Close
Enter your
text here

Production

Quality Control, Making Sure the Numbers Add Up: eDiscovery Best Practices

Having touched on this topic a few years ago, a recent client experience spurred me to revisit it.

Friday, we wrote about tracking file counts from collection to production, the concept of expanded file counts, and the categorization of files during processing.  Today, let’s walk through a scenario to show how the files collected are accounted for during the discovery process.

Tracking the Counts after Processing

We discussed the typical categories of excluded files after processing – obviously, what’s not excluded is available for searching and review.  Even if your approach includes technology assisted review (TAR) as part of your methodology, it’s still likely that you will want to do some culling out of files that are clearly non-responsive.

Documents during review may be classified in a number of ways, but the most common ways to classify documents as to whether they are responsive, non-responsive, or privileged.  Privileged documents are also often classified as responsive or non-responsive, so that only the responsive documents that are privileged need be identified on a privilege log.  Responsive documents that are not privileged are then produced to opposing counsel.

Example of File Count Tracking

So, now that we’ve discussed the various categories for tracking files from collection to production, let’s walk through a fairly simple eMail based example.  We conduct a fairly targeted collection of a PST file from each of seven custodians in a given case.  The relevant time period for the case is January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2014.  Other than date range, we plan to do no other filtering of files during processing.  Identified duplicates will not be reviewed or produced.  We’re going to provide an exception log to opposing counsel for any file that cannot be processed and a privilege log for any responsive files that are privileged.  Here’s what this collection might look like:

  • Collected Files: After expansion and processing, 7 PST files expand to 101,852 eMails and attachments.
  • Filtered Files: Filtering eMails outside of the relevant date range eliminates 23,564
  • Remaining Files after Filtering: After filtering, there are 78,288 files to be processed.
  • NIST/System Files: eMail collections typically don’t have NIST or system files, so we’ll assume zero (0) files here. Collections with loose electronic documents from hard drives typically contain some NIST and system files.
  • Exception Files: Let’s assume that a little less than 1% of the collection (912) is exception files like password protected, corrupted or empty files.
  • Duplicate Files: It’s fairly common for approximately 30% or more of the collection to include duplicates, so we’ll assume 24,215 files here.
  • Remaining Files after Processing: We have 53,161 files left after subtracting NIST/System, Exception and Duplicate files from the total files after filtering.
  • Files Culled During Searching: If we assume that we are able to cull out 67% (approximately 2/3 of the collection) as clearly non-responsive, we are able to cull out 35,618.
  • Remaining Files for Review: After culling, we have 17,543 files that will actually require review (whether manual or via a TAR approach).
  • Files Tagged as Non-Responsive: If approximately 40% of the document collection is tagged as non-responsive, that would be 7,017 files tagged as such.
  • Remaining Files Tagged as Responsive: After QC to ensure that all documents are either tagged as responsive or non-responsive, this leaves 10,526 documents as responsive.
  • Responsive Files Tagged as Privileged: If roughly 8% of the responsive documents are determined to be privileged during review, that would be 842 privileged documents.
  • Produced Files: After subtracting the privileged files, we’re left with 9,684 responsive, non-privileged files to be produced to opposing counsel.

The percentages I used for estimating the counts at each stage are just examples, so don’t get too hung up on them.  The key is to note the numbers in red above.  Excluding the interim counts in black, the counts in red represent the different categories for the file collection – each file should wind up in one of these totals.  What happens if you add the counts in red together?  You should get 101,852 – the number of collected files after expanding the PST files.  As a result, every one of the collected files is accounted for and none “slips through the cracks” during discovery.  That’s the way it should be.  If not, investigation is required to determine where files were missed.

So, what do you think?  Do you have a plan for accounting for all collected files during discovery?  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. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Quality Control By The Numbers: eDiscovery Best Practices

Having touched on this topic a few years ago, a recent client experience spurred me to revisit it.

