Close
Enter your
text here

Privileged

eDiscovery Trends: Email Footers Give Privilege Searches the Boot
 

This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the intended recipient(s) only and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or legally protected.  Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail message and delete all copies of the original communication. Thank you for your cooperation.

This is an example of a standard email disclaimer often automated to appear in the footer of outgoing emails to disclaim liability.  Many organizations choose to add disclaimers to their emails for legal protection to attempt to protect themselves from legal threats such as breach of confidentiality or accidental breach of privilege.

However, when it comes time to collect and search email collections for confidentiality and privilege, these email footers can wreak havoc with those searches.  Searches for the words “confidential” or “privileged” will essentially be rendered useless as they will literally retrieve every email with the email disclaimer footer in it.

So, what to do?

One way to address the issue is to identify any other variations of words and phrases that might imply privilege.  Searching for phrases like “attorney client” or “attorney work product” – provided those phrases are not in the footer – may identify many of the privileged files.

Another way is to shift your search focus to names of individuals likely to conduct privileged communications, such as the names of the attorneys communicating with the organization.  Sometimes you may not know the names of all of the attorneys, so a search for domains associated with the outside counsel firms should identify the names of the individuals sending from or receiving to those domains.

If searching for the term "privileged" is still the best way to ensure that you find all of the potentially privileged files, one of our readers, Mark Lyon, actually identified a better way to search for the term “privileged” that I sheepishly admit I did not think of late last night when I wrote this, so I had to amend this post to include it (a first!).   Identifying the various footers at use within at least the main companies included in the collection, then excluding those entire footers from the index will remove those footers from filling up your search results.  Another reader, Joe Howie, has discussed in more detail an approach for removing those footers from the index.  Thanks to both Mark and Joe for keeping me on my toes!  🙂

So, what do you think?  Are email disclaimer footers making your privileged searches more complicated?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Forbes on the Rise of Predictive Coding
 

First the New York Times with an article about eDiscovery, now Forbes.  Who’s next, The Wall Street Journal?  😉

Forbes published a blog post entitled E-Discovery And the Rise of Predictive Coding a few days ago.  Written by Ben Kerschberg, Founder of Consero Group LLC, it gets into some legal issues and considerations regarding predictive coding that are interesting.  For some background on predictive coding, check out our December blog posts, here and here.

First, the author provides a very brief history of document review, starting with bankers boxes and WordPerfect and “[a]fter an interim phase best characterized by simple keyword searches and optical character recognition”, it evolved to predictive coding.  OK, that’s like saying that Gone with the Wind started with various suitors courting Scarlett O’Hara and after an interim phase best characterized by the Civil War, marriage and heartache, Rhett says to Scarlett, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.”  A bit oversimplification of how review has evolved.

Nonetheless, the article gets into a couple of important legal issues raised by predictive coding.  They are:

  • Satisfying Reasonable Search Requirements: Whether counsel can utilize the benefits of predictive coding and still meet legal obligations to conduct a reasonable search for responsive documents under the federal rules.  The question is, what constitutes a reasonable search under Federal Rule 26(g)(1)(A), which requires that the responding attorney attest by signature that “with respect to a disclosure, it is complete and correct as of the time it is made”?
  • Protecting Privilege: Whether counsel can protect attorney-client privilege for their client when a privileged document is inadvertently disclosed.  Fed. Rule of. Evidence 502 provides that a court may order that a privilege or protection is not waived by disclosure if the disclosure was inadvertent and the holder of the privilege took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure.  Again, what’s reasonable?

The author concludes that the use of predictive coding is reasonable, because it a) makes document review more efficient by providing only those documents to the reviewer that have been selected by the algorithm; b) makes it more likely that responsive documents will be produced, saving time and resources; and c) refines relevant subsets for review, which can then be validated statistically.

So, what do you think?  Does predictive coding enable attorneys to satisfy these legal issues?   Is it reasonable?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Best Practices: What is “Reduping?”
 

As emails are sent out to multiple custodians, deduplication (or “deduping”) has become a common practice to eliminate multiple copies of the same email or file from the review collection, saving considerable review costs and ensuring consistency by not having different reviewers apply different responsiveness or privilege determinations to the same file (e.g., one copy of a file designated as privileged while the other is not may cause a privileged file to slip into the production set).  Deduping can be performed either across custodians in a case or within each custodian.

