Close
Enter your
text here

Preservation

eDiscovery Case Law: Deliberately Produce Wrong Cell Phone, Get Sanctioned
 

In Moreno v. Ostly, No. A127780, (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2011), the California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s award of monetary sanctions imposed against the plaintiff and her law firm in the amount of $13,500 for counsel and plaintiff’s discovery misconduct related to the preservation of text messages.

The plaintiff sued her former law firm employer alleging sexual harassment, retaliation and failure to pay back wages.  She claimed that a partner at the firm “forced himself on her sexually” on a daily basis and that she was fired when she notified the partner that she wished to sever the “intimate aspect of their relationship.”  In discovery, defendants sought copies of relevant e-mails and text messages between the plaintiff and the partner.  After the parties' meet and confer efforts failed, the court ordered the plaintiff to produce her personal computer and cell phone for inspection.  The inspection revealed that the cell phone produced was different from the one plaintiff had during her course of employment.  When questioned regarding the discrepancy, plaintiff’s counsel responded that the defendants would have to undertake further discovery efforts to determine what happened to the relevant equipment.  The plaintiff’s attorney conceded that many of the text messages on the prior phone had been used against the defendants before the EEOC, but had not been preserved prior to the disposal of the cell phone.

The defendants filed a motion for terminating and monetary sanctions or, in the alternative, a willful suppression of evidence jury instruction.  The trial court awarded monetary sanctions, finding the plaintiff and her counsel deliberately withheld the fact that the plaintiff failed to preserve her cell phone data, causing opposing counsel and the court to expend unnecessary resources.  The court found plaintiff’s counsel’s conduct willful and his explanation citing a conflict between the duty of loyalty to the client and the duty of candor to opposing counsel and the court “not very credible.”

The court of appeals concluded the trial court's award of monetary sanctions was supported by substantial evidence, and was well within the discretion of the court.

So, what do you think?  Are you aware of any other blatant examples of evasive discovery?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: eDiscovery Case Law Update, by Littler Mendelson P.C.

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.

eDiscovery Case Law: Spoliate Evidence, Don’t Go to Jail, but Pay a Million Dollars
 

As previously referenced in eDiscovery Daily, 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.”

However, ruling on the defendants’ 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.”

So, how much is he ordered to pay?  Now we know.

On January 24, 2011, 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.”  Judge Grimm explained, “the willful loss or destruction of relevant evidence taints the entire discovery and motions practice.” So, the court found 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.”

As a result, the court awarded $901,553.00 in attorney’s fees and $148,297.04 in costs.  Those costs included $95,969.04 for the Plaintiff’s computer forensic consultant that was “initially hired . . . to address the early evidence of spoliation by Defendants and to prevent further destruction of data”.  The Plaintiff’s forensic consultant also provided processing services and participated in the preparation of plaintiff’s search and collection protocol, which the court found “pertained to Defendants’ spoliation efforts.”

So, what do you think?  Will the defendant pay?  Or will he be subject to possible jail time yet again?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: No Sanctions for Scrubbing Computers Assumed to be Imaged
 

When scrubbing data from a computer drive related to litigation, it’s a good idea to make absolutely sure that there is another copy of that data, via backup or forensic image.  Don’t just take someone’s word for it.

In Federal Trade Commission v. First Universal Lending, LLC, No. 09-82322-CIV, (S.D. Fla. Feb. 17, 2011), the FTC investigated the defendants for their mortgage modification practices by alleging that defendants had violated the Federal Trade Commission Act and that defendants had acted in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule. For the duration of the investigation, the court appointed a temporary receiver who took control of defendants’ business premises.

During the discovery stage, the FTC wanted to preserve relevant data that was on defendants’ computers and servers by imaging them. When defendants’ were ask about the locations of all relevant computers and servers, they failed to reveal the location of servers with relevant data. As a result, these servers were not imaged and thus the data was not preserved. Due to misleading testimony by defendants, the receiver believed that all computers and servers had been imaged. Because of the incorrect belief that all of the relevant data had been preserved, the receiver permitted defendants to scrub the computers and sell them. It turned out that some of these were the ones that had not been imaged.

Defendants filed a motion to enjoin the prosecution and/or moved for dismissal of the case due to plaintiff’s spoliation of evidence. Defendants asserted that the FTC had either destroyed or caused to be destroyed computer evidence that would prove all of the defendants’ defenses.

