies of disaster recovery files have been imposed in this case.

  • Plaintiffs presented the argument that the “recycling” or overwriting of disaster recovery backup tapes by the defendant, performed on a 7- or 14-day cycle after the lawsuit was filed, represented spoliation. Accordingly, the plaintiffs requested the maximum sanctions against the defendant for “failure to preserve the backup tapes.”
  • Preservation of backup tapes was not previously been discussed in this case until this motion for sanctions on grounds of data spoliation, but plaintiffs alleged that the failure to preserve backups, coupled with the failure to take snapshots of particular email accounts and “evidence that certain CMC employees had deleted emails from their account at some point in the past”, warranted harsh sanctions.
  • The defendants argued that they had no duty to preserve backups of records, since disaster recovery systems are “rarely” backed up after litigation has begun. They also presented “snapshots” taken of email accounts to demonstrate that there was no intent to destroy information and that attempts had been made to record all relevant evidence.
  • The court referred to the ruling in Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. (S.D.N.Y. 2003), which states: “[A] litigation hold does not apply to inaccessible backup tapes (e.g., those typically maintained solely for the purpose of disaster recovery), which may continue to be recycled on the schedule set forth in the company’s policy.” Under this standard, the court found that the defendant was within its rights to overwrite the existing backups as often as such maintenance was normally scheduled.
  • The court also ruled that, with no prior discussion of the backup tapes and “in the context of this case,” there was no cause for sanctions against the defendant, lacking evidence that the defendant acted in bad faith in recycling the tapes used to make the recovery backups.
  • However, the court did order additional discovery efforts to be undertaken in the form of “disaster recovery first of the month” email files to be preserved in their current state and that plaintiffs’ expert be allowed to search them (at defendant’s expense) as well as a “journaling” process to retain email accounts of key parties in the case.

So, what do you think? Do parties have an obligation to maintain copies of all backup tapes for litigation? Please share any comments you might have, or let us know if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: District Court Judge Affirms $1 Million Sanction to Pappas in Victor Stanley
 

One of the first posts ever published in eDiscovery Daily was this one, where defendant Mark Pappas, President of Creative Pipe, Inc., was ordered by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm to  “be imprisoned for a period not to exceed two years, unless and until he pays to Plaintiff the attorney's fees and costs that will be awarded to Plaintiff as the prevailing party pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C).”.  Judge Grimm found that “Defendants…deleted, destroyed, and otherwise failed to preserve evidence; and repeatedly misrepresented the completeness of their discovery production to opposing counsel and the Court.”

Upon appeal, District Court Judge Marvin J. Garbis declined to adopt the order regarding incarceration, stating: “[T]he court does not find it appropriate to Order Defendant Pappas incarcerated for future possible failure to comply with his obligation to make payment of an amount to be determined in the course of further proceedings.”

Then, in January of this year, Judge Grimm entered an order awarding a total of $1,049,850.04 in “attorney’s fees and costs associated with all discovery that would not have been un[der]taken but for Defendants' spoliation, as well as the briefings and hearings regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions.”  As a result, the court awarded $901,553.00 in attorney’s fees and $148,297.04 in costs, including the costs for the Plaintiff’s computer forensic consultant, finding that “Defendants’ first spoliation efforts corresponded with the beginning of litigation” and that “Defendants’ misconduct affected the entire discovery process since the commencement of this case.”

Naturally, the award was appealed.

On Tuesday, June 14, Judge Garbis affirmed Judge Grimm’s prior Report and Recommendation ordering the award.  Judge Garbis noted that “The Court’s stated standard for includible fees and costs is consistent with the purpose of designing a sanction that will ‘restore the prejudiced party to the same position he would have been in absent the wrongful destruction of evidence by the opposing party.’  Judge Garbis discussed and rejected all of Creative Pipe’s objections as to the amount of the award, adopting Judge Grimm’s findings that all of these fees were in fact related to the discovery malfeasance.

With Creative Pipe having already paid a total of $478,409.92, a balance remains under the order of $571,440.12, which concluded with Judge Garbis stating that “Defendants shall, by July 15, 2011, pay Plaintiff…the balance due”.  No mention of Judge Grimm’s original automatic jail sanction for non-payment of the fees, though, Judge Garbis originally said he might impose jail sanctions for non-payment.

So, what do you think?  Will the defendant pay the rest?  Appeal to the Circuit Court?  Could he still go to jail?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Downloading Confidential Information Leads to Motion to Compel Production

The North Dakota District Court has recently decided in favor of a motion to compel production of electronic evidence, requiring imaging of computer hard drives, in a case involving the possible electronic theft of trade secrets.

In Weatherford U.S., L.P. v. Chase Innis and Noble Casings Inc., No. 4:09-cv-061, 2011 WL 2174045 (D.N.D. June 2, 2011), the court ruled to allow the plaintiff to select and hire a forensic expert at its own expense to conduct imaging of the defendants’ hard drives. The purpose of this investigation was to discern whether or not confidential data that was downloaded from the plaintiff’s computers was, in fact, used in the building of the defendants’ own oil services firm.

