Production Archives

Plaintiff Sanctioned for Late Production, But Not for Failure to Produce Data Held by Outside Vendor: eDiscovery Case Law

January 23, 2015

In Ablan v. Bank of America, 11 C 4493 (N.D.Ill. Nov. 24, 2014), Illinois Magistrate Judge Daniel G. Martin recommended that the defendant’s Motion for Sanctions should be granted in part and denied in part, recommending that the plaintiffs be barred from using any new information at summary judgment or at trial that was contained on eight CD-ROMs produced late, but recommending no sanctions for failing to produce or make available documents held by the plaintiff’s outside vendor.

Case Summary

The plaintiffs had been previously sued in state court by third party Tax Strategies Group, LLC (“TSG”), claiming that plaintiff Ablan violated their Financial Representation Agreement with TSG by interfering with TSG’s efforts to obtain financing for the acquisition of a group of CarMax dealerships. The plaintiffs filed this litigation against the defendants in July 2011, while the State Court Litigation was still pending (it was settled a few months later).

The defendants’ current motion was originally a motion for evidence spoliation based upon the plaintiffs’ representations that the documents they received from TSG in the State Court Litigation no longer existed. After the defendants filed their motion, “Plaintiffs located eight (8) CD-ROMs containing discovery produced to Ablan by TSG in the State Court Litigation.” On June 26, 2014, over three months after discovery closed, the plaintiffs produced to the defendants the TSG documents contained on the eight (8) CD-ROMs, which contained over 14,000 pages of documents.

With the documents produced, the defendants were no longer seeking sanctions for spoliation, but did seek sanctions based on the plaintiffs’ failure to timely produce and supplement and identified two alleged discovery violations by the plaintiffs: “(1) Plaintiffs’ failure to timely produce 14,000 pages of TSG documents contained on the eight (8) CD-ROMs in their possession and (2) Plaintiffs’ failure to produce 350,000 TSG documents in the possession of their vendor, Protek”. The defendants requested that the plaintiffs pay defendants’ attorneys’ fees in bringing the motion as well as the defendants’ expert costs associated with reviewing the recently located TSG documents; and that the plaintiffs be barred from relying on or introducing any of the recently located TSG documents at summary judgment or trial.

Court Recommendation

Stating that there is “no explanation in the record as to why Plaintiffs’ initial search failed to uncover the eight (8) CD-ROMs of TSG documents”, Judge Martin found “that Plaintiffs violated Rule 26(e) by failing to timely supplement their production in response to Defendants’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. Thus, Rule 37 prohibits Plaintiffs from using any new information on the eight (8) CD-ROMS”. He also found that “Defendants would be prejudiced if Plaintiffs were allowed to rely on new information disclosed for the first time in their untimely production of TSG discovery documents to defeat summary judgment or at trial” and recommended that they be barred from doing so.

Regarding the documents held by the plaintiff’s outside vendor, Judge Martin stated that, although (under Rule 34) parties must produce data within their custody and control (even when not in their physical possession), that the plaintiffs never had possession, custody, or control of the data and did not have the legal right to obtain the data. He disagreed with the defendant that the plaintiffs should be required to subpoena the TSG documents from the vendor, instead finding that “Defendants did not seek an extension of the discovery deadline so that they could subpoena the information from Protek” and stating that “Such a request would very likely have been granted”. Judge Martin also rejected the defendant’s request that the plaintiff pay the defendants’ expert costs associated with reviewing the recently located TSG documents, stating that “there is no evidence that Plaintiffs’ tardy production caused Defendants’ excess expert costs”.

As a result, Judge Martin recommended that the plaintiffs pay defendants’ attorneys’ fees in bringing the motion, but NOT the defendants’ expert costs associated with reviewing the recently located TSG documents, and that the plaintiffs be barred from relying on or introducing any of the recently located TSG documents at summary judgment or trial.

So, what do you think? Should the plaintiffs have had to produce data held by their outside vendor, or was Judge Martin correct in ruling that they did not have custody and control? 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. eDiscoveryDaily 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. 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.

Payday Loan Company Sanctioned for Discovery Violations: eDiscovery Case Law

January 21, 2015

In James v. National Financial LLC, C.A. 8931-VCL (Del Ch. Dec. 5,2014), Delaware Vice Chancellor Laster granted the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions after determining that the defendant’s “discovery misconduct calls for serious measures”. However, the plaintiff’s request for a default judgment was not granted, but lesser sanctions that included attorneys’ fees and a ruling that the lack of information contained in the requested document resulted in an admission.

Case Summary

On May 7, 2013, the plaintiff borrowed $200 from the defendant, which does business in multiple locations in Delaware under the name Loan Till Payday LLC. The plaintiff needed the $200 to pay for rent and groceries. The loan agreement, which consisted primarily of boilerplate provisions, imposed onerous terms. It contemplated twenty-six bi-weekly payments of $60 with a final balloon payment of $260. The total repayments added up to $1,620, for a cost of credit of $1,420 and an APR of 838.45%. Yikes. The standard loan agreement signed by the plaintiff gave her sixty days after signing the agreement to opt out of the mandatory arbitration provision, which she did and filed a verified class action complaint against the defendant, claiming unconscionable lending practices.