A while back, we wrote about Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) in the eDiscovery process.  Both are important in improving the quality of work product and making the eDiscovery process more defensible overall.  With regard to QC, an overall QC mechanism is tracking of document counts through the discovery process, especially from collection to production, to identify how every collected file was handled and why each non-produced document was not produced.

Expanded File Counts

Scanned counts of files collected are not the same as expanded file counts.  There are certain container file types, like Outlook PST files and ZIP archives that exist essentially to store a collection of other files.  So, the count that is important to track is the “expanded” file count after processing, which includes all of the files contained within the container files.  So, in a simple scenario where you collect Outlook PST files from seven custodians, the actual number of documents (emails and attachments) within those PST files could be in the tens of thousands.  That’s the starting count that matters if your goal is to account for every document or file in the discovery process.

Categorization of Files During Processing

Of course, not every document gets reviewed or even included in the search process.  During processing, files are usually categorized, with some categories of files usually being set aside and excluded from review.  Here are some typical categories of excluded files in most collections:

  • Filtered Files: Some files may be collected, and then filtered during processing. A common filter for the file collection is the relevant date range of the case.  If you’re collecting custodians’ source PST files, those may include messages outside the relevant date range; if so, those messages may need to be filtered out of the review set.  Files may also be filtered based on type of file or other reasons for exclusion.
  • NIST and System Files: Many file collections also contain system files, like executable files (EXEs) or Dynamic Link Library (DLLs) that are part of the software on a computer which do not contain client data, so those are typically excluded from the review set. NIST files are included on the National Institute of Standards and Technology list of files that are known to have no evidentiary value, so any files in the collection matching those on the list are “De-NISTed”.
  • Exception Files: These are files that cannot be processed or indexed, for whatever reason. For example, they may be password-protected or corrupted.  Just because these files cannot be processed doesn’t mean they can be ignored, depending on your agreement with opposing counsel, you may need to at least provide a list of them on an exception log to prove they were addressed, if not attempt to repair them or make them accessible (BTW, it’s good to establish that agreement for disposition of exception files up front).
  • Duplicate Files: During processing, files that are exact duplicates may be put aside to avoid redundant review (and potential inconsistencies). Some exact duplicates are typically identified based on the HASH value, which is a digital fingerprint generated based on the content and format of the file – if two files have the same HASH value, they have the same exact content and format.  Emails (and their attachments) may be identified as duplicates based on key metadata fields, so an attachment cannot be “de-duped” out of the collection by a standalone copy of the same file.

All of these categories of excluded files can reduce the set of files to actually be searched and reviewed.  On Monday, we’ll illustrate an example of a file set from collection to production to illustrate how each file is accounted for during the discovery process.

So, what do you think?  Do you have a plan for accounting for all collected files during discovery?  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. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Plaintiff Ordered to Re-Produce Files in Native Format Because it Failed to Meet and Confer with Defendant: eDiscovery Case Law

You’d think a distributor of bar exam materials would know better…

In Themis Bar Review, LLC v. Kaplan, Inc., Case No. 14CV208-L, (S.D. Cal. May 26, 2015), California Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major ordered the plaintiff pay for the cost to produce files in native format after the plaintiff originally produced unsearchable PDF images without metadata and failed to properly meet and confer with the defendant regarding production format as stipulated in the parties’ Joint Discovery Plan.

Case Background

On January 9, 2015, the plaintiff produced a CD-Rom containing spreadsheets reflecting the plaintiff’s pass rate statistics by jurisdiction and the records of its students’ bar exam results with the percentage of the plaintiff’s course work that each student had completed.  The spreadsheets were produced as PDF copies of the electronic files that had been Microsoft Excel spreadsheets – the produced PDF copies were stripped of their filtering, sorting, and searching capabilities.