The court found no basis for imposing sanctions against the FTC for the destruction of defendants’ computer system and denied defendants’ motion. The court established that it can impose an adverse inference against a party where the court finds that the party has engaged in spoliation of evidence. For this inference to be applicable there has to be a finding of bad faith. A court can make this finding through direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. If bad faith is based on circumstantial evidence, the following prerequisites must be present: (1) evidence once existed that could fairly be supposed to have been material to the proof or defense of a claim at issue in the case; (2) the spoliating party engaged in an affirmative act causing the evidence to be lost; (3) the spoliating party did so while it knew or should have known of its duty to preserve the evidence; and (4) the affirmative act causing the loss cannot be credibly explained as not involving bad faith by the reason proffered by the spoliator.

The court found that there was no direct evidence of bad faith. Further it pointed out that defendants failed to establish bad faith by circumstantial evidence, since the FTC had not destroyed the computer systems, but rather, the defendants did. The court went on to state, that even assuming, arguendo, that defendants destroyed the hard drives due to the receiver’s agent’s instruction, it did not change the fact that neither the receiver, nor the agent is the FTC.

Furthermore, the court went on that to the extent that defendants’ position could be construed to seek to attribute blame to the FTC for the receiver’s instruction to scrub the computers based on the FTCs misstatement, there was no malicious motive on the FTC’s investigator evident. This was at most negligent, and negligence is not sufficient for an adverse inference instruction as a sanction for spoliation.

Further, the defendants did not demonstrate that the absence of the missing data was fatal to their defense because it was established that alternative sources of information existed.

At last, the court emphasized that the FTC was under no obligation to preserve defendants’ evidence, especially considering the fact that the FTC never had control or dominion over the computers – the receiver did.

So, what do you think?  What are your procedures for ensuring data backup before destruction?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: eLessons Learned Blog.

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.

eDiscovery Trends: George Socha of Socha Consulting
 

This is the seventh of the LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and asked each of them the same three questions:

  1. What do you consider to be the current significant trends in eDiscovery on which people in the industry are, or should be, focused?
  2. Which of those trends are evident here at LTNY, which are not being talked about enough, and/or what are your general observations about LTNY this year?
  3. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is George Socha.  A litigator for 16 years, George is President of Socha Consulting LLC, offering services as an electronic discovery expert witness, special master and advisor to corporations, law firms and their clients, and legal vertical market software and service providers in the areas of electronic discovery and automated litigation support. George has also been co-author of the leading survey on the electronic discovery market, The Socha-Gelbmann Electronic Discovery Survey.  In 2005, he and Tom Gelbmann launched the Electronic Discovery Reference Model project to establish standards within the eDiscovery industry – today, the EDRM model has become a standard in the industry for the eDiscovery life cycle and there are eight active projects with over 300 members from 81 participating organizations. George has a J.D. for Cornell Law School and a B.A. from the University of Wisconsin – Madison.

What do you consider to be the current significant trends in eDiscovery on which people in the industry are, or should be, focused?

On the very “flip” side, the number one trend to date in 2011 is predictions about trends in 2011.  They are part of a consistent and long-term pattern, which is that many of these trend predictions are not trend predictions at all – they are marketing material and the prediction is “you will buy my product or service in the coming year”.

That said, there are a couple of things of note.  Since I understand you talked to Tom about Apersee, it’s worth noting that corporations are struggling with working through a list of providers to find out who provides what services.  You would figure that there is somewhere in the range of 500 or so total providers.  But, my ever-growing list, which includes both external and law firm providers, is at more than 1,200.  Of course, some of those are probably not around anymore, but I am confident that there are at least 200-300 that I do not yet have on the list.  My guess when the list shakes out is that there are roughly 1,100 active providers out there today.  If you look at information from the National Center for State Courts and the Federal Judicial Center, you’ll see that there are about 11 million new lawsuits filed every year.  I saw an article in the Cornell Law Forum a week or two ago which indicated that there are roughly 1.1 million lawyers in the country.  So, there are 11 million lawsuits, 1.1 million lawyers and 1,100 providers.  Most of those lawyers have no experience with eDiscovery and most of those lawsuits have no provider involved, which means eDiscovery is still very much an emerging market, not even close to being a mature market.  As fast as providers disappear, through attrition or acquisition, new providers enter the market to take their place.

Which of those trends are evident here at LTNY, which are not being talked about enough, and/or what are your general observations about LTNY this year?