During discovery, the plaintiff asked the defendant to provide information about loans it made, including the annual percentage rates (“APRs”). After the defendant moved for a protective order, the court ordered the defendant to produce certain categories of information, including the APRs. The defendant produced a spreadsheet containing some of the categories but not others. When the plaintiff checked the APRs against the few loan documents she had, they differed and the defendant’s principal ultimately agreed that the data contained errors. The court ordered the defendant to produce an updated spreadsheet (which they did) and an affidavit from an IT consultant attesting to the procedures used to populate the spreadsheet (which they did not), and the spreadsheet omitted information required by the court’s order. As a result, the plaintiff moved for default judgment sanctions against the defendant.

Court Ruling

Noting that “[t]he court expects Delaware counsel to play an active role in the discovery process, including in the collection, review and production of documents”, Vice Chancellor Laster granted the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, but not the requested default judgment sanctions, stating that “National’s discovery misconduct calls for serious measures. Although I believe that entry of a default judgment would be warranted on these facts, I will not grant that remedy in light of the Delaware Supreme Court’s guidance about invoking the ultimate sanction and the availability of less punitive consequences.” Instead, the Vice Chancellor awarded attorneys’ fees and ruled that the lack of information contained in the requested document resulted in an admission.

So, what do you think? Should the default judgment sanction have been awarded? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Click here to see our previous story about the Delaware Court of Chancery amending its Rules regarding discovery two years ago.

2014 eDiscovery Case Law Year in Review, Part 4

January 9, 2015

As we noted yesterday, Wednesday and Tuesday, eDiscoveryDaily published 93 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 68 unique cases! Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to privilege and inadvertent disclosures, requests for social media, cases involving technology assisted review and the case of the year – the ubiquitous Apple v. Samsung dispute. Today, let’s take a look back at cases related to sanctions and spoliation.

We grouped those cases into common subject themes and will review them over the next few posts. Perhaps you missed some of these? Now is your chance to catch up!

SPOLIATION / SANCTIONS

I’ll bet that you won’t be surprised that, once again, the topic with the largest number of case law decisions related to eDiscovery are those related to sanctions and spoliation issues. Of the 68 cases we covered this past year, 28 percent of them (19 total cases) related to sanctions and spoliation issues. Sometimes requests for sanctions are granted, sometimes they’re not. Here they are.

Plaintiff Sanctioned After its “Failure to Take the Most Basic Document Preservation Steps”: In SJS Distribution Systems, Inc. v. Sam’s East, Inc., New York Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy found the plaintiff’s failure to take “the most basic document preservation steps,” including issuing a litigation hold – “even after it discovered the packaging nonconformities and filed this action” – constituted gross negligence. As a result, an adverse inference instruction sanction was issued against the plaintiff and the defendant was awarded its costs and attorney’s fees associated with its motion to compel.

Sanctions Awarded when Defendant Failed to Preserve Relevant Evidence: In Zest IP Holdings, LLC v. Implant Direct Manufacturing, LLC., California Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo granted the Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions because parties are “required to preserve evidence relevant to litigation and to prevent spoliation.” Judge Gallo found that the Defendant “failed to preserve multiple documents that are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims with the requisite culpable state of mind to support a finding of spoliation of evidence”.

Search Process for ESI Called into Question, but Court Denies Sanctions for Plaintiff: In Brown v. West Corp., the plaintiff filed a motion to compel, claiming the defendant had been insufficient in its handling of searching for Electronically Stored Information (ESI) relevant to discovery. The plaintiff additionally contested a prior order from a magistrate judge, requiring the defendant to explain its search processes to the defendant. Ultimately, Nebraska Senior District Judge Lyle E. Strom denied the requested sanctions and rejected the challenge to the prior order.

Bad Faith Violations in Discovery Lead to Sanctions for Defendant: Regarding the case In re Pradaxa (Dabigatran Etexilate) Products Liability Litigation, the defendants’ repeated failure to preserve and produce documents during discovery was found to be in bad faith. The defendants were ordered to produce the documents, or to explain why they couldn’t be produced, and to pay a hefty fine plus the plaintiff’s costs and fees for pursuing discovery motions. The order left room for additional future sanctions, should the bad faith behavior continue.

Clawback Rights Upheld and Plaintiff Sanctioned for Refusal to Comply Concerning Inadvertently Produced Privileged Documents: In RIPL Corp. v. Google Inc., seven discovery-related motions were heard concerning this trademark infringement action. The various motions to seal, compel, enforce, and sanction were filed after the parties had entered into a stipulated protective order. Washington District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez granted in part, denied in part, and deferred in part the various motions.

Sanctions Denied over Destruction of Audio Evidence in Discrimination Lawsuit: In Sokn v. Fieldcrest Cmty. Unit School Dist. No. 8, the plaintiff filed a motion for default and sanctions relating to spoliation of evidence with a federal court, after a district court issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) to deny the motion. Illinois Senior District Judge Joe Billy McDade ultimately declined to impose sanctions, due to a lack of evidence regarding the timing of alleged spoliation, and the plaintiff’s inability to establish bad faith on the part of the defendants.