Everyone who works in electronic discovery knows what “deduping” is.  But how many of you know what “reduping” is?  Here’s the answer:

“Reduping” is the process of re-introducing duplicates back into the population for production after completing review.  There are a couple of reasons why a producing party may want to “redupe” the collection after review:

  • Deduping Not Requested by Receiving Party: As opposing parties in many cases still don’t conduct a meet and confer or discuss specifications for production, they may not have discussed whether or not to include duplicates in the production set.  In those cases, the producing party may choose to produce the duplicates, giving the receiving party more files to review and driving up their costs.  The attitude of the producing party can be “hey, they didn’t specify, so we’ll give them more than they asked for.”
  • Receiving Party May Want to See Who Has Copies of Specific Files: Sometimes, the receiving party does request that “dupes” are identified, but only within custodians, not across them.  In those cases, it’s because they want to see who had a copy of a specific email or file.  However, the producing party still doesn’t want to review the duplicates (because of increasing costs and the possibility of inconsistent designations), so they review a deduped collection and then redupe after review is complete.

Many review applications support the capability for reduping.  For example, FirstPass™, powered by Venio FPR™, suppresses the duplicates from review, but applies the same tags to the duplicates of any files tagged during first pass review.  When it’s time to export the collection, to either move the potentially responsive files on to linear review (in a product like OnDemand®) or straight to production, the user can decide at that time whether or not to export the dupes.  Those dupes have the same designations as the primary copies, ensuring consistency in handling them downstream.

So, what do you think?  Does your review tool support “reduping”?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Read Inadvertent Email, Get Disqualified from Case

Lesson of the day: When you receive an inadvertently sent privileged email, read it and don’t disclose receipt of it, you can get kicked off the case.

In Terraphase Engineering, Inc., et al. v. Arcadis, U.S., Inc, the court disqualified defendant’s in-house and outside counsel for their handling of a disputed privileged email that was inadvertently sent by the plaintiffs’ counsel to the defendant and shared with defendant’s outside counsel.  For more information regarding this case, check out this Law Technology News article.

When a group of employees left Arcadis to form a competing company, relations between the two soured quickly and led to litigation.  Just prior to filing their lawsuit, the plaintiffs’ attorney sent a strategy email to his clients, which contained an attachment that, according to the former employees, included “Plaintiffs’ privileged recitation of background and comments to and from legal counsel.” Unfortunately for the attorney (or maybe fortunately, as it turned out), the email system’s auto-complete function (which completes a saved email address as soon as you begin entering it) entered an old Arcadis email address for one of the employees, which wasn’t caught before sending. The email and the attachment went directly to Arcadis, which had been monitoring the plaintiffs’ email accounts since they resigned from the company.

Arcadis’ in-house counsel read the email and the attached document and apparently shared the email with their general counsel and Arcadis’ outside counsel (Gordon & Rees, LLP), neither of whom notified the plaintiffs’ attorney that they had received the email.  Arcadis’ counterclaim contained certain information that caused the plaintiffs to suspect that Arcadis and its counsel had reviewed their privileged communications, and Arcadis, when confronted, acknowledged that it had received the email and agreed to destroy all copies, but refused to identify who reviewed the e-mail.  Eventually, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a protective order to disqualify Arcadis’ counsel and prevent Arcadis from using the email or the attachment during the case, stipulating that attorneys are prohibited from using privileged material that they receive from an opposing party, and are under an ethical obligation to immediately notify the opposing party when such information is received.

Arcadis opposed the motion, arguing that in-house and outside counsel only conducted a cursory review of the email and attachment, and stated that it was not privileged because it was sent “unsolicited” to the plaintiff’s work e-mail, in which he had no reasonable expectation of privacy. Arcadis also argued because the information itself was not privileged and would be disclosed during discovery, the plaintiffs would suffer no irreparable harm. And, since there was no active litigation between the parties when Arcadis received the email, they argued that the rules of professional conduct did not apply.

The court rejected Arcadis’ arguments and ruled for the plaintiffs, disqualifying Arcadis’ outside counsel and the in-house counsel who reviewed the emails, also ruling that Arcadis’ general counsel must be “removed from all aspects of the day-to-day management of the case, including . . . making any substantive or strategic decisions with regard to the case.”.  Arcadis was also ordered to dismiss its counterclaim and the plaintiffs were awarded their costs and fees in connection with bringing the motion against Arcadis.