{Interviewed on the second afternoon of LTNY}  Maybe this is overly optimistic, but part of what I’m seeing in leading up to the conference, on various web sites and at the conference itself, is that a series of incremental changes taking place over a long period are finally leading to some radical differences.  One of those differences is that we finally are reaching a point where a number of providers can make the claim to being “end-to-end providers” with some legitimacy.  For as long as we’ve had the EDRM model, we’ve had providers that have professed to cover the full EDRM landscape, by which they generally have meant Identification through Production.  A growing number of providers not only cover that portion of the EDRM spectrum but have some ability to address Information Management, Presentation, or both   By and large, those providers are getting there by building their software and services based on experience and learning over the past 8 to 10 to 12 years, introducing new offerings at the show that reflect that learned experience.

A couple of days ago, I only half-jokingly issued “the Dyson challenge” (as in the Dyson vacuum cleaner).  Every year, come January, our living room carpet is strewn with pine tree needles and none of the vacuum cleaners that we have ever had have done a good job of picking up those needles.  The Dyson vacuum cleaner claims it cyclones capture more dirt than anything, but I was convinced that could not include those needles.  Nonetheless I tried, and to my surprise it worked like a charm!  I want to see the providers offering products able to perform at that high level, not just meeting but exceeding expectations.

I also see a feeling of excitement and optimism that wasn’t apparent at last year’s show.

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

As I mentioned, we have launched the Apersee web site, designed to allow consumers to find providers and products that fit their specific needs.  The site is in beta and the link is live.  It’s in beta because we’re still working on features to make it as useful as possible to customers and providers.  We’re hoping it’s a question of weeks, not months, before those features are implemented.  Once we go fully live, we will go two months with the system “wide open” – where every consumer can see all the provider and product information that any provider has put in the system.  After that, consumers will be able to see full provider and product profiles for providers who have purchased blocks of views.  Even if a provider does not purchase views, all selection criteria it enters are searchable, but search results will display only the provider’s name and website name.  Providers will be able to get stats on queries and how many times their information is viewed, but not detailed information as to which customers are connecting and performing the queries.

As for EDRM, we continue to make progress with an array of projects and a growing number of collaborative efforts, such as the work the Data Set group has down with TREC Legal and the work the Metrics group has done with the LEDES Committee. We not only want to see membership continue to grow, but we also want to continue to push for more active participation to continue to make progress in the various working groups.  We’ve just met at the show here regarding the EDRM Testing pilot project to address testing standards.  There are very few guidelines for testing of electronic discovery software and services, so the Testing project will become a full EDRM project as of the EDRM annual meeting this May to begin to address the need for those guidelines.

Thanks, George, 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!

eDiscovery Trends: Deidre Paknad of PSS Systems
 

This is the sixth of the LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and asked each of them the same three questions:

  1. What do you consider to be the current significant trends in eDiscovery on which people in the industry are, or should be, focused?
  2. Which of those trends are evident here at LTNY, which are not being talked about enough, and/or what are your general observations about LTNY this year?
  3. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Deidre Paknad.  Deidre is President & CEO of PSS Systems, an IBM Company.  Deidre is widely credited with having conceived of and launched the first commercial applications for legal holds, collections and retention management in 2004. A well-known thought leader in the legal and information governance domain, Deidre founded the Compliance, Governance and Oversight Council (CGOC), a professional community on retention and preservation that analyst firm IDC labeled a "think tank." She has been a member of several Sedona working groups since 2005 and leads the EDRM Information Management Reference Model (IMRM) working group.  Deidre is a seasoned entrepreneur and executive with 20 years' experience applying technology to poor-functioning business processes to reduce cost and risk. Prior to PSS, she helped Certus launch its Sarbanes Oxley software solution. Deidre previously founded and was CEO of CoVia Technologies from 1996 to 2000, where she was inducted into the Smithsonian Institution for innovation in 1999 and again in 2000.

What do you consider to be the current significant trends in eDiscovery on which people in the industry are, or should be, focused?

Well, certainly the social media explosion is one of the most talked about current trends.  Social media has brought about a huge change in the way we communicate, both personally and within organizations.  It’s one of the factors that is causing organizations to revisit where information comes from, where “messages” come from.  And, now there are more communications via social media than email.  In 2010, there were an estimated 1 trillion emails sent worldwide, but 89% of all emails sent is spam, so the number of “true emails” is far less, only about 110 billion.  Conversely, there were nearly 400 billion Facebook communications last year, over 700 billion views on YouTube and over 200 billion Twitter messages.  Organizations will have to face forward in addressing new sources of data and how to handle them as there will continue to be more social media communications (many viewed via mobile devices) with customers, employees, etc.  While most corporate social media tools today aren’t “discovery ready”, social and mobile media may level the information playing field between small and large litigants.