Plaintiff Sanctioned for Spoliation of Digital Evidence in Sexual Harassment Lawsuit: In Calderon v. Corporacion Puertorrique a de Salud, the plaintiff was found to have violated his duty to preserve evidence during the discovery phase of this sexual harassment lawsuit. Sanctions were imposed, though not to the extent requested by the defendants.

Use of a Bulk File Changer to Manipulate Metadata Leads to Sanctions for Defendant: In T&E Investment Group, LLC v. Faulkner, Texas District Judge Jorge A. Solis upheld the earlier recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to order an adverse inference sanction, along with monetary sanctions, against the defendant for manipulation of metadata.

Defendants – and Defendants’ Counsel – Sanctioned for Delays in Producing ESI: In Knickerbocker v Corinthian Colleges, Washington District Judge James L. Robart imposed sanctions against the defendants and the defendants’ counsel for their delays in producing Electronically Stored Information (ESI) during discovery, despite the fact that spoliation of evidence was ultimately avoided.

Court Refuses to Dismiss Spoliation Claim Due to Defendant’s Failure to Produce Key Native File with Metadata: In Raines v. College Now Greater Cleveland, Inc., Ohio District Judge James S. Gwin refused to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim of tortious spoliation of evidence due to the defendant’s failure to produce the metadata associated with a key report authored by the plaintiff.

Court Denies Sanctions for Deletion of “Smoking Gun” Email, Grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment: In the case In re Text Messaging Antitrust Litig., Illinois District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly not only denied the plaintiffs’ request for an adverse inference sanction against the defendants for destroying emails, but also granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, as the plaintiffs failed to provide any supporting circumstantial evidence to meet their burden of proof.

Failure to Preserve Cloud-Based Data Results in Severe Sanction for Defendant: In Brown v. Tellermate Holdings, Magistrate Judge Terence Kemp granted plaintiffs’ motion for judgment and motion to strike, ruling that the defendant could not “present or rely upon evidence that it terminated the Browns’ employment for performance-related reasons” and enabling the plaintiffs to use documents produced by the defendant “designated as attorneys’-eyes-only” to be used by the plaintiffs “without restriction”, due to the defendant’s failure to preserve or produce data from their Salesforce.com database.

Texas Supreme Court Reverses Spoliation Ruling, Remands Case for New Trial: In Brookshire Bros., Ltd. v. Aldridge, the Supreme Court of Texas determined “that imposition of the severe sanction of a spoliation instruction was an abuse of discretion” in the trial court, reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Circuit Court Affirms Denial of Sanctions Over Spoliation by Defendant: In Automated Solutions Corp. v. Paragon Data Sys., Inc., the Sixth Circuit court affirmed the holdings of the district court, rejecting the plaintiff’s arguments that the district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions due to defendant’s failure to preserve information on a hard drive and server. The circuit court also affirmed the ruling by both the magistrate and district judge that the defendant’s back-up tapes were not subject to the duty to preserve.

Court Grants Motion for Spoliation Sanctions Due to Data that is “Less Accessible”: In Mazzei v. Money Store, New York Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis granted the plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions against the defendant, ordering the defendant to bear the cost of obtaining all the relevant data in question from a third party as well as paying for plaintiff attorney fees in filing the motion.

Failure to Preserve Data on Various Devices Causes Special Master to Recommend Default Judgment: In Small v. University Medical Center of Southern Nevada, Special Master Daniel B. Garrie, calling the defendant’s widespread failure to preserve data a “mockery of the orderly administration of justice”, recommended that the court enter an order of default judgment, along with further sanctions, in favor of the plaintiffs.

Plaintiff Slips, But Defendant Takes the Fall: In Riley v. Marriott Int’l, New York Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson agreed with the plaintiffs that spoliation of data had occurred when the defendant failed to preserve video surveillance and “sweep logs” after one of the plaintiffs slipped and fell in the defendant’s hotel garage and that the defendant was at least grossly negligent for not preserving the information. However, the judge denied the plaintiffs request for summary judgment, granting an adverse inference instruction instead.

The Watergate 18 Minute Gap in Audio Recordings Has Nothing on This Case: In Novick v. AXA Network, LLC, New York Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox granted the plaintiff’s request for sanctions against the defendant, awarding an adverse inference jury instruction for several weeks of spoliated audio recordings and also awarding “reasonable attorney’s fees and costs” associated with the motion as well as retaking several depositions.

Finding Defendant’s Destruction of Documents to be “Planned, Repeated and Comprehensive”, Court Awards Judgment to Plaintiff: In Regulatory Fundamentals Group v. Governance Risk Management Compliance, New York District Judge Katherine B. Forrest granted the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and ordered that judgment be entered for the defendant’s “planned, repeated, and comprehensive” destruction of highly-relevant documents.

