Close
Enter your
text here

Privileged

eDiscovery Best Practices: Tips for Saving Money in Litigation
 

A recent article on The National Law Journal (entitled Top 12 tips for saving money in litigation, authored by Damon W.D. Wright) had some good tips for – you guessed it – saving money during litigation.  I thought it would be worth discussing some of these, especially those that relate to eDiscovery cost savings practices.

  1. Conduct targeted preservation and collection: As the author notes, the duty to preserve is “not supposed to cause business operations to grind to a halt” and “the focus should be on the specific subject matter, evidence and likely witnesses in the case”.  If you promptly investigate and quickly identify those likely custodians and act to preserve their data, you’re probably satisfying your duty to preserve.  Just don’t lose sight of organization-wide processes that affect those likely witnesses, such as automated deletion policies, and suspend them for those witnesses, at least.  Don’t make the same mistake that EchoStar did.
  2. Calibrate the budget to the amount and importance of the case:  Ralph Losey, in his interview with eDiscovery Daily, spoke about bottom line proportional review and the idea of setting a budget based on the size and potential exposure of each case.  It simply doesn’t make sense to spend the same amount of effort in routine cases as it does for the “bet your company on the outcome” cases.
  3. File in a fast-moving court: Or pursue transfer if you’re the defendant.  Certainly, the longer a case drags out, the more expensive it is, and that includes for eDiscovery.
  4. Know the court: The author addresses this from a general perspective, but it could be important from an eDiscovery perspective, as a part of that.  Enough case law related to eDiscovery exists now that many judges have started to establish at least some track record with regard to issues such as spoliation, proportionality and sharing of eDiscovery costs.  It’s important to know how your judge views those issues.
  5. Have a key client liaison: Nobody knows the client better than the client themselves, so identifying the right person to serve as a liaison between the client and counsel can not only improve communications, but also streamline process and save costs.  As the author noted, the ideal client liaison will “know the organization well and have the authority, perseverance and communication skill needed to get the attention of others.”
  6. Select vendors and experts with care: The author notes that “you should always obtain price estimates (comparing ‘apples to apples’)” when considering eDiscovery vendors.  As a part of that, it’s important to make sure those comparisons are truly “apples to apples” and comprehensive.  Are per GB processing charges for the original (compressed) GB size or expanded?  Do hosting charges include per user fees or other ancillary charges or are they strictly per GB?  It’s important to make sure those distinctions are clear when comparing. 
  7. Try to get along with opposing counsel: While some are easier to get along with than others, the ability to cooperate with opposing counsel and discuss various discovery issues in the Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) conference (such as limits to discovery, form of production, privilege, etc.) will save considerable costs up front if the parties can agree.
  8. Allow opposing counsel to inspect and copy documents at their expense: Although most collections are predominantly in electronic form, there are still paper documents to be addressed and if you can make a non-privileged collection available for them to go through and select and copy the documents they want, that saves on your production costs.
  9. Limit e-mail production by custodians, search terms and date range: As the author noted and eDiscovery Daily previously noted, it’s not only a good idea for producing parties to limit production scope, but model orders to limit scope in patent cases are now being adopted in various jurisdictions, including Texas.
  10. Seek agreement on a narrowed privilege log and a no-waiver order: If you’re successful in #7 above, this should be part of what you try to negotiate.  It helps if both parties have similar concerns regarding the effort and cost to determine privilege and prepare a privilege log.
  11. Pursue cost-shifting for discovery: As yesterday’s post reflects, courts are more often expecting requesting parties to share in the discovery costs when the requests for information result in an undue burden or cost for the producing party.  And, as the author noted, the model order establishes specific parameters for patent cases and the expectation for requesting parties to pay for additional discovery.
  12. Stipulate to facts not in dispute: Why conduct discovery on facts not in dispute?  The author’s recommendation for early stipulations is a great idea for eliminating discovery in areas where it’s not necessary.

So, what do you think?  Did you get some good ideas?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Daily will resume with new posts on Tuesday after the Easter holiday.  Have an eggs-cellent weekend!