Another trend on which organizations are finally focusing more, that has been a significant focus of mine for some time, is information governance.  Since the Federal evidence rules were extended to electronic data in 2006, preservation sanctions are at an all-time high, despite the fact that organizations have adopted a mindset of “save everything”, which has led to unrestrained growth in data within organizations.  So, saving more data did not translate to less risk for organizations, but it did translate to more cost.  As noted in the 2009 Fulbright & Jaworski Litigation Report, the average cost to collect, cull and review information per case for large organizations has risen to $3 million, but the amount of that reviewed data that needed to be retained was only 30% and 70% was wasteful legal effort.   Even worse, organizations are spending 3.5% of revenues on information management – for the Fortune 50, that’s several billion dollars and a good chunk of it goes to managing unnecessary information and infrastructure.

Last year, the CGOC conducted a survey of legal, records management (RIM) and IT practitioners in Global 1000 companies and published the findings in an October report titled Information Governance Benchmark Report in Global 1000 Companies (You can request a copy of the report here and read eDiscovery Daily’s blog post about it here.).  75% of respondents identified the inability to defensibly dispose of data as their greatest challenge, and 70% of respondents indicated that they depend on “liaisons and people glue” to link discovery and regulatory obligations to information.  It’s an enterprise issue where Legal understands the obligations for data, business teams know the information value of the data and IT has the data, but no visibility to its obligations or business value.  So, there’s a big disconnect.

I think you’ll see that information governance and eDiscovery in general will become more connected to the overall business strategy.  When asked what they believe are the essential elements of information governance, 77% agreed retention schedules that reflect both regulatory and business needs and 85% of respondents agreed consistent collaboration and systematic linkage across legal, records and IT and were essential elements.  I think the Information Governance Benchmark Report has opened some eyes as to the importance of associating the legal obligations for and value of information to the assets IT is managing and the benefits of connecting legal, records and IT stakeholders and processes as an essential corporate strategy.

Which of those trends are evident here at LTNY, which are not being talked about enough, and/or what are your general observations about LTNY this year?

{Interviewed on the second afternoon of LTNY}  I think there’s some “retreading” of topics at this year’s show, for example, the Legal vs. IT keynote speech.  That’s really more of an issue for 2 or 3 years ago.  Legal and IT do collaborate narrowly on discovery responsiveness.  But the issues of the day are more at an overall company level – high costs and high risk associated with the unrestrained growth in data are caused by practices across the company, not just in the legal department.   Responding to discovery simply deals with the symptoms, but doesn’t treat the disease.

I think discussion about FRCP reform aimed at easing the burden of discovery is more timely and survey data from the CGOC community published in the legal holds and information governance benchmark reports provided evidence in the FRCP Preservation Comment of November 10, 2010 of the need to reshape the rules to reflect current needs.

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

Well, in addition to the significant reception that the information governance benchmark report has received, CGOC just conducted its 2011 Summit last month, with participation from a number of large corporations including Exxon Mobil, Travelers, Bank of America and Novartis.  The Summit included a number of presentations, and a mock discovery hearing conducted by Judge {Andrew J.} Peck {Magistrate Judge, SDNY} on how prevailing practices break down in cases like Harkabi where everyone took the right steps but still got the wrong results.  It also included breakout sessions for Legal, RIM and IT to discuss prevailing practices for discovery, retention and data disposal, improving processes within each of these departments to support the enterprise as well as starting and advancing the cross-functional dialogue between the departments.

I’m also very excited about the IMRM project within EDRM, a group I co-chair.  It aims to offer guidance and a responsibility framework for Legal, IT, Records Management, line-of-business leaders and other business stakeholders within organizations.  It’s an entirely new reference model that is a separate counterpart to EDRM and the model links the duty and value to information assets to result in efficient and effective management of information.

There is nothing I’m more excited about, however, than working with my new colleagues at IBM on solutions that help our customers to do rigorous, efficient eDiscovery, value-based retention, smarter archiving and defensible disposal. 