On April 22, the plaintiff produced a hard drive containing 822,493 pages of email communications, again as imaged PDF files with no searchable text or metadata, despite the defendant’s repeated requests for the production to include extracted text.  The defendant had also previously offered to meet and confer to discuss the required production format.  The plaintiff ultimately responded by stating that the Joint Discovery Plan only required the production of PDF documents and that the parties had “never discussed producing the hard drive with extracted text, nor the . . . format of the hard drive production.”  The defendant responded that the Joint Discovery Plan sets forth a procedure for requesting the production of metadata that requires both sides to meet and confer regarding the request.

On May 7, the plaintiff produced the Mircosoft Excel spreadsheets in native format and explained “[p]reviously, you demanded that we provide the native files to you without explanation. For the first time, you explained in your motion to compel why Kaplan needed the files in native format.”  On May 12, the defendant offered to pay half of the cost – up to $8,200 – for the plaintiff “to produce the e-mails and attachments in the format we have specified in our motion”, but the plaintiff refused, stating they would only do so if the defendant paid the entire cost to re-produce.

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to the dispute regarding the Joint Discovery Plan, Judge Major excerpted the portion of the plan at issue, including this passage:

“If a party believes, on a case-by-case basis, that documents should be produced in a format other than native format, or that metadata should be produced, the parties collectively agree that they will meet and confer in good faith to discuss such alternative production arrangements.”

As a result, Judge Major ruled as follows:

“Based on the evidence provided by the parties and for the reasons set forth herein, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant’s request that Plaintiff reproduce the spreadsheets in native format, GRANTS Defendant’s request for production of the emails with associated metadata in searchable format, and REQUIRES Plaintiff to pay for the cost of reproducing the emails with the associated metadata in searchable format. The Court finds that it is appropriate that Plaintiff pay for the reproduction because Plaintiff ignored Defendant’s request to produce the documents in the native format with metadata, failed to meet and confer with Defendant as required by the Joint Discovery Plan, and then produced the documents in the unsearchable PDF format without metadata.”

So, what do you think?  Should the plaintiff have been ordered to re-produce the documents at their own cost?  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. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Plaintiff Ordered to Image its Sources of ESI, Respond to Disputed Discovery Requests: eDiscovery Case Law

In Electrified Discounters, Inc. v. MI Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:13cv1332 (RNC) (D. Conn. May 19, 2015), Connecticut Magistrate Judge Donna F. Martinez granted the defendant’s motion to compel the plaintiff ‘s responses to discovery and ordered the plaintiff to “image its sources of electronically stored information (‘ESI’), including its hard drives and QuickBook files”.

Case Background

In this trademark infringement case between competitors who sell replacement lamps for rear projection televisions and front projectors via online marketplaces, the defendants filed a motion to compel the plaintiff ‘s responses to discovery and argued that the plaintiff failed to issue a timely litigation hold and that the plaintiff’s production of ESI was “careless and indifferent.”  Specifically, the defendant stated that the plaintiff anticipated filing a lawsuit against the defendant in 2011, but that the plaintiff’s attorney admittedly did not counsel his client regarding its duty to retain relevant information until 2013 when the lawsuit was filed.

Additionally, in March 2015, the plaintiff’s company president testified in his deposition that he routinely deletes emails based on their age when his mailbox becomes full, that he deletes emails about once a month, that he continued to delete emails during this litigation and, on the day before his deposition, he deleted approximately 1000 emails.  Other records also were admittedly destroyed by the plaintiff company, which responded to the defendant’s request for plaintiff’s lamp sales that “[a]s part of its routine business practices, Electrified discards its records of lamps sales after approximately one year following payment.”

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to the defendant’s criticism of plaintiff’s failure to institute a timely litigation hold and its careless and indifferent production efforts after the duty to preserve arose, Judge Martinez stated “After reviewing the deposition testimony of Electrified’s witnesses, the court agrees that the defendant’s concern is well-founded.”  Those depositions included one plaintiff employee, who testified that his company uses a Quickbooks program, which contains detailed inventory and sales records dating back to 2006 as well as the company president, who also acknowledged that the Quickbook database contains inventory and sales information.