A copy of the order can be found here.

So, what do you think?  Have you ever been burned by an inadvertently sent email?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Best Practices: No Bates, No Problem for Native Files

As today’s document collections are almost entirely electronic in a format used by the native application (i.e., “native files”), it has become more commonplace to produce those original native files to opposing counsel in eDiscovery.  Producing the native files saves costs in converting the files to be produced to an image format (either TIFF or PDF) before production.  And, for the recipients of a production, receiving native files enables them to also receive the metadata associated with those files (as it is contained within the files themselves).  If you don’t understand the benefits of receiving the underlying metadata, try reviewing an image of an Excel spreadsheet and see if you can understand how the numbers were calculated without the underlying formulas.  Not so easy, is it?

However, it seems to “upset the legal apple cart” when attorneys have to contemplate applying Bates numbers to native files.  Because many native file types are not stored in a typical paginated, document-oriented format, it is difficult to impossible to determine the number of pages for each file.  Because attorneys are so used to having a Bates stamp on each page of a document, many are still known to produce (and request production) in an image format, adding costs unnecessarily.  That would be like printing out every email in your Inbox before reading them.

It has become commonplace for parties to agree (and courts to accept) a file-level “Bates” or Unique Production Identifier (UPI) where each file is named with a prefix and a sequential number (just like a Bates number, only they’re not stamped in the file, but used as the file name).  These productions are usually accompanied by a data file, containing metadata for loading into a review tool, which includes the original file name and path of each file being produced.  This form of production has become common for any size of case.

If there’s a concern about referencing individual page numbers at deposition or trial, any files used as exhibits can still be converted to image (or printed) and a number applied.  You could simply use the UPI as the prefix, followed by a sequential number, so page 3 of the 11th file in the production could be stamped like this: PROD000011-00003.  This enables you to uniquely identify each native file, and still correlate the native file with pages when printed.

Of course, when you have to redact files, it’s still more common to convert those files to image and apply the redactions to the images, as redaction of native files (though performed in some cases) has not yet become a widespread practice.  One miracle at a time!

So, what do you think?  Are your productions routinely in native format?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: EDRM Metrics Privilege Survey
 

As a member of the EDRM Metrics Project for the past four years, I have seen several accomplishments by the group to provide an effective means of measuring the time, money and volumes associated with eDiscovery activities, including:

  • Code Set: An extensive code set of activities to be tracked from Identification through Presentation, as well as Project Management.
  • Case Study: A hypothetical case study that illustrates at each phase why metrics should be collected, what needs to be measured, how metrics are acquired and where they’re recorded, and how the metrics can be used.
  • Cube: A simple graphical model which illustrates the EDRM phases, aspects to be tracked (e.g., custodians, systems, media, QA, activities, etc.) and the metrics to be applied (i.e., items, cost, volume, time).

The EDRM Metrics project has also been heavily involved in proposing a standard set of eDiscovery activity codes for the ABA’s Uniform Task Based Management System (UTBMS) series of codes used to classify the legal services performed by a law firm in an electronic invoice submission.

Now, we need your help for an information gathering exercise.

We are currently conducting a Metrics Privilege survey to get a sense throughout the industry as to typical volumes and percentages of privileged documents within a collection.  It’s a simple, 7 question survey that strives to gather information regarding your experiences with privileged documents (whether you work for a law firm, corporation, provider or some other organization).

If you have a minute (which is literally all the time it will take), please take the survey and pass along to your colleagues to do so as well.  The more respondents who participate, the more representative the survey will be as to the current eDiscovery community.  To take the survey, go to edrm.net or click here.  EDRM will publish the results in the near future.