Thanks, Deidre, 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!

eDiscovery Trends: Jim McGann of Index Engines
 

This is the third of the LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and asked each of them the same three questions:

  1. What do you consider to be the current significant trends in eDiscovery on which people in the industry are, or should be, focused?
  2. Which of those trends are evident here at LTNY, which are not being talked about enough, and/or what are your general observations about LTNY this year?
  3. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Jim McGann.  Jim is Vice President of Information Discovery at Index Engines.  Jim has extensive experience with the eDiscovery and Information Management in the Fortune 2000 sector. He has worked for leading software firms, including Information Builders and the French-based engineering software provider Dassault Systemes.  In recent years he has worked for technology-based start-ups that provided financial services and information management solutions.

What do you consider to be the current significant trends in eDiscovery on which people in the industry are, or should be, focused?

What we’re seeing is that companies are becoming a bit more proactive.  Over the past few years we’ve seen companies that have simply been reacting to litigation and it’s been a very painful process because ESI collection has been a “fire drill” – a very last minute operation.  Not because lawyers have waited and waited, but because the data collection process has been slow, complex and overly expensive.  But things are changing. Companies are seeing that eDiscovery is here to stay, ESI collection is not going away and the argument of saying that it’s too complex or expensive for us to collect is not holding water. So, companies are starting to take a proactive stance on ESI collection and understanding their data assets proactively.  We’re talking to companies that are not specifically responding to litigation; instead, they’re building a defensible policy that they can apply to their data sources and make data available on demand as needed.    

Which of those trends are evident here at LTNY, which are not being talked about enough, and/or what are your general observations about LTNY this year?

{Interviewed on the first morning of LTNY}  Well, in walking the floor as people were setting up, you saw a lot of early case assessment last year; this year you’re seeing a lot of information governance..  That’s showing that eDiscovery is really rolling into the records management/information governance area.  On the CIO and General Counsel level, information governance is getting a lot of exposure and there’s a lot of technology that can solve the problems.  Litigation support’s role will be to help the executives understand the available technology and how it applies to information governance and records management initiatives.  You’ll see more information governance messaging, which is really a higher level records management message.

As for other trends, one that I’ll tie Index Engines into is ESI collection and pricing.  Per GB pricing is going down as the volume of data is going up.  Years ago, prices were a thousand per GB, then hundreds of dollars per GB, etc.  Now the cost is close to tens of dollars per GB. To really manage large volumes of data more cost-effectively, the collection price had to become more affordable.  Because Index Engines can make data on backup tapes searchable very cost-effectively, for as little as $50 per tape, data on tape has become  as easy to access and search as online data. Perhaps even easier because it’s not on a live network.  Backup tapes have a bad reputation because people think of them as complex or expensive, but if you take away the complexity and expense (which is what Index Engines has done), then they really become “full point-in-time” snapshots.  So, if you have litigation from a specific date range, you can request that data snapshot (which is a tape) and perform discovery on it.  Tape is really a natural litigation hold when you think about it, and there is no need to perform the hold retroactively.

So, what does the ease of which the information can be indexed from tape do to address the inaccessible argument for tape retrieval?  That argument has been eroding over the years, thanks to technology like ours.  And, you see decisions from judges like Judge Scheindlin saying “if you cannot find data in your primary network, go to your backup tapes”, indicating that they consider backup tapes in the next source right after online networks.  You also see people like Craig Ball writing that backup tapes may be the most convenient and cost-effective way to get access to data.  If you had a choice between doing a “server crawl” in a corporate environment or just asking for a backup tape of that time frame, tape is the much more convenient and less disruptive option.  So, if your opponent goes to the judge and says it’s going to take millions of dollars to get the information off of twenty tapes, you must know enough to be in front of a judge and say “that’s not accurate”.  Those are old numbers.  There are court cases where parties have been instructed to use tapes as a cost-effective means of getting to the data.  Technology removes the inaccessible argument by making it easier, faster and cheaper to retrieve data from backup tapes.

The erosion of the accessibility burden is sparking the information governance initiatives. We’re seeing companies come to us for legacy data remediation or management projects, basically getting rid of old tapes. They are saying “if I’ve got ten years of backup tapes sitting in offsite storage, I need to manage that proactively and address any liability that’s there” (that they may not even be aware exists).  These projects reflect a proactive focus towards information governance by remediating those tapes and getting rid of data they don’t need.  Ninety-eight percent of the data on old tapes is not going to be relevant to any case.  The remaining two percent can be found and put into the company’s litigation hold system, and then they can get rid of the tapes.