That concludes our look back at 68 cases from last year – the most we’ve ever covered! Do you think discovery issues are being disputed more than ever before? If so, do you think the new Federal rules changes (once they’re implemented) will reverse that trend? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

2014 eDiscovery Case Law Year in Review, Part 1

January 6, 2015

It’s time for our annual review of eDiscovery case law! We had more than our share of sanctions granted and denied, as well as disputes over admissibility of electronically stored information (ESI), eDiscovery cost reimbursement, and production formats, even disputes regarding eDiscovery fees. So, as we did last year and the year before that and also the year before that, let’s take a look back at 2014!

Last year, eDiscoveryDaily published 93 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 68 unique cases! And, believe it or not, we still didn’t cover every case that had eDiscovery impact. Sometimes, you want to cover other topics too.

Nonetheless, for the cases we did cover, we grouped them into common subject themes and will review them over the next few posts (a few of them could be categorized in more than one category, so we took our best shot). Perhaps you missed some of these? Now is your chance to catch up!

ADMISSIBILITY AND PROPORTIONALITY

As always, there are numerous disputes about data being produced and not being produced and whether the costs to do so are overly burdensome. Here are twelve cases related to admissibility, the duty to preserve and produce ESI and the proportionality for preserving and producing that ESI:

Split Decision between Plaintiff and Defendant Regarding Search Terms: In Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Giannoulias, Illinois District Judge John F. Grady resolved several motions regarding discovery proceedings in a $114 million lawsuit. Two of the motions concerned search terms for documents and electronically stored information (ESI), in which the plaintiff opposed the defendants’ request for six additional terms to be included in retrieving discovery documents. The court ruled that four additional search terms would be added, while two would be excluded.

Court Grants Motion to Compel Defendant to Produce Documents as Requested and Chronicle Approach: In Home Instead, Inc. v. Florance, following a motion to compel discovery on behalf of the plaintiff, Nebraska Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart ordered the defendant to produce documents requested during discovery and required the defendant to produce a sworn affidavit chronicling the methods used in their search for production of the discovery documents.

Electronic Discovery Dispute Sees Court Requesting Cooperation from Both Parties to Avoid “Court-Ordered Middle Ground”: In Fort Worth Employees’ Retirement Fund v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., a complex discovery dispute arose during the process of this securities action lawsuit revolving around the defendants’ loan products and offerings with regards to a specific consumer class, in which the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel an expanded discovery.

Definition of “Electronic Storage” Considered in Invasion of Privacy Lawsuit: In Cheng v. Romo, the interpretation of laws enacted prior to the modern Internet age served as a deciding factor in the outcome of this invasion of privacy lawsuit, which alleged a violation of the Stored Communications Act (SCA).

Government Ordered to Maintain Expensive Custom Database Shared with Criminal Defendant: In the criminal case of United States v. Shabudin, California Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas ordered the Government to continue to provide access to a Relativity Database used by the parties to review documents produced by the Government, instead of discontinuing access for the defendants several weeks before trial was to begin due to budgetary issues.

Portions of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel eDiscovery Ruled as “Overbroad” and “Moot” Reaffirmed by District Court: In Elkharwily v. Mayo Holding Co., Minnesota District Judge David S. Doty overruled the plaintiff’s objection to a magistrate judge’s order that denied in part the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, labeling some requests as overbroad or moot, particularly after the defendant contended it had already produced the requested discovery materials.

Court Denies Defendant’s Request to Image Plaintiff’s PCs Three Years after Termination: In Downs v. Virginia Health Systems, Virginia Magistrate Judge James G. Welsh, citing proportionality and privacy concerns, denied the defendant’s motion to compel the mirror imaging of the Plaintiff’s personal computers nearly three years after she had been terminated.

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Fallback Request for Meet and Confer after Quashing its Subpoena: In Boston Scientific Corporation v. Lee, California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal found time to preside over a case other than Apple v. Samsung and granted the motion to quash the plaintiff’s subpoena for the defendant’s laptops, refusing the plaintiff’s fallback position to meet and confer and referencing Leave it to Beaver in the process.

Court Rules to Limit Scope of Discovery, Noting that “Searching for ESI is only one discovery tool”: In United States v. Univ. of Neb. at Kearney, Nebraska Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart denied the government’s motion to compel discovery, finding that “ESI is neither the only nor the best and most economical discovery method for obtaining the information the government seeks” and stating that searching for ESI “should not be deemed a replacement for interrogatories, production requests, requests for admissions and depositions”.

Defendant Ordered to Produce Archived Emails Even Though Plaintiff Failed to Produce Theirs: In Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal granted the plaintiff’s motion ordering the defendant to produce relevant emails from its eight custodians, even though the plaintiff was unable to provide its own archival emails.

Court Determines that Software License Agreement Does Not Eliminate Production Obligation of Video: In Pero v. Norfolk Southern Railway, Co., Tennessee Magistrate Judge C. Clifford Shirley, Jr. granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery of a video declining to require the plaintiff to view the video at the defendant’s counsel’s office or obtain a license for the proprietary viewing software, ordering the defendant instead to either produce a laptop with the video loaded on it or to reimburse the plaintiff for the cost of a software license.