Citing Pension Committee and Zubulake, Judge Martinez stated that “The duty to preserve evidence is ‘well established.’”  With regard to the plaintiff’s admitted preservation failures, she stated “This cannot continue. Pending the final disposition of all claims in this action, plaintiff Electrified is ordered to preserve all documents, electronically-stored information, and/or tangible things that might be relevant to this subject matter or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action.”  In an attempt to limit further spoliation of data, Judge Martinez stated that the plaintiff “shall image its sources of electronically stored information (‘ESI’), including its hard drives and QuickBook files.”

With regard to the twenty discovery requests in dispute, Judge Martinez granted the defendant’s motion to compel for each one, ordering the plaintiff to search and produce responsive ESI within 14 days of the order.  She also ordered the plaintiff “to show cause by June 2, 2015 why the court should not award defendant [requested] attorney’s fees incurred in the making of the motion to compel pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5).”

So, what do you think?  Are sanctions the next step in this case?  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. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Resolves Dispute Over Scope of Databases and Searches to be Performed: eDiscovery Case Law

After a week of reviewing previous cases we’ve covered this year with a couple of pop quizzes, we’re back in the saddle covering new cases…

In Willett, et al. v. Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-1241-JCH/LAM (D.N.M. May 8, 2015), New Mexico District Judge Lourdes A. Martinez ordered the defendants to produce a spreadsheet referred of file folders, with information for the files on their virtual server(s), the plaintiffs to provide the defendant with a reasonable list of search terms, limited to the relevant time frame, parties, and issues of this case and for the defendants to perform the searches specified by the plaintiffs within ten days of receiving the searches.

Case Background

In this class action case, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants engaged in nonconsensual automated calls to the plaintiffs on their cellular telephones in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in order to collect fines imposed by the City of Albuquerque for traffic violations and submitted requests for admission (RFAs) to the defendants to ask them to admit that they obtained the telephone numbers for specific plaintiffs from a skip tracing service. As for the plaintiffs’ document requests, the defendants produced an initial set of 19,000 Bates-labeled pages of documents in response to those requests, but the plaintiffs argued that the production was inadequate and moved to compel a larger production. In turn, the defendants filed their own motion, opposing the plaintiffs’ motion, arguing that the plaintiffs had refused to engage in a search term discussion regarding its database, which contained 1.6 terabytes of data.

The defendants also noted that the cost of processing their entire virtual server to enable more targeted searches would cost between $100,000 and $160,000, but if the parties were to agree to limit the data to be processed, such as by file type, keywords, and creation dates, the defendants might be able to perform those searches at a reasonable cost; otherwise, the cost could be shifted to the plaintiffs or split between the parties.

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to the defendants’ objections to the plaintiffs’ requests for admission, Judge Martinez found that “Defendants’ objections are without merit and should be overruled” and stated that “Defendants’ use of boilerplate, blanket objections are improper” and that the defendants’ “objections that these RFAs do not relate to the parties in this case are especially baffling since the requests specifically name the three Plaintiffs”.

As for the document requests, Judge Martinez ruled that she would “not order CWGP and Credit Control to conduct a search of the entire virtual server because it does not appear that that conducting a search of the entire 1.6 terabytes of data in the virtual server at a cost of $100,000 to $160,000 would be proportional to the likely benefit of such a search”. She also found that “limiting the search of the virtual server by file type, keywords, and creation dates, is a reasonable solution”. As a result, Judge Martinez ordered the defendants to produce a spreadsheet referred of file folders, with information for the files on their virtual server(s), the plaintiffs to provide the defendant with a reasonable list of search terms, limited to the relevant time frame, parties, and issues of this case and for the defendants to perform the searches specified by the plaintiffs within ten days of receiving the searches.