How do incremental backups play into that?  Tapes are very incremental and repetitive.  If you’re backing up the same data over and over again, you may have 50+ copies of the same email.  Index Engines technology automatically gets rid of system files and applies a standard MD5Hash to dedupe.  Also, by using tape cataloguing, you can read the header and say “we have a Saturday full backup and five incremental during the week, then another Saturday full backup”. You can ignore the incremental tapes and just go after the full backups.  That’s a significant percent of the tapes you can ignore.

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

Index Engines just announced today a partnership with LeClairRyan. This partnership combines legal expertise for data retention with the technology that makes applying the policy to legacy data possible.   For companies that want to build policy for the retention of legacy data and implement the tape remediation process we have advisors like LeClairRyan that can provide legacy data consultation and oversight.  By proactively managing the potential liability  of legacy data, you are also saving the IT costs to explore that data.

Index Engines  also just announced a new cloud-based tape load service that will provide full identification, search and access to tape data for eDiscovery. The Look & Learn service, starting at $50 per tape, will provide clients with full access to the index of their tape data without the need to install any hardware or software. Customers will be able to search the index and gather knowledge about content, custodians, email and metadata all via cloud access to the Index Engines interface, making discovery of data from tapes even more convenient and affordable.

Thanks, Jim, 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!

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

This is the second of the LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and asked each of them the same three questions:

  1. What do you consider to be the current significant trends in eDiscovery on which people in the industry are, or should be, focused?
  2. Which of those trends are evident here at LTNY, which are not being talked about enough, and/or what are your general observations about LTNY this year?
  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 Senior Advisor in BIA’s Advisory Services group and when he’s not advising clients on e-discovery issues he works closely with BIA’s product development group for its core technology products.  Alon has over fifteen 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.

What do you consider to be the current significant trends in eDiscovery on which people in the industry are, or should be, focused?

I think one of the important trends for corporate clients and law firms is cost control, whether it’s trying to minimize the amount of project management hours that are being billed or the manner in which the engagement is facilitated.  I’m not suggesting going full-bore necessarily, but taking baby steps to help control costs is a good approach.  I don’t think it’s only about bringing prices down, because I think that the industry in general has been able to do that naturally well.  But, I definitely see a new focus on the manner in which costs are managed and outsourced.  So, very specifically, scoping correctly is key, making sure you’re using the right tool for the right job, keeping efficiencies (whether that’s on the vendor side or the client side) by doing things such as not having five phone calls for a meeting to figure out what the key words are for field searching or just going out and imaging every drive before deciding what’s really needed. Bringing simple efficiencies to the mechanics of doing e-discovery saves tons of money in unnecessary legal, vendor and project management fees.  You can do things that are about creating efficiencies, but are not necessarily changing the process or changing the pricing.

I also see trends in technology, using more focused tools and different tools to facilitate a single project.  Historically, parties would hire three or four different vendors for a single project, but today it may be just one or two vendors or maybe even no vendors, (just the law firm) but, it’s the use of the right technologies for the right situations – maybe not just one piece of software, but leveraging several for different parts of the process.  Overall, I foresee fewer vendors per project, but more vendors increasing their stable of tools.  So, whereas a vendor may have had a review tool and one way of doing collection, now they may have two or three review tools, including an ECA tool, and one or two ways of doing collections. They have a toolkit from which they can choose the best set of tools to bring to the engagement.  Because they have more tools to market, vendors can have the right tool in-their-back-pocket whereas before the tool belonged to just one service provider so you bought from them, or you just didn’t have it.

Which of those trends are evident here at LTNY, which are not being talked about enough, and/or what are your general observations about LTNY this year?

{Interviewed on the first morning of LTNY} I think you have either a little or a lot of – depending on how aggressive I want to be with my opinion – that there seems to be a disconnect between what they’re speaking about in the panels and what we’re seeing on the floor.  But, I think that’s OK in that the conference itself, is usually a little bit ahead of the curve with respect to topics, and the technology will catch up.  You have topics such as predictive coding and social networking related issues – those are two big ones that you’ll see.  I think, for example, there are very few companies that have a solution for social networking, though we happen to have one.  And, predictive coding is the same scenario.  You have a lot of providers that talk about it, but you have a handful that actually do it, and you have probably even fewer than that who do it right.  I think that next year you’ll see many predictive coding solutions and technologies and many more tools that have that capability built into them.  So, on the conference side, there is one level of information and on the floor side, a different level.