Image Isn’t Everything, Court Says, Denying Plaintiff’s Request for Imaging on Defendant’s Hard Drives: In Design Basics, LLC. v. Carhart Lumber Co., Nebraska Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart, after an extensive hearing on the plaintiff’s motion to compel “full disk imaging of Defendant’s hard drives, including Defendant’s POS server, secretaries’ computers, UBS devices. . .”, denied the motion after invoking the mandatory balancing test provided in FRCP Rule 26(b)(2)(C).

DISCOVERY ON DISCOVERY

Some cases are becoming so contentious that parties (or sometimes the courts themselves) are requesting for discovery on their opponent’s discovery process. Sometimes those requests were granted, sometimes not. Here were six cases in 2014 which involved requests for “discovery on discovery”:

‘Discovery About Discovery’ Motions Lead to Unusual Court Decision: In Ruiz-Bueno v. Scott, a discovery dispute in this wrongful death case arose, leading Ohio Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp to arrive at the unusual decision to direct a party to provide ‘discovery about discovery.’

Ruling on ESI Discovery Dispute Delayed as Court Requests Specific Information: In Worley v. Avanquest North America Inc., a putative class action involving PC security software, California Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler required the defendant to produce further information related to discovery disputes before a ruling would be issued.

Parties’ Failure to Cooperate Sparks Denial of Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider Court Ordered Discovery: In In Cactus Drilling Co. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., a largely contentious discovery phase was a major contributor to the decision of Oklahoma Chief District Judge Vicki Miles LaGrange regarding the defendant’s Motion to Reconsider, or Alternately, Motion for Clarification of the Court’s Order.

Plaintiffs Denied Motion to Depose Defendants Regarding ESI Processes Prior to Discovery Requests: In Miller v. York Risk Servs. Grp., Arizona Senior District Judge John W. Sedwick denied the plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, requesting permission to conduct depositions in order to determine the defendant’s manner and methods used for storing and maintaining Electronically Stored Information (ESI) prior to submitting their discovery requests.

Court Denies Defendant’s Request for Deposition Regarding Plaintiff’s Discovery Search Tools: In Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Hunt Control Sys., Inc., New Jersey Magistrate Judge James B. Clark III granted the plaintiff’s protective order to prevent the defendant from proceeding with a new deposition to review whether the plaintiff had used “appropriate search tools for ESI discovery,” after the requested discovery documents had already been produced.

Despite 18 Missing Emails in Production, Court Denies Request for “Discovery on Discovery”: In Freedman v. Weatherford Int’l, New York Magistrate Judge James C. Francis, IV denied the plaintiff’s request to, among other things, require the defendant to produce “certain reports comparing the electronic search results from discovery in this action to the results from prior searches” – despite the fact that the plaintiff identified 18 emails that the defendant did not produce that were ultimately produced by a third party.

We’re just getting started! Tomorrow, we will cover cases related to eDiscovery cost reimbursement, fee disputes and production format disputes. Stay tuned!

So, what do you think? Did you miss any of these? 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.

Court’s “New and Simpler Approach to Discovery” Identifies Search Terms for Plaintiff to Use – eDiscovery Case Law

January 5, 2015

In Armstrong Pump, Inc. v. Hartman, No. 10-CV-446S (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2014), New York Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott granted in part the defendant’s motion to compel discovery responses and fashioned a “new and simpler approach” to discovery, identifying thirteen search terms/phrases for the plaintiff to use when searching its document collection.

In this breach of contract case, discovery was contentious and resulted in at least one prior motion to compel, which the court granted in favor of the defendant in 2012 and prompted the court to caution the plaintiff “not to engage in piecemeal production of materials it has located that are responsive to Optimum Energy’s unobjectionable requests”. Nonetheless, the plaintiff subsequently produced documents nine different times. As a result, the defendant filed a second motion to compel and sought sanctions for Plaintiff’s discovery behavior, including its delayed production of relevant information.

Judge Scott, noting that “[f]our and a half years later, discovery is far from complete”, expressed frustration with “the continual and growing animosity between the parties, an animosity that has slowed the progress of the case and that has required repeated judicial intervention.” Stating that a “lawsuit is supposed to be a search for the truth”, Judge Scott said “the Court now will fashion a new and simpler approach to discovery” and identified thirteen phrases “that inevitably refer to or hint at the Hartman LOOP Technology”. He then ordered:

“For a period starting from January 1, 2004 through the present time, Armstrong must search ALL corporate documents, files, communications, and recordings for EACH of the above phrases. Armstrong will maintain a list of every server, computer, file room, or other place searched, and a list of all positive search results. For each positive result, Armstrong will procure a full copy of the document in question. Armstrong also will furnish a complete and sworn description of its document retention policies, if any, from January 1, 2004 through the present time. In the specific instance of [REDACTED] reports, if for any reason a product did not have a written report for a certain stage or did not go through all five stages then someone at Armstrong with appropriate knowledge or expertise will provide a sworn statement explaining why. When the search is complete, a representative of Armstrong and all of Armstrong’s counsel of record will file a sworn statement confirming that Armstrong made a good-faith effort to identify sources of documents; that a complete search of those sources for each of the above phrases occurred; and that the search results have been furnished to Optimum. All of this must occur on or before April 1, 2015, with absolutely no exceptions or extensions. Failure to comply will lead to sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2)(A).”