So, what do you think? Was the judge’s decision a reasonable compromise regarding the parties’ search disputes? 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. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

When Collecting Emails, Make Sure You Have a Complete Outlook: eDiscovery Best Practices

I’m out of the office this week, taking the kiddos on a family vacation (can you guess where?). Instead of going dark for the week (which we almost never do), I decided to use the opportunity to give you a chance to catch up on cases we’ve covered so far this year with a couple of case law pop quizzes, sandwiched around a popular post from the past that you may have missed. Today’s post takes a look back at Outlook files and the different forms they take. How many do you know?

Most discovery requests include a request for emails of parties involved in the case. Email data is often the best resource for establishing a timeline of communications in the case and Microsoft® Outlook is the most common email program used in business today. Outlook emails can be stored in several different forms, so it’s important to be able to account for each file format when collecting emails that may be responsive to the discovery request.

There are several different file types that contain Outlook emails, including:

EDB (Exchange Database): The server files for Microsoft Exchange, which is the server environment which manages Outlook emails in an organization. In the EDB file, a user account is created for each person authorized at the company to use email (usually, but not always, employees). The EDB file stores all of the information related to email messages, calendar appointments, tasks, and contacts for all authorized email users at the company. EDB files are the server-side collection of Outlook emails for an organization that uses Exchange, so they are a primary source of responsive emails for those organizations. Not all organizations that use Outlook use Exchange, but larger organizations almost always do.

OST (Outlook Offline Storage Table): Outlook can be configured to keep a local copy of a user’s items on their computer in an Outlook data file that is named an offline Outlook Data File (OST). This allows the user to work offline when a connection to the Exchange computer may not be possible or wanted. The OST file is synchronized with the Exchange computer when a connection is available. If the synchronization is not current for a particular user, their OST file could contain emails that are not on the EDB server file, so OST files may also need to be searched for responsive emails.

PST (Outlook Personal Storage Table): A PST file is another Outlook data file that stores a user’s messages and other items on their computer. It’s the most common file format for home users or small organizations that don’t use Exchange, but instead use an ISP to connect to the Internet (typically through POP3 and IMAP). In addition, Exchange users may move or archive messages to a PST file (either manually or via auto-archiving) to move them out of the primary mailbox, typically to keep their mailbox size manageable. PST files often contain emails not found in either the EDB or OST files (especially when Exchange is not used), so it’s important to search them for responsive emails as well.

MSG (Outlook MSG File): MSG is a file extension for a mail message file format used by Microsoft Outlook and Exchange. Each MSG file is a self-contained unit for the message “family” (email and its attachments) and individual MSG files can be saved simply by dragging messages out of Outlook to a folder on the computer (which could then be stored on portable media, such as CDs or flash drives). As these individual emails may no longer be contained in the other Outlook file types, it’s important to determine where they are located and search them for responsiveness. MSG is also a common format for native production of individual responsive Outlook emails, though HTML is also used (as Outlook emails, by default, are already HTML formatted files).

Other Outlook file types that might contain responsive information are EML (Electronic Mail), which is the Outlook Express e-mail format and PAB (Personal Address Book), which, as the name implies, stores the user’s contact information.

Of course, Outlook emails are not just stored within EDB files on the server or these other file types on the local workstation or portable media; they can also be stored within an email archiving system or synchronized to phones and other portable devices. Regardless, it’s important to account for the different file types when collecting potentially responsive Outlook emails for discovery.

So, what do you think? Are you searching all of these file types for responsive Outlook emails? 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. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Defendant Compelled to Produce Employees’ Personal Data in EEOC Dispute: eDiscovery Case Law
 

In EEOC v. DolgenCorp LLC d/b/a Dollar General, No. 13-cv-04307 (N.D. Ill. May 5, 2015), Illinois District Judge Andrea R. Wood granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel the defendant to produce electronically-stored information (“ESI”) containing personal information of the defendant’s conditional hires and complete versions of documents that the defendant previously produced with portions redacted due to purported lack of relevance. She also ordered the plaintiff to produce documents previously withheld due to privilege for an in camera review.