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

BIA has a new product called TotalDiscovery.com, the industry’s first SaaS (software-as-a-service), on-demand collection technology that provides defensible collections.  We just rolled it out, we’re introducing it here at LegalTech and we’re starting a technology preview and signing up people who want to use the application or try it.  It’s specifically for attorneys, corporations, service providers – anyone who’s in the business and needs a tool for defensible data collection performed with agility (always hard to balance) – so without having to buy software or have expert training, users simply login or register and can start immediately.  You don’t have to worry about the traditional business processes to get things set up and started.  Which, if you think about it on the collections side of e-discovery it means that  the client’s CEO or VP of Marketing can call you up and say “I’m leaving, I have my PST here, can you just come get it?” and you can facilitate that process through the web, download an application, walk through a wizard, collect it defensibly, encrypt it and then deliver a filtered set, as needed, for review..

The tool is designed to collect defensibly and to move the collected data – or some subset of that data –to delivery, from there you would select your review tool of choice and we hand it off to the selected review tool.  So, we’re not trying to be everything, we’re focused on automating the left side of the EDRM.  We have loads to certain tools, having been a service provider for ten years, and we’re connecting with partners so that we can do the handoff, so when the client says “I’m ready to deliver my data”, they can choose OnDemand or Concordance or another review tool, and then either directly send it or the client can download and ship it.  We’re not trying to be a review tool and not trying to be an ECA tool that helps you find the needle in the haystack; instead, we’re focused on collecting the data, normalizing it, cataloguing it and handing if off for the attorneys to do their work.

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!

Deadline Extended to Vote for the Most Significant eDiscovery Case of 2010
 

Our ‘little experiment’ to see what the readers of eDiscoveryDaily think about case law developments in 2010 needs more time as we have not yet received enough votes yet to have a statistically significant result.  So, we’ve extended the deadline to select the case with the most significant impact on eDiscovery practices in 2010 to February 28.  Evidently, calling out the vote on the last business day before LegalTech is not the best timing.  Live and learn!

As noted previously, we have “nominated” five cases, which we feel were the most significant in different issues of case law, including duty to preserve and sanctions, clawback agreements under Federal Rule of Evidence 502, not reasonably accessible arguments and discoverability of social media content.  If you feel that some other case was the most significant case of 2010, you can select that case instead.  Again, it’s very important to note that you can vote anonymously, so we’re not using this as a “hook” to get your information.  You can select your case without providing any personal information.  However, we would welcome your comments as to why you selected the case you did and you can – optionally – identify yourself as well.

To get more information about the nominated cases (as well as other significant cases), click here.  To cast your vote, click here.

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

Vote for the Most Significant eDiscovery Case of 2010!
 

Since it’s awards season, we thought we would get into the act from an eDiscovery standpoint.  Sure, you have Oscars, Emmys and Grammys – but what about “EDDies”?  (I’ll bet you wondered what Eddie Munster could possibly have to do with eDiscovery, didn’t you?)

So, we’re conducting a ‘little experiment’ to see what the readers of eDiscoveryDaily think about case law developments in 2010.  This is our first annual “EDDies” award to select the case with the most significant impact on eDiscovery practices in 2010.  No cash or prizes being awarded, or even a statuette, but a chance to see what the readers think was the most important case of the year from an eDiscovery standpoint.

We have “nominated” five cases below, which we feel were the most significant in different issues of case law, including duty to preserve and sanctions, clawback agreements under Federal Rule of Evidence 502, not reasonably accessible arguments and discoverability of social media content.  We have a link to review more information about each case, and a link at the bottom of this post to cast your vote.

Very Important!  You can vote anonymously, so we’re not using this as a “hook” to get your information.  You can click on the link at the bottom, select your case and be done with it.  However, we would welcome your comments as to why you selected the case you did and you can – optionally – identify yourself as well.  eDiscoveryDaily will publish selected comments to reflect opinion of the voters as well as the vote results on February 7.  Click here to cast your vote now!

So, here are the cases:

Duty to Preserve/Sanctions

  • The Pension Committee of the Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities, LLC, 29010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4546 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010) (as amended May 28, 2010) – “Pension Committee”: The case that defined negligence, gross negligence, and willfulness in the electronic discovery context and demonstrated the consequences (via sanctions) resulting from those activities.  Judge Shira Scheindlin titled her 85-page opinion “Zubulake Revisited: Six Years Later”.  For more on this case, click here.
  • Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 2010 WL 3530097 (D. Md. 2010) – “Victor Stanley II”: The case of “the gang that couldn’t spoliate straight” where one of the defendants faced imprisonment for up to 2 years (subsequently set aside on appeal) and the opinion included a 12 page chart delineating the preservation and spoliation standards in each judicial circuit.  For more on this case, click here and here.