Judge Scott also cautioned the defendant that “the Court will not hesitate to apply the same approach to its document production”, ordering the defendant to “either 1) file a joint sworn statement that Optimum has fulfilled ALL outstanding discovery requests from Armstrong; or 2) file a motion for a protective order to quash any outstanding discovery requests that Optimum opposes” by January 14, 2015.

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

Plaintiff Ordered to Make its Production Conform to Rule 34 – eDiscovery Case Law

December 15, 2014

In Venture Corp. Ltd. v. Barrett, 5:13-cv-03384-PSG (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2014), California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal ordered the plaintiffs to “(1) either organize and label each document it has produced or it shall provide custodial and other organizational information along the lines outlined above and (2) produce load files for its production containing searchable text and metadata” in order to conform to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Procedure and meet their obligation.

Judge Grewal’s rulings have been frequently referenced on this blog, most notably the Apple v. Samsung case (here’s a reference to some of the posts we had related to this case). So, you have to love his opening to this ruling:

“Most lawyers (and hopefully judges) would be forgiven if they could not recite on demand some of the more obscure of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 80 (Stenographic Transcript as Evidence) and Rule 64 (Seizing a Person or Property) come to mind. But Rule 34 (Producing Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Tangible Things) is about as basic to any civil case as it gets. And yet, over and over again, the undersigned is confronted with misapprehension of its standards and elements by even experienced counsel. Unfortunately, this case presents yet another example.

After Defendant James P. Barrett served initial document requests and Plaintiffs Venture Corporation Ltd. and Venture Design Services, Inc. responded, the parties met and conferred about how the Ventures would produce documents. So far, so good. But despite their best efforts, the parties could not agree. Barrett wanted the documents organized and labeled to identify the requests to which they were responsive. The Ventures demurred at such an obligation. What followed was a production of approximately 41,000 pages, even though there was nothing close to a meeting of the minds. Because this production did not square with the requirements of either Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i) or (ii), the Ventures shall try again, as explained below.”

In this patent dispute, the parties had a dispute regarding the plaintiff’s production, after which the plaintiff “proceeded to produce, on flash drive and by email, approximately 41,000 pages. The drive and email contained no custodial index, no table, no information at all—just folders of the files themselves.”

Judge Grewal stated, “Even in the days of paper measured by the carton and large, cold-storage warehouses, the document dump was recognized for what it was: at best inefficient and at worst a tactic to work over the requesting party. Rule 34 aims to prevent such a scenario with two specific and separate requirements…Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i) is plain: if documents are not organized and labeled to correspond to the categories in the request, they must be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business. The Ventures did not do this.”

As a result, Judge Grewal ordered the plaintiffs to “(1) either organize and label each document it has produced or it shall provide custodial and other organizational information along the lines outlined above and (2) produce load files for its production containing searchable text and metadata”. The defendant had also requested sanctions in the form of attorney’s fees and costs, but that request was denied by Judge Grewal.

So, what do you think? Was Judge Grewal correct to require the plaintiffs to label its production? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Court Determines that Software License Agreement Does Not Eliminate Production Obligation of Video – eDiscovery Case Law

December 10, 2014

In Pero v. Norfolk S. Ry., Co., No. 3:14-CV-16-PLR-CCS, (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 1, 2014), Tennessee Magistrate Judge C. Clifford Shirley, Jr. granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery of a video declining to require the plaintiff to view the video at the defendant’s counsel’s office or obtain a license for the proprietary viewing software, ordering the defendant instead to either produce a laptop with the video loaded on it or to reimburse the plaintiff for the cost of a software license.

Case Background

The plaintiff, an employee of the defendant, alleged that he was injured during an effort to remove a tree that was blocking railroad tracks. There was a video of the incident, captured with a RailView camera on the locomotive, and the plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of the video after the defendant refused to produce the video recording captured by the RailView camera, because of perceived licensing issues with the software used to view RailView recordings. As a result, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of the video and the defendant moved for a protective order.

The defendant stated “that it merely owns a license to use the software and providing a copy of the license to Plaintiff for Plaintiff’s counsel to use in viewing the video would exceed the scope of Defendant’s own license”. Instead, the defendant offered “to permit Plaintiff’s counsel to view the RailView recording at Defendant’s counsel’s office” or suggested “that Plaintiff can pay $500 to obtain its own license to use the RailView software to view the recording”.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Shirley, in his ruling, referenced Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, which “instructs that if a requesting party does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, then the responding party ‘must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.’” He also referenced the Comments to the 2006 Amendments which state: “Under some circumstances, the responding party may need to provide some reasonable amount of technical support, information on application software, or other reasonable assistance to enable the requesting party to use the information.” Finally, he referenced relevant case law where other railroad entities objected to production of similar video recordings, singling out Donahoo v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 4:12-CV-104-JHM-HBB, Doc. 46 (E.D. Ky. July 10, 2014), and Swoope v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 4:13-CV-307-HLM, Doc. 54 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 13, 2014) as particularly persuasive.