Although the judge noted that courts are generally “cautious” in authorizing such hard drive imaging, this motion was substantiated by the defendant, Innis’s, “acknowledgment that he downloaded [plaintiff’s] files to a thumb drive without permission.” The court believed that circumstances of the case warranted further investigation into the defendant’s computer history:

  • The plaintiff, Weatherford US LP, had previously alleged that Chance Innis, a former employee, had downloaded confidential and proprietary information and used it to his advantage in starting his own competing company, Noble Casing Inc.
  • Innis had admitted to returning to Weatherford US offices late in the evening of the day he was terminated and downloading files onto a thumb drive without permission. Two weeks later, he launched his own competing oil services company, the co-defendant in this case, Noble Casing Inc. However, Innis maintains that he did not later access the files stored on his thumb drive and never used them in the process of starting his own company.
  • Contrary to these assertions, forensic examination of the thumb drive showed that the files were later accessed; whether or not they were instrumental in the startup of Noble Casing Inc. remains in question.
  • The plaintiff requested access to the defendant’s computers in the pursuit of previously subpoenaed documents, proposing that they select, hire, and pay for the services of a forensic investigator to image the defendants’ hard drives.
  • The defendants objected, proposing instead that an expert be chosen in agreement by all parties.
  • The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff’s motion in this instance, agreeing that all materials imaged will be shown to the defendant to screen for privilege before being shared with the plaintiff.
  • The court maintained that it is not unusual for imaging of hard drives to be allowed by the court in cases such as this, “particularly in cases where trade secrets and electronic evidence are both involved.”

So, what do you think?  Do you agree that Weatherford should have been allowed to examine images of the defendants’ hard drives, or should Innis’ privacy and that of his company have been protected?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Avoiding eDiscovery Nightmares: 10 Ways CEOs Can Sleep Easier
 

I found this article in the CIO Central blog on Forbes.com from Robert D. Brownstone – it’s a good summary of issues for organizations to consider so that they can avoid major eDiscovery nightmares.  The author counts down his top ten list David Letterman style (clever!) to provide a nice easy to follow summary of the issues.  Here’s a summary recap, with my ‘two cents’ on each item:

10. Less is more: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2005 in the Arthur Andersen case that a “retention” policy is actually a destruction policy.  It’s important to routinely dispose of old data that is no longer needed to have less data subject to discovery and just as important to know where that data resides.  My two cents: A data map is a great way to keep track of where the data resides.

9. Sing Kumbaya: They may speak different languages, but you need to find a way to bridge the communication gap between Legal and IT to develop an effective litigation-preparedness program.  My two cents: Require cross-training so that each department can understand the terms and concepts important to the other.  And, don’t forget the records management folks!

8. Preserve or Perish: Assign the litigation hold protocol to one key person, either a lawyer or a C-level executive to decide when a litigation hold must be issued.  Ensure an adequate process and memorialize steps taken – and not taken.  My two cents: Memorialize is underlined because an organization that has a defined process and the documentation to back it up is much more likely to be given leeway in the courts than a company that doesn’t document its decisions.

7. Build the Three-Legged Stool: A successful eDiscovery approach involves knowledgeable people, great technology, and up-to-date written protocols.  My two cents: Up-to-date written protocols are the first thing to slide when people get busy – don’t let it happen.

6. Preserve, Protect, Defend: Your techs need the knowledge to avoid altering metadata, maintain chain-of-custody information and limit access to a working copy for processing and review.  My two cents: A good review platform will assist greatly in all three areas.

5. Natives Need Not Make You Restless: Consider exchanging files to be produced in their original/”native” formats to avoid huge out-of-pocket costs of converting thousands of files to image format.  My two cents: Be sure to address how redactions will be handled as some parties prefer to image those while others prefer to agree to alter the natives to obscure that information.

4. Get M.A.D.?  Then Get Even: Apply the Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.) principle to agree with the other side to take off the table costly volumes of data, such as digital voicemails and back-up data created down the road.  My two cents: That’s assuming, of course, you have the same levels of data.  If one party has a lot more data than the other party, there may be no incentive for that party to agree to concessions.

3. Cooperate to Cull Aggressively and to Preserve Clawback Rights: Setting expectations regarding culling efforts and reaching a clawback agreement with opposing counsel enables each side to cull more aggressively to reduce eDiscovery costs.  My two cents: Some parties will agree on search terms up front while others will feel that gives away case strategy, so the level of cooperation may vary from case to case.

2. QA/QC: Employ Quality Assurance (QA) tests throughout review to ensure a high accuracy rate, then perform Quality Control (QC) testing before the data goes out the door, building time in the schedule for that QC testing.  Also, consider involving a search-methodology expert.  My two cents: I cannot stress that last point enough – the ability to illustrate how you got from the large collection set to the smaller production set will be imperative to responding to any objections you may encounter to the produced set.

1. Never Drop Your Laptop Bag and Run: Dig in, learn as much as you can and start building repeatable, efficient approaches.  My two cents: It’s the duty of your attorneys and providers to demonstrate competency in eDiscovery best practices.  How will you know whether they have or not unless you develop that competency yourself?

So, what do you think?  Are there other ways for CEOs to avoid eDiscovery nightmares?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.