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: Two Pages Inadvertently Disclosed Out of Two Million May Still Waive Privilege
 

In Jacob v. Duane Reade, Inc., 11 Civ. 0160 (JMO) (THK), Magistrate Judge Theodore Katz of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York found that a privileged, two-page email that was inadvertently produced did not have to be returned and that the privilege had been waived because the producing party, Duane Reade, had failed to request its return in a timely manner.  According to Defendants' counsel, the ESI production involved the review of over two million documents in less than a month; that review was accomplished with the assistance of an outside vendor and document review team.

The Plaintiffs in this matter are Assistant Store Managers pursuing a collective action for overtime wages, under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), against the Defendant, Duane Reade.  The email that was inadvertently produced (on November 8, 2011 and subsequently used in deposition) related to a meeting among several individuals within Human Resources, including an in-house attorney at Duane Reade (assumed to be Julie Ko). The defendants discovered the inadvertent production on January 17 of this year when Duane Reade’s HR Manager (an attendee at the meeting) was noticed for deposition.  The defendants argued that the email was inadvertently produced because it was neither from nor to an attorney, and only included advice received at a meeting from an in-house attorney, identified in the email only by the first name “Julie.”

With regard to whether the email was privileged, the court examined the email and found that the first half, where Ko received information from business managers and, in her role as legal counsel, gave legal advice on the requirements of the FLSA, was privileged.  However, the second half of the email, consisting of proposals that came out of the meeting, to get the Store Managers and Assistant Store Managers to view and treat the ASM's as managers, contained no legal advice and, therefore, was not privileged.

As to whether the Defendant’s waived attorney-client privilege when inadvertently producing the email, the Court referenced a summary of the law in this subject provided by Judge Shira Scheindlin, as follows:

“Although the federal courts have differed as to the legal consequences of a party's inadvertent disclosure of privileged information, the general consensus in this district is that the disclosing party may demonstrate, in appropriate circumstances, that such production does not constitute a waiver of the privilege or work-product immunity and that it is entitled to the return of the mistakenly produced documents. In determining whether an inadvertent disclosure waives privilege, courts in the Second Circuit have adopted a middle of the road approach. Under this flexible test, courts are called on to balance the following factors: (1) the reasonableness of the precautions to prevent inadvertent disclosure; (2) the time taken to rectify the error; (3) "the scope of the discovery;" (4) the extent of the disclosure; and (5) an over[arching] issue of fairness.”

The Court ruled that the production of the email was inadvertent and that Duane Reade had employed reasonable precautions to prevent inadvertent disclosures (such as drafting lists of attorney names, employing search filters and quality control reviews). However, given the over two month time frame for the Defendants to request return of the email, the Court determined that the privilege was waived because the Defendants did not act “promptly to rectify the disclosure of the privileged email.”

So, what do you think?  Was waiver of privilege fair for this document?  Or should the Defendants have been able to claw it back?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

eDiscovery Trends: Delaware Has a New Standard for eDiscovery
 

On Dec. 8 of last year, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware revised the "Default Standard for Discovery, Including Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (ESI)" for the third time to reflect recent changes in technology and to address concerns of attorneys regarding the discovery of ESI.  The new Default Standard expects the parties to reach agreements cooperatively on how to conduct discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26-36. If the parties are unable to agree on the parameters and/or timing of discovery, the default standards will apply until further order of the Court or the parties reach agreement (which is why it’s a default standard).

The Revised Default Standard addresses several provisions for conducting discovery of ESI, including:

  • Proportionality: Parties are expected to preserve, identify and produce relevant information in a proportional manner.
  • Preservation: Each party’s normal policies and procedures in place for the preservation and backup of information will not be altered unless the party requesting the information provides good cause and that information current when the request is made must be preserved by the producing party. The preservation requirement doesn’t extend to data only discoverable by forensics, voice mails, information stored on mobile devices, RAM, and data from obsolete systems.
  • Privilege: The parties are expected to confer on the nature and scope of privilege logs for the case, including whether categories of information may be excluded from any logging requirements and whether alternatives to document-by-document logs can be exchanged.
  • Initial Discovery Conference: The new Default Standard provides guidelines for the timing (before the "Rule 16 Conference”) and content (issues, sources of potentially relevant ESI, production formats, handling of privileged information, categories of ESI to preserve, etc.) of the Initial Discovery Conference.
  • Initial Disclosures: Within 30 days after the Rule 16 Conference, each party is required to disclose a ranked list of the 10 custodians most likely to have discoverable information in their possession, a ranked list of the non-custodial data sources that are most likely to contain non-duplicative discoverable information and any issues related to ESI, third-party discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 and production of information subject to privacy protections.
  • Patent Litigation Discovery Requirements: The timing, starting within 30 days after the Rule 16 Conference, for the plaintiff and defendant obligations are detailed.  In patent litigation proceedings, discovery is limited to 6 years before the complaint unless the information in question relates to the conception of the invention in question.
  • On-Site Inspection of Electronic Media:  Not permitted without good cause.
  • Search Methodology: Producing parties must disclose their search terms to the requesting party and the requesting party may request no more than ten additional terms which must not be overbroad (e.g., product and company names).
  • Format: ESI and non-ESI should be produced to the requesting party as text searchable image files (e.g., PDF or TIFF) unless they are not easily converted to image files (e.g., Excel and Access files).
  • Metadata Fields: The only fields required to be produced (if available) are – Custodian, File Path, Email Subject, Conversation Index, From, To, CC, BCC, Date Sent, Time Sent, Date Received, Time Received, Filename, Author, Date Created, Date Modified, MD5 Hash, File Size, File Extension, Control Number Begin, Control Number End, Attachment Range, Attachment Begin, and Attachment End (or the equivalent thereof).

So, what do you think?  How do these standards compare to those in your state?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

eDiscovery Daily Is Eighteen! (Months Old, That Is)
 

Eighteen months ago yesterday, eDiscovery Daily was launched.  A lot has happened in the industry in eighteen months.  We thought we might be crazy to commit to a daily blog each business day.  We may be crazy indeed, but we still haven’t missed a business day yet.

The eDiscovery industry has grown quite a bit over the past eighteen months and is expected to continue to do so.   So, there has not been a shortage of topics to address; instead, the challenge has been selecting which topics to address.

Thanks for noticing us!  We’ve more than doubled our readership since the first six month period, had two of our biggest “hit count” days in the last month and have more than quintupled our subscriber base since those first six months!  We appreciate the interest you’ve shown in the topics and will do our best to continue to provide interesting and useful eDiscovery news and analysis.  And, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic!

We also want to thank the blogs and publications that have linked to our posts and raised our public awareness, including Pinhawk, The Electronic Discovery Reading Room, Unfiltered Orange, Atkinson-Baker (depo.com), Litigation Support Technology & News, Next Generation eDiscovery Law & Tech Blog, InfoGovernance Engagement Area, Justia Blawg Search, Learn About E-Discovery, Ride the Lightning, Litigation Support Blog.com, ABA Journal, Law.com and any other publication that has picked up at least one of our posts for reference (sorry if I missed any!).  We really appreciate it!

As we’ve done in the past, we like to take a look back every six months at some of the important stories and topics during that time.  So, here are some posts over the last six months you may have missed.  Enjoy!

eDiscovery Trends: Is Email Still the Most Common Form of Requested ESI?

eDiscovery Trends: Sedona Conference Provides Guidance for Judges

eDiscovery Trends: Economy Woes Not Slowing eDiscovery Industry Growth

eDiscovery Law: Model Order Proposes to Limit eDiscovery in Patent Cases

eDiscovery Case Law: Court Rules 'Circumstantial Evidence' Must Support Authorship of Text Messages for Admissibility

eDiscovery Best Practices: Cluster Documents for More Effective Review

eDiscovery Best Practices: Could This Be the Most Expensive eDiscovery Mistake Ever?