Finding “that the Defendant’s arguments against producing the recording are not well-taken”, Judge Shirley noted that “Police cruiser cameras, store cameras, and surveillance cameras often use unique operating software, which is almost always embedded with additional information — date, location, usage of lights or other tools — but the existence and use of this software cannot insolate against production. As noted by the court in Swoope, the Defendant certainly envisioned the recordings produced by RailView being used in litigation or other claims against it. It cannot use its choice to enter into a software agreement as a shield against producing a relevant piece of discovery, nor can it use the agreement as a basis for attaching burdensome conditions to the production of the recording.”

As a result, Judge Shirley granted the motion to compel production of the video, ordering the defendant “to either (1) provide the Plaintiff with a laptop computer loaded with the video recording and the software for viewing the recording, which would be used only for that litigation and returned after the litigation, or (2) request that the Plaintiff procure a software license and the Defendant would then reimburse Plaintiff for the costs of that license, within thirty (30) days of its procurement.”

So, what do you think? Should the defendants have been compelled to produce the video or was their proposed approach acceptable? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Court Agrees with Defendants that Producing Medical Records in Native Form is an “Undue Burden” – eDiscovery Case Law

December 8, 2014

In Peterson v. Matlock, 11-2594 (FLW)(DEA). (D.N.J.Oct. 29, 2014), New Jersey Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Arpert denied the plaintiffs motion to compel defendants to produce the plaintiff's electronically stored medical records in “native readable format” after the defendants produced the records in PDF format, agreeing that the defendants had demonstrated that they would suffer an undue burden in complying with the plaintiff's request.

The plaintiff sought a native file production from a computer system that maintained medical files of prison inmates in a database application called “Centricity” from the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) related to his claim that he was beaten by several correctional officers while restrained with handcuffs. The plaintiff's medical records were previously provided in a PDF file organized in reverse chronological order, which the plaintiff claimed renders the records difficult to navigate and interpret. According to the plaintiff, when provided in PDF format, the record is missing “the functionality, searchable data points, and metadata which are part of the electronic medical record and are available to a provider…using Centricity.” Additionally, the plaintiff claimed that the PDF record is missing metadata stored in Centricity in the form of an "audit trail" which records changes or additions to the record.

The defendants argued that the form in which the plaintiff's records were provided is the standard output and method of production and that to produce the records in the form requested by the plaintiff “would be an inordinate drain of time and manpower” because staff from the DOC would be required to “sort through each page of the medical record and make the determination as to which category it fits into.”

Judge Arpert stated that “While Plaintiff claims the record as provided in PDF format is difficult to interpret and navigate, Defendants have demonstrated that they would suffer an undue burden in complying with Plaintiff's request to provide the records in their native format. Although the PDF record provided may be less convenient for Plaintiff, requiring staff from the DOC to sort and identify each page of every inmate medical record would create a substantial hardship and/or expense, which outweighs Plaintiff's interests in receiving the records in their native format.” As a result, the judge found “that Defendants have fulfilled their obligation with respect to the production of Plaintiff's medical records” and denied the plaintiff’s motion to compel.

So, what do you think? Should the defendants have been compelled to produce the data natively? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Court Allows Costs for TIFF Conversion and OCR, Likens it to “Making Copies” – eDiscovery Case Law

November 21, 2014

In Kuznyetsov v. West Penn Allegheny Health Sys., No. 10-948 (W.D. Pa.Oct. 23, 2014), Pennsylvania Senior District Judge Donetta W. Ambrose upheld the Clerk of Courts issuance of Taxation of Costs for $60,890.97 in favor of the defendants and against the named the plaintiffs, including costs for “scanning and conversion of native files to the agreed-upon format for production of ESI”.

Case Background

The plaintiffs filed a collective action pursuant to §216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) against the defendants, which was ultimately decertified as Judge Ambrose ruled that the 824 opt-in plaintiffs were not similarly situated. After that, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal, which Judge Ambrose granted, dismissing the claims of the opt-in Plaintiffs without prejudice and dismissing the claims of the named Plaintiffs with prejudice (the plaintiffs appealed and the Third Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction).

On October 15, 2013, the defendants filed a Bill of Costs seeking a total of $78,561.77. On October 31, 2013, the Clerk of Courts filed a Letter calling for objections to the Bill of Costs, which was followed in January of this year by objections from the named plaintiffs (to which the Defendants filed a response). On August 1, the Clerk of Courts issued his Taxation of Costs in the amount of $60,890.97 in favor of Defendants and against the named Plaintiffs.

Judge’s Ruling

Stating that “Rule 54(d)(1) creates a strong presumption that costs are to be awarded to the prevailing party”, Judge Ambrose analyzed the costs as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 1920, including §1920(4), which covers “Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any material where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case”.

Addressing the plaintiff’s contention that the costs awarded were for eDiscovery costs were not necessary and were awarded at unreasonably high rates and referencing the Race Tires case in her ruling, Judge Ambrose stated:

“With regard to unnecessary e-discovery costs and unreasonably high rates, Plaintiffs first argue that the costs associated with Optical Character Recognition (‘OCR’) were unnecessary…As Defendants point out, however, Plaintiffs requested the information be produced in, inter alia, OCR format…The ‘scanning and conversion of native files to the agreed-upon format for production of ESI constitutes `making copies of materials’ as pursuant to §1920(4)…Accordingly, I find the costs associated with OCR conversion are taxable.