So, what do you think?  What are your typical metrics with regard to privileged documents?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Judges’ Guide to Cost-Effective eDiscovery
 

Last week at LegalTech, I met Joe Howie at the blogger’s breakfast on Tuesday morning.  Joe is the founder of Howie Consulting and is the Director of Metrics Development and Communications for the eDiscovery Institute, which is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit research organization for eDiscovery.

eDiscovery Institute has just released a new publication that is a vendor-neutral guide for approaches to considerably reduce discovery costs for ESI.  The Judges’ Guide to Cost-Effective E-Discovery, co-written by Anne Kershaw (co-Founder and President of the eDiscovery Institute) and Joe Howie, also contains a foreword by the Hon. James C. Francis IV, Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of New York.  Joe gave me a copy of the guide, which I read during my flight back to Houston and found to be a terrific publication that details various mechanisms that can reduce the volume of ESI to review by up to 90 percent or more.  You can download the publication here (for personal review, not re-publication), and also read a summary article about it from Joe in InsideCounsel here.

Mechanisms for reducing costs covered in the Guide include:

  • DeNISTing: Excluding files known to be associated with commercial software, such as help files, templates, etc., as compiled by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, can eliminate a high number of files that will clearly not be responsive;
  • Duplicate Consolidation (aka “deduping”): Deduping across custodians as opposed to just within custodians reduces costs 38% for across-custodian as opposed to 21% for within custodian;
  • Email Threading: The ability to review the entire email thread at once reduces costs 36% over having to review each email in the thread;
  • Domain Name Analysis (aka Domain Categorization): As noted previously in eDiscoveryDaily, the ability to classify items based on the domain of the sender of the email can significantly reduce the collection to be reviewed by identifying emails from parties that are clearly not responsive to the case.  It can also be a great way to quickly identify some of the privileged emails;
  • Predictive Coding: As noted previously in eDiscoveryDaily, predictive coding is the use of machine learning technologies to categorize an entire collection of documents as responsive or non-responsive, based on human review of only a subset of the document collection. According to this report, “A recent survey showed that, on average, predictive coding reduced review costs by 45 percent, with several respondents reporting much higher savings in individual cases”.

The publication also addresses concepts such as focused sampling, foreign language translation costs and searching audio records and tape backups.  It even addresses some of the most inefficient (and therefore, costly) practices of ESI processing and review, such as wholesale printing of ESI to paper for review (either in paper form or ultimately converted to TIFF or PDF), which is still more common than you might think.  Finally, it references some key rules of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct to address the ethical duty of attorneys in effective management of ESI.  It’s a comprehensive publication that does a terrific job of explaining best practices for efficient discovery of ESI.

So, what do you think?  How many of these practices have been implemented by your organization?  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 Case Law: When is Attorney-Client Communication NOT Privileged?

One answer: When it’s from your work email account, and your employer has a written policy that company email is not private and subject to audit.  Oh, and you’re suing your employer.

In Holmes v. Petrovich Dev. Co., LLC, 2011 WL 117230 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2011), a California court of appeals upheld a trial court ruling that emails from a plaintiff to her attorney via her company’s computer “did not constitute ‘confidential communication between client and lawyer’ within the meaning of Evidence Code section 952” and thus were not privileged.

The plaintiff, Gina Holmes worked as an executive assistant at Petrovich Development of Sacramento, California.  When hired, she read and signed the company’s policies regarding use of computers, which informed employees that they had no right of privacy to any personal information created or maintained on company computers, and that such information was subject to monitoring.

Holmes claimed Petrovich Development became hostile when it found out she was pregnant shortly after being hired in 2004 and used her company’s computer to communicate with an attorney, eventually quitting her job and suing her employer.  During the case, emails between her and her attorney were introduced at trial “to show Holmes did not suffer severe emotional distress, was only frustrated and annoyed, and filed the action at the urging of her attorney”.  Despite plaintiff’s protests that the emails were privileged, they were not excluded from evidence at trial.  Rather, the trial court ruled that the emails “were not protected … because they were not private.”  Because the plaintiff did not prevail on any of her claims, she appealed, claiming the court erred in failing to exclude the emails.

In a 3-0 decision by the Sacramento Third Appellate District, they affirmed the findings of the trial court, stating that the plaintiff’s use of the company computer after being expressly advised that her messages were not private was “akin to consulting her attorney in one of defendants’ conference rooms, in a loud voice, with the door open, yet unreasonably expecting that the conversation overheard … would be privileged.”.  The court also noted that “communication under these circumstances is not a “‘confidential communication between client and lawyer’ “ within the meaning of section 952 because it is not transmitted “by a means which, so far as the client is aware, discloses the information to no third persons other than those who are present to further the interest of the client in the consultation….”.

So, what do you think?  Was justice served?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.