eDiscovery 101: Simply Deleting a File Doesn’t Mean It’s Gone

eDiscovery Case Law: Facebook Spoliation Significantly Mitigates Plaintiff’s Win

eDiscovery Best Practices: Production is the “Ringo” of the eDiscovery Phases

eDiscovery Case Law: Court Grants Adverse Inference Sanctions Against BOTH Sides

eDiscovery Trends: ARMA International and EDRM Jointly Release Information Governance White Paper

eDiscovery Trends: The Sedona Conference International Principles

eDiscovery Trends: Sampling within eDiscovery Software

eDiscovery Trends: Small Cases Need Love Too!

eDiscovery Case Law: Court Rules Exact Search Terms Are Limited

eDiscovery Trends: DOJ Criminal Attorneys Now Have Their Own eDiscovery Protocols

eDiscovery Best Practices: Perspective on the Amount of Data Contained in 1 Gigabyte

eDiscovery Case Law: Computer Assisted Review Approved by Judge Peck in New York Case

eDiscovery Case Law: Not So Fast on Computer Assisted Review

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: The Zubulake Rules of Civil Procedure
 

As noted in Law Technology News (N.Y. Appellate Division Continues to Press 'Zubulake' EDD Standard) recently, the New York Appellate Division has embraced the federal standards of Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 FRD 212 in two case rulings within a month’s time.

In Voom HD Holdings v. EchoStar Satellite LLC, 600292/08, the decision, written by Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, was the first by a New York state appellate court to apply the standard for spoliation of electronic evidence applied by Judge Shira Scheindlin in Zubulake in 2003.  As defined by Judge Scheindlin, the Zubulake standard asserts that "once a party reasonably anticipates litigation, it must suspend its routine document retention/destruction policy and put in place a 'litigation hold' to ensure the preservation of relevant documents."

The case relates to a 2005 contract dispute between EchoStar and Cablevision subsidiary Voom HD Holdings, within which Voom agreed to provide EchoStar rights to broadcast Voom's programming.  Once the case was filed by Voom in February 2008, EchoStar put a litigation hold in place, instructing employees to save anything that they deemed potentially relevant to the litigation, but did not extend this hold to stopping automatic deletion of eMails from EchoStar's computers until four months later in June 2008.

Voom moved for spoliation sanctions against EchoStar for failing to preserve its eMails and Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Richard Lowe granted the motion, citing Zubulake, finding that EchoStar should have put in place a litigation hold (including a stop to automatic deletion of e-mails) in June 2007, when its corporate counsel sent Voom a letter containing a notice of breach, a demand and an explicit reservation of rights (i.e., reasonably anticipated litigation).  Therefore, EchoStar was given an adverse inference sanction (they had also received a similar sanction in 2005 in Broccoli v. EchoStar Communications Corp., 229 FRD 506).

EchoStar appealed and requested the appellate court to adopt a rule that a company must preserve documents when litigation is pending or when it has "notice of a specific claim."  However, that argument was rejected by The First Department, which ruled that “EchoStar and amicus's approach would encourage parties who actually anticipate litigation, but do not yet have notice of a 'specific claim' to destroy their documents with impunity” and upheld the sanction.

In U.S. Bank National Association v. GreenPoint Mortgage Funding Inc., 600352/09, the First Department held that the producing party should bear the initial costs of "searching for, retrieving and producing discovery," but that lower courts may permit cost shifting based on the factors set forth in Zubulake.  The case was filed by U.S. Bank, NA (indenture trustee for the insurers and holders of the mortgage-backed notes issued by GreenPoint Mortgage Funding Inc., a now defunct mortgage lender specializing in "no-doc" and "low-doc" loans) against GreenPoint.

U.S. Bank served its first document production request on GreenPoint along with its original complaint; however, GreenPoint did not produce the requested documents.  Instead, they moved for a protective order arguing that U.S. Bank should pay the costs associated with its document requests including the cost of attorney review time for confidentiality and privilege assertions.  The court upheld GreenPoint's argument that the "party seeking discovery bears the costs incurred in its production" but rejected GreenPoint's request for U.S. Bank to also bear the attorney costs for privilege and confidentiality determinations.

