Production Archives

Craig Ball of Craig D. Ball, P.C. – eDiscovery Trends, Part 2

March 21, 2014

This is the eleventh (and final) of the 2014 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series. eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders after LTNY this year (don’t get us started) and generally asked each of them the following questions:

What significant eDiscovery trends did you see at LTNY this year and what do you see for 2014?
With new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure now in the comment phase, do you see those being approved this year and what do you see as the impact of those Rules changes?
It seems despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery? Do you agree with that and, if so, what do you think can be done to improve the situation?
What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Craig Ball. A frequent court appointed special master in electronic evidence, Craig is a prolific contributor to continuing legal and professional education programs throughout the United States, having delivered over 1,500 presentations and papers. Craig’s articles on forensic technology and electronic discovery frequently appear in the national media, and just ended nine years writing a monthly column on computer forensics and eDiscovery for Law Technology News called Ball in your Court. He currentlyblogs on those topics at ballinyourcourt.com.

As usual, Craig gave us so much useful information that we decided to spread it out, yesterday was Part 1 of the interview and here is the rest!

It seems despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery? Do you agree with that and, if so, what do you think can be done to improve the situation?

I have to marvel at the ingenuity of