Clawback Agreements

  • Rajala v. McGuire Woods LLP, 2010 WL 2949582 (D. Kan. July 22, 2010) – “Rajala”: The case that addressed the applicability of Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) and (e) for “clawback” provisions for inadvertently produced privileged documents.  For more on this case, click here.

Not Reasonably Accessible

  • Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel, 2010 WL 2557250 (D.N.J. June 22, 2010) – “Major Tours”: The case that established a precedent that a party may obtain a Protective Order relieving it of the duty to access backup tapes, even when that party’s failure to issue a litigation hold caused the data not to be available via any other means.  For more on this case, click here.

Social Media Discovery

  • Crispin v. Christian Audigier Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 52832 (C.D. Calif. May 26, 2010) – “Crispin”: The case that used a 24 year old law (The Stored Communications Act of 1986) to address whether ‘private’ data on social networks is discoverable.  For more on this case, click here.

If you feel that some other case was the most significant case of 2010, you can select that case instead.  Other notable cases include:

  • Rimkus v. Cammarata, 2010 WL 645253 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2010): Where District Court Judge Lee Rosenthal examined spoliation laws of each of the 13 Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal.
  • Orbit One Communications Inc. v. Numerex Corp., 2010 WL 4615547 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2010): Magistrate Judge James C. Francis concluded that sanctions for spoliation must be based on the loss of at least some information relevant to the dispute (differing with “Pension Committee” in this manner).
  • DeGeer v. Gillis, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 97457(N.D. Ill. Sept. 17, 2010): Demonstration of inadvertent disclosure made FRE 502(d) effective, negating waiver of privilege.
  • Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 2010 WL 2640492 (D. Del. June 21, 2010): Defendants’ motion to compel the production of ESI for a period of 18 years was granted, with imposed cost-shifting.
  • E.E.O.C. v. Simply Storage Management, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 52766 (S.D. Ind. May 11, 2010): EEOC is ordered to produce certain social networking communications.
  • McMillen v. Hummingbird Speedway, Inc., No. 113-2010 CD (C.P. Jefferson, Sept. 9, 2010): Motion to Compel discovery of social network account log-in names and passwords was granted.

Click here to cast your vote now!  Results will be published in eDiscoveryDaily on February 7.

The success of this ‘little experiment’ will determine whether next year there is a second annual “EDDies” award.  😉

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

eDiscovery Trends: Sanctions Down in 2010 — at least thru December 1

Recently, this blog cited a Duke Law Journal study that indicated that eDiscovery sanctions were at an all-time high through 2009.  Then, a couple of weeks ago, I saw a story recently from Williams Mullen recapping the 2010 year in eDiscovery.  It provides a very thorough recap including 2010 trends in sanctions (identifying several cases where sanctions were at issue), advances made during the year in cooperation and proportionality, challenges associated with privacy concerns in foreign jurisdictions and trends in litigation dealing with social media.  It’s a very comprehensive summary of the year in eDiscovery.

One noteworthy finding is that, according to the report, sanctions were sought and awarded in fewer cases in 2010.  Some notable stats from the report:

  • There were 208 eDiscovery opinions in 2009 versus 209 through December 1, 2010;
  • Out of 209 cases with eDiscovery opinions in 2010, sanctions were sought in 79 of them (38%) and awarded in 49 (62% of those cases, and 23% of all eDiscovery cases).
  • Compare that with 2009 when sanctions were sought in 42% of eDiscovery cases and were awarded in 70% of the cases in which they were requested (30% of all eDiscovery cases).
  • While overall requests for sanctions decreased, motions to compel more than doubled in 2010, being filed in 43% of all e-discovery cases, compared to 20% in 2009.
  • Costs and fees were by far the most common sanction, being awarded in 60% of the cases involving sanctions.
  • However, there was a decline in each type of sanction as costs and fees (from 33 to 29 total sanctions), adverse inference (13 to 7), terminating (10 to 7), additional discovery (10 to 6) and preclusion (5 to 3) sanctions all declined.

The date of this report was December 17, and the report noted a total of 209 eDiscovery cases as of December 1, 2010.  So, final tallies for the year were not yet tabulated.  It will be interesting to see if the trend in decline of sanctions held true once the entire year is considered.

So, what do you think?  Is this a significant indication that more organizations are getting a handle on their eDiscovery obligations – or just a “blip in the radar”?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.