Upon appeal, the First Department reversed the lower court's conclusion that the requesting party bear the cost of production, finding that, per the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Zubulake, the producing party should “bear the cost of the searching for, retrieving, and producing documents, including electronically stored information.”  In the February 28 ruling, Justice Rolando Acosta wrote that the court was “persuaded that Zubulake should be the rule in this Department.”  However, the court also ruled that the lower court could order cost shifting under CPLR Article 31 between the parties by considering the seven factors set forth in Zubulake.

What are those seven factors?  Tune in tomorrow, when we will provide a refresher to the Zubulake case and its various opinions!

So, what do you think?  Is the Zubulake standard appropriate for these two cases?  Is it appropriate for cases in general?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

eDiscovery Case Law: At The Eleventh Hour, Encrypted Hard Drive Is Decrypted
 

In our previous post regarding the case U.S. v. Fricosu, Colorado district judge Robert Blackburn ruled that a woman must produce an unencrypted version of her Toshiba laptop's hard drive to prosecutors in a mortgage fraud case for police inspection.  The woman, Ramona Fricosu, had argued that the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination protected her from having to disclose the password to her hard drive, which was encrypted using PGP Desktop and seized when investigators served a search warrant on her home.

In providing his ruling, Judge Blackburn referenced In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Boucher in which a password protected laptop was seized. After an initial magistrate judge ruling finding that the defendant could not be compelled to reveal the contents of his mind (via the password), the grand jury requested (which a Vermont District judge granted) to require the defendant to produce, not the password itself, but rather an unencrypted version of the drive.

While Judge Blackburn ruled that Fricosu was required to provide the government in this case with an unencrypted copy of the Toshiba laptop computer’s hard drive, he also ruled that the government would be “precluded from using Ms. Fricosu’s act of production of the unencrypted contents of the computer’s hard drive against her in any prosecution”.

Still, the defendant appealed.  On February 21st, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to get involved, saying Ramona Fricosu's case must first be resolved in District Court before her attorney can appeal.  She would have been required to turn over the unencrypted contents of the drive as of March 1.

However, at the last minute, Colorado federal authorities decrypted the laptop.  “They must have used or found successful one of the passwords the co-defendant (Scott Whatcott) provided them,” Fricosu’s attorney, Philip Dubois, said in a telephone interview.  Dubois said the authorities delivered to him a copy of the information they discovered on the drive, but he said he had not examined it.

So, what do you think?  Will disclosure of the password preclude a later appeal?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Google’s Blunder Keeps Them Under the (Smoking) Gun

As we noted back in November, a mistake made by Google during discovery in its lawsuit with Oracle could cost the company dearly, perhaps billions.  Here’s a brief recap of the case:

Google is currently involved in a lawsuit with Oracle over license fees associated with Java, which forms a critical part of Google’s Android operating system.  Google has leveraged free Android to drive mobile phone users to their ecosystem and extremely profitable searches and advertising.

Despite the use of search technology to cull down a typically large ESI population, a key email, written by Google engineer Tim Lindholm a few weeks before Oracle filed suit against Google, was produced that could prove damaging to their case.  With the threat of litigation from Oracle looming, Lindholm was instructed by Google executives to identify alternatives to Java for use in Android, presumably to strengthen their negotiating position.

“What we’ve actually been asked to do (by Larry and Sergey) is to investigate what technical alternatives exist to Java for Android and Chrome,” the email reads in part, referring to Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin. “We’ve been over a bunch of these, and think they all suck. We conclude that we need to negotiate a license for Java under the terms we need.”

Lindholm added the words “Attorney Work Product” and sent the email to Andy Rubin (Google’s top Android executive) and Google in-house attorney Ben Lee; however, Lindholm’s computer saved nine drafts of the email while he was writing it – before he added the words and addressed the email to Lee.  Because Lee’s name and the words “attorney work product” weren’t on the earlier drafts, they weren’t picked up by the eDiscovery software as privileged documents, and they were produced to Oracle.

Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court in Oakland, California, indicated to Google’s lawyers that it might suggest willful infringement of Oracle’s patents and despite Google’s motion to “clawback” the email on the grounds it was “unintentionally produced privileged material”, Alsup refused to exclude the document at trial.  Google next filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., seeking to have the appeals court overrule Alsup’s decision permitting Oracle to use the email as evidence in the trial.