Case Background

In this employment discrimination case, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel the defendant to produce ESI regarding conditional hires, including electronic data with names, social security numbers, addresses, and telephone numbers. The EEOC also asked the court to reproduce certain ESI that Defendant redacted due to purported lack of relevance, contending that it needed the ESI to prove its allegations that criminal background checks for African-American applicants had a disparate impact and violated federal law. While admitting that the information was relevant to the litigation, the defendant argued that producing this information would infringe on the privacy rights of the applicants. With regard to the redacted documents, the defendant argued that the redactions should stay because the information was proprietary and not relevant to the litigation.

In turn, the defendant filed a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce certain statistical analyses during the plaintiff’s investigation to determine whether to issue a reasonable cause determination of discrimination – these documents were not produced as they were deemed deliberative process and attorney work product privileged.

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to the personal information requested by the plaintiff, Judge Wood stated that the plaintiff “has established that the personal information it seeks is relevant to this litigation. The requested data fields are unquestionably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence by permitting the EEOC and its experts more effectively to analyze the statistical impact of Dollar General’s use of criminal background checks. As explained above, the information sought will be used to link several large databases together, allowing the EEOC to perform its disparate impact analysis. It will also permit the EEOC’s experts to analyze whether non-racial demographic factors may have caused a statistical impact.”

As for the defendant’s motion to compel, Judge Wood stated that the “Court is unable to determine the legitimacy of the EEOC’s deliberative process and attorney work product assertions without reviewing the documents in question. Accordingly, the Court orders the EEOC to deliver copies of the withheld documents to the magistrate judge (who is now responsible for supervising discovery) for in camera review. Upon reviewing the documents along with the EEOC’s privilege log, the magistrate judge will determine the applicability of the asserted privileges in light of the governing legal principles.”

So, what do you think? Was the court correct in ordering production of the personal information, or should the privacy rights of the individuals have taken precedent? 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. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

For a Successful Outcome to Your Discovery Project, Work Backwards: eDiscovery Best Practices

Based on a recent experience with a client, it seemed appropriate to revisit this topic. Plus, it’s always fun to play with the EDRM model. Notice anything different? 🙂

While the Electronic Discovery Reference Model from EDRM has become the standard model for the workflow of the process for handling electronically stored information (ESI) in discovery, it might be helpful to think about the EDRM model and work backwards, whether you’re the producing party or the receiving party.

Why work backwards?

You can’t have a successful outcome without envisioning the successful outcome that you want to achieve. The end of the discovery process includes the production and presentation stages, so it’s important to determine what you want to get out of those stages. Let’s look at them.

Presentation

Whether you’re a receiving party or a producing party, it’s important to think about what types of evidence you need to support your case when presenting at depositions and at trial – this is the type of information that needs to be included in your production requests at the beginning of the case as well as the type of information that you’ll need to preserve as a producing party.

Production

The format of the ESI produced is important to both sides in the case. For the receiving party, it’s important to get as much useful information included in the production as possible. This includes metadata and searchable text for the produced documents, typically with an index or load file to facilitate loading into a review application. The most useful form of production is native format files with all metadata preserved as used in the normal course of business.

For the producing party, it’s important to be efficient and minimize costs, so it’s important to agree to a production format that minimizes production costs. Converting files to an image based format (such as TIFF) adds costs, so producing in native format can be cost effective for the producing party as well. It’s also important to determine how to handle issues such as privilege logs and redaction of privileged or confidential information.

Addressing production format issues up front will maximize cost savings and enable each party to get what they want out of the production of ESI. If you don’t, you could be arguing in court like our case participants from yesterday’s post.

Processing-Review-Analysis

It also pays to make decisions early in the process that affect processing, review and analysis. How should exception files be handled? What do you do about files that are infected with malware? These are examples of issues that need to be decided up front to determine how processing will be handled.