Furthermore, I do not find the cost of 5 cents per page for TIFF services to be unreasonably high, nor do I find 24 cents per page for scanning paper documents to be unreasonably high…Consequently, I find not merit to this argument either.”

Rejecting the plaintiff’s arguments that “1) Defendants have unclean hands; 2) Plaintiffs are unable to pay the costs; and 3) it would be inequitable to force the three named Plaintiffs to pay the entire costs of defending against the claims of the opt-in Plaintiffs”, Judge Ambrose affirmed the amount of $60,890.97 in favor of Defendants.

So, what do you think? Should the costs have been allowed for conversion of native files when they may have already been usable as is? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Twitter Might “Bug” You if You Want to Retrieve Archive Data – eDiscovery Best Practices

November 20, 2014

Thanks to the Google Alerts that I set up to send me new stories related to eDiscovery, I found an interesting blog post from an attorney that appears to shed light on an archival bug within Twitter that could affect people who may want to retrieve Twitter archival data for eDiscovery purposes.

In Erik J. Heels’ blog, his latest post (Twitter Bug Makes Tweet Archives Unreliable For eDiscovery), he starts by noting that his very first tweet of October 30, 2008 is no longer active on his site – his earliest tweet was dated September 5, 2010. All attempts to try to locate the tweets were unsuccessful and customer service was no help.

After some digging, Erik found out that, on October 13, 2010, Twitter announced the “new Twitter” which included a new user interface. As part of that revamping, Twitter changed the format for its status URLs (Tweets) so that the sequential number at the end of each Tweet (the Tweet ID) changed length, eventually doubling from nine digits in 2008 to 18 digits today (which supports up to one quintillion tweets).

Then, on December 12, 2012, Twitter announced that users could export archives of their Tweets (via your account’s Settings page). The result is a nine field comma-separated values (CSV) file with information, including the tweet ID. So, now you could retrieve your old tweets that were no longer actively stored, right? Not necessarily.

As Erik found out, when he exported the file and went to retrieve old tweets, some of his tweet IDs actually pointed to other people’s tweets! You can see the details of his tests in his blog post or via his 60 second YouTube video here.

Obviously, if you need to retrieve archived tweets for eDiscovery purposes, that’s not a good thing.

As it happens, CloudNine Discovery has our own Twitter account (@Cloud9Discovery) and has since August of 2009 (we were known as Trial Solutions back then), so I decided to run my own test and exported our archive. Here’s what I found:

Our very first tweet was August 17, 2009 (Trial Solutions Ranks 2,830 on the Exclusive 2009 Inc. 5000). It retrieved correctly. The bit.ly link within the tweet isn’t hyperlinked, but if you copy and paste it into the browser address, it correctly retrieves (obviously, this will only be the case if the referenced web page still exists).
In fact, all of the early tweets that I tested retrieved with no problem.
Then, on December 1, 2010, I encountered the first tweet that didn’t retrieve correctly (one of our blog posts titled eDiscovery Project Management: Effectively Manage Your Staff) with a tweet ID of 9924696560635900 (Full URL: https://twitter.com/Cloud9Discovery/status/9924696560635900). It didn’t point to a different person’s tweet, it simply said “Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!”
From that point on, none of the tweets that I tried to retrieve would retrieve – all gave me the “page doesn’t exist” message.
I even tried to retrieve our tweet of yesterday’s blog post (Defendant Ordered to Produce Archived Emails Even Though Plaintiff Failed to Produce Theirs – eDiscovery Case Law) via the tweet ID provided in the archive file (535098008715538000). Even it wouldn’t retrieve. Wait a minute, what’s going on here!

I then retrieved our tweet of yesterday’s blog post by clicking on it directly within Twitter. Here is the URL to the tweet with the ID at the end: https://twitter.com/Cloud9Discovery/status/535098008715538434.

See the problem? The tweet IDs don’t match.

I ultimately determined that all of the tweet IDs provided in the archive file starting on December 1, 2010 end with two or more zeroes. Starting on November 5, 2010, they all end with at least one zero. When I started testing those, I re-created Erik’s problem:

Our tweet on November 29, 2010 titled eDiscovery Trends: Sanctions at an All-Time High, (tweet ID: 9199940811100160) actually retrieves a tweet by @aalyce titled @StylesFever snog liam marry louis and niall can take me out 😉 hehe. Whoops!

It appears as though the archive file provided by Twitter is dropping all digits of the tweet ID after the fifteenth digit and replacing them with zeroes, effectively pointing to either an invalid or incorrect page and rendering the export effectively useless. Hopefully, Twitter can fix it – we’ll see. In the meantime, don’t rely on it and be prepared to address the issue if your case needs to retrieve archived data from Twitter. Thanks, Erik, for the heads up!

So, what do you think? Have you ever had to preserve or produce data from Twitter in litigation? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Production