On February 6, the Federal Circuit upheld Alsup’s ruling that the email is not privileged, denying Google’s mandamus petition. Observing that the email was written at the request of Google’s co-founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin (who are not lawyers) and did not refer specifically to legal advice or the senior counsel’s investigation, the appeals court rejected Google’s petition.

As we noted before, organizing the documents into clusters based on similar content, might have grouped the unsent drafts with the identified “attorney work product” final version and helped to ensure that the drafts were classified as intended and not produced.

So, what do you think?  Could this mistake cost Google billions?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

eDiscovery Trends: International Trade Commission Considers Proportionality Proposal
 

As eDiscovery costs continue to escalate, proposals to bring proportionality to the eDiscovery process have become increasingly popular, such as this model order to limit eDiscovery in patent cases proposed by Federal Circuit Chief Judge Randall Rader last year (which was adopted for use in this case).  In January, Chief Judge Rader and three members of the Council (Council Chairman Ed Reines of Weil, Tina Chappell of Intel Corporation, and John Whealan, Associate Dean of Intellectual Property Studies at the George Washington University School of Law) presented a proposal to the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) to streamline eDiscovery in section 337 investigations.

Under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1337), the USITC conducts investigations into allegations of certain unfair practices in import trade. Section 337 declares the infringement of certain statutory intellectual property rights and other forms of unfair competition in import trade to be unlawful practices. Most Section 337 investigations involve allegations of patent or registered trademark infringement.

The proposal tracks the approach of the district court eDiscovery model order that is being adopted in several district courts and under consideration in others. Chairman Reines described the proposal as flexible, reasonably simple, and easy to administer. Under the proposal, litigants would:

  • Indicate whether ESI such as email is being sought or not;
  • Presumptively limit the number of custodians whose files will be searched, the locations of those documents, and the search terms that will be used (if litigants exceed the specified limits, they would assume the additional costs);
  • Use focused search terms limited to specific contested issues; and
  • Allow privileged documents to be exchanged without losing privilege.

For more regarding the regarding the USITC proposal to streamline eDiscovery in section 337 investigations, including reactions from USITC members, click to see the USITC press release here.

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

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Preparing Your 30(b)(6) Witnesses
 

When it comes to questions and potential issues that the receiving party may have about the discovery process of the producing party, one of the most common and direct methods for conducting “discovery about the discovery” is a deposition under Federal Rule 30(b)(6). This rule enables a party to serve a deposition notice on the entity involved in the litigation rather than an individual. The notice identifies the topics to be covered in the deposition, and the entity being deposed must designate one or more people qualified to answer questions on the identified topics.

While those designated to testify may not necessarily have day-to-day responsibility related to the identified topics, they must be educated enough in those issues to sufficiently address them during the testimony. Serving a deposition notice on the entity under Federal Rule 30(b)(6) saves the deposing party from having to identify specific individual(s) to depose while still enabling the topics to be fully explored in a single deposition.

Topics to be covered in a 30(b)(6) deposition can vary widely, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. However, there are some typical topics that the deponent(s) should be prepared to address.

Legal Hold Process: Perhaps the most common area of focus in a 30(b)(6) deposition is the legal hold process as spoliation of data can occur when the legal hold process is unsound and data spoliation is the most common cause of sanctions resulting from the eDiscovery process.  Issues to address include:

  • General description of the legal hold process including all details of that policy and specific steps that were taken in this case to effectuate a hold.
  • Timing of issuing the legal hold and to whom it was issued.
  • Substance of the legal hold communication (if the communication is not considered privileged).
  • Process for selecting sources for legal hold, identification of sources that were eliminated from legal hold, and a description of the rationale behind those decisions.
  • Tracking and follow-up with the legal hold sources to ensure understanding and compliance with the hold process.
  • Whether there are any processes in place in the company to automatically delete data and, if so, what steps were taken to disable them and when were those steps taken?

Collection Process: Logically, the next eDiscovery step discussed in the 30(b)(6) deposition is the process for collecting preserved data:

  • Method of collecting ESI for review, including whether the method preserved all relevant metadata intact.
  • Chain of custody tracking from origination to destination.