As for review, the review tool being used may impact how quick and easy it is to get started, to load data and to use the tool, among other considerations. If it’s Friday at 5 and you have to review data over the weekend, is it easy to get started? As for analysis, surely you test search terms to determine their effectiveness before you agree on those terms with opposing counsel, right?

Preservation-Collection-Identification

Long before you have to conduct preservation and collection for a case, you need to establish procedures for implementing and monitoring litigation holds, as well as prepare a data map to identify where corporate information is stored for identification, preservation and collection purposes.

And, before a case even begins, you need an effective Information Governance program to minimize the amount of data that you might have to consider for responsiveness in the first place.

As you can see, at the beginning of a case (and even before), it’s important to think backwards within the EDRM model to ensure a successful discovery process. Decisions made at the beginning of the case affect the success of those latter stages, so working backwards can help ensure a successful outcome!

So, what do you think? What do you do at the beginning of a case to ensure success at the end?   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. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Untangles Form of Production Dispute with Curling Iron Manufacturer: eDiscovery Case Law

In Wilson v. Conair Corp., 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB (E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2015), California Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone granted in part the plaintiff’s motion to compel production, by requiring the defendant to produce further ESI in native format if feasible or TIFF format with the associated metadata, as well as to produce associated metadata for its prior production if it had not already done so.

Case Background

In this product liability class action, the parties disputed the production format of the electronically stored information (ESI) provided by the defendant, as the plaintiff requested the ESI to be produced in native format or, alternatively, in TIFF format with accompanying metadata, whereas the defendant produced the ESI in PDF format, including for Excel files where the defendant produced them as PDF’s in order to redact information. The plaintiff contended that “data produced in the TIFF format is more efficient, cost effective, and better suited for use inside a database application and it will require additional work to get the data produced in PDF format into a usable state”.

At least some of the ESI in the defendant’s possession existed in a proprietary, third-party “STARS” database which could not be accessed by the plaintiff, so the dispute over those proprietary files was primarily one of plaintiff requested TIFFs with metadata vs. the defendant produced PDFs. In the Joint Statement, the defendant indicated that they were willing to produce all future documents in TIFF format. As for the Excel files, the plaintiff sought for them to be produced in native file format, which the defendant ultimately agreed to do during the hearing.

The plaintiff also sought documents and information pertaining to 45 models of styling irons, whereas the defendant argued that discovery should be, at most, limited to the two models used by the primary plaintiff in the case.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Boone quoted Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E) which includes statements that “A party must produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request”, “If a request does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, a party must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms” and “A party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form”.

As Judge Boone noted, “The Rules do not require a party to produce ESI in the form most helpful to the opposing party…Defendant is unable to produce the STARS data in its native format as it would be unreadable to Plaintiff. Defendant is not required produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form, Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(iii). Defendant has agreed to produce any additional discovery in TIFF format, and that shall be the order of the Court.”

As for the metadata, Judge Boone, while noting that the defendant had “agreed to produce all further files with the associated metadata”, ruled that agreement didn’t go far enough. “When the potential relevance of metadata is not questioned then it is discoverable”, he stated, ruling that “For those documents already produced that are the subject of this dispute, Defendant shall produce the associated metadata if they have not already done so.”

The defendant was also ordered to “supplement their responses to Request for Production No. 18 for all forty-five models where the complaint is a failure of the power cord”, but the plaintiff’s request to require the defendant to produce additional discovery on the forty-five models was “denied at this time”.

So, what do you think? Could this dispute have been avoided with an agreement up-front? 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. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Tired of the “Crap”, Court Sanctions Investors and Lawyers for Several Instances of Spoliation: eDiscovery Case Law

In Clear-View Technologies, Inc., v. Rasnick et al, 5:13-cv-02744-BLF (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2015), California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal sanctioned the defendants $212,320 and also granted a permissive adverse jury instruction that allows the presumption that the defendants’ spoliated documents due to a series of “transgressions” by the defendants and their prior counsel.