Searching and Culling: Once the ESI is collected, the methods for conducting searches and culling the collection down for review must be discussed:

  • Method used to cull the ESI prior to review, including the tools used, the search criteria for inclusion in review and how the search criteria was developed (including potential use of subject matter experts to flush out search terms).
  • Process for testing and refining search terms used.

Review Process: The 30(b)(6) witness(es) should be prepared to fully describe the review process, including:

  • Methods to conduct review of the ESI including review application(s) used and workflow associated with the review process.
  • Use of technology to assist with the review, such as clustering, predictive coding, duplicate and near-duplicate identification.
  • To the extent the process can be described, methodology for identifying and documenting privileged ESI on the privilege log (this methodology may be important if the producing party may request to “claw back” any inadvertently produced privileged ESI).
  • Personnel employed to conduct ESI review, including their qualifications, experience, and training.

Production Process: Information regarding the production process, including:

  • Methodology for organizing and verifying the production, including confirmation of file counts and spot QC checks of produced files for content.
  • The total volume of ESI collected, reviewed, and produced.

Depending on the specifics of the case and discovery efforts, there may be further topics to be addressed to ensure that the producing party has met its preservation and discovery obligations.

So, what do you think?  Have you had to prepare 30(b)(6) witnesses for deposition?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

eDiscovery Case Law: Fifth Amendment Doesn’t Extend to Encrypted Hard Drives – Or Does It?
 

In the case U.S. v. Fricosu, Colorado district judge Robert Blackburn has ruled that a woman must produce an unencrypted version of her Toshiba laptop's hard drive to prosecutors in a mortgage fraud case for police inspection.  The woman, Ramona Fricosu, had argued that the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination protected her from having to disclose the password to her hard drive, which was encrypted using PGP Desktop and seized when investigators served a search warrant on her home.

The day the search warrant was carried, Fricosu spoke with her imprisoned ex-husband Scott (indicted with Fricosu in the case) by phone. The conversation was recorded, and Fricosu implied that relevant information could be found on the encrypted laptop:

Scott: (SC [simultaneous conversation]) oh yeah that’s right it was on your laptop wasn’t it

Ramona: I think so but I’m not sure

Scott: OK

Ramona: yeah cause they kept asking me for passwords and I said, ya know no I just didn’t answer them

Scott: right (SC). Because when you went there you took your laptop

Ramona: yeah I think so I think I did

Scott: and so (SC) it would been on there

Ramona: yeah

Scott: OK

Ramona: and my lawyer said I’m not obligated by law to give them any passwords or anything they need to figure things out for themselves

Based on this conversation, the government sought a warrant under the “All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, requiring Ms. Fricosu to produce the unencrypted contents of the computer.”  Fricosu declined, “asserting her privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment”.

In providing his ruling, Judge Blackburn referenced In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Boucher in which child pornography was identified on the defendant's laptop during a border search in Vermont. When the laptop was later seized, it was determined to be password protected. A magistrate judge initially sided with the defendant finding that he could not be compelled to reveal the contents of his mind, which is what the act of producing the password would be.  Revising the grand jury’s request to require the defendant to produce, not the password itself, but rather an unencrypted version of the drive, a Vermont District judge granted that request.

With that case as precedent, Judge Blackburn ruled that Fricosu was required to provide the government in this case with an unencrypted copy of the Toshiba laptop computer’s hard drive.  However, Judge Blackburn also ruled that the government would be “precluded from using Ms. Fricosu’s act of production of the unencrypted contents of the computer’s hard drive against her in any prosecution”.

Fricosu’s attorney has indicated he plans to appeal the ruling and noted that his client may not even be able to decrypt the hard drive, stating “If that's the case, then we'll report that fact to the court, and the law is fairly clear that people cannot be punished for failure to do things they are unable to do”.

So, what do you think?  Should production of the hard drive have been compelled?  Does the preclusion from using evidence from the hard drive against her in prosecution address any Fifth Amendment concerns?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.