You’ve got to love an order that begins this way:

“Deployment of ‘Crap Cleaner’ software—with a motion to compel pending. Lost media with relevant documents. False certification that document production was complete. Failure to take any steps to preserve or collect relevant documents for two years after discussing this very suit. Any one of these transgressions by {the defendants} and their prior counsel might justify sanctions. Taken together, there can be no doubt.”

This case arose from the defendants’ alleged conspiracy with certain former plaintiff’s employees to take over the plaintiff’s company or, failing that, to divert their personnel, intellectual property and investors to a competing enterprise to commercialize the plaintiff’s alcohol tracking product known as the “BarMaster”. As early as May 2011, the plaintiff threatened Defendants with litigation for interfering with the plaintiff’s operations, ultimately filing suit in June 2013.

After the plaintiff’s discovery requests yielded just 422 pages produced by the defendants (including no communications solely between defendants and virtually no communications between defendants and any “co-conspirator” identified in the plaintiff’s requests) the plaintiff moved to compel further production and in September 2014, the court granted the motion and ordered that “(i) Defendants appear by September 23 for depositions regarding ‘document preservation and production,’ and (ii) the parties meet and confer in order to submit to the court by September 30 ‘a plan to retain an independent consultant to do a limited forensic collection and analysis of the media associated with each named defendant.’”

During the depositions, the individual defendants admitted having deleted numerous emails and text messages, failing to preserve devices that potentially responsive data was stored on, failing to search key media and failing to use obvious search terms in the searches that they did perform. Meanwhile, in October 2014, per the parties’ joint agreement, the Court selected the a digital forensics firm (at the defendants’ expense) to perform a forensic analysis of Defendants’ media and email accounts, with the order calling for the defendants to produce over 40 specified electronic media and email accounts for forensic imaging.

The digital forensics firm ultimately found 2,593 relevant documents totaling 12,467 pages – over 12,000 pages more than the defendants had previously produced and also determined that “four separate system optimization and computer cleaning programs were run” (including CCleaner, aka “Crap Cleaner”) on one defendant’s laptop. These programs were loaded onto his laptop and executed on July 22, 2014 – just six days after the filing of the plaintiff’s motion – and resulted in the deletion of “over 50,000 files”. For that and other apparent instances of spoliation of data among the defendants, the plaintiff requested monetary sanctions, an adverse inference instruction and terminating sanctions.

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to the duty to preserve, Judge Grewal stated that “Once upon a time, the federal courts debated exactly when the duty to preserve documents arises. No more. “The duty to preserve evidence begins when litigation is `pending or reasonably foreseeable.’”

Finding that the defendants “were on notice of foreseeable litigation well before spoliation occurred”, that their “spoliation occurred with the required culpable mindset” and that they “failed to produce thousands of documents that contained key terms that the parties designated as relevant to the litigation”, Judge Grewal ruled that “In sum, sanctions are warranted. The only question is what kind.”

Ultimately, Judge Grewal awarded “expenses and fees in this discovery dispute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C)” of $212,320 and granted the request for an adverse instruction that the unproduced material may be deemed to support the plaintiff’s contentions. He also ruled that “Defendants’ prior counsel also must be sanctioned for improperly certifying Defendants’ discovery responses, and for subsequently failing to intervene even after ‘obvious red flags’ arose, such as Defendants’ failure to produce incriminating documents CVT obtained from their third parties.” Also, based on information that the defendants had “stiffed on the bill” for the digital forensics firm, Judge Grewal ruled that “Defendants shall show cause why they should not face further sanctions for this failure.”

Judge Grewal, however, declined to recommend terminating sanctions “in light of public policy and the sufficiency of monetary sanctions and an adverse jury instruction”.

So, what do you think? Should the request for terminating sanctions have been granted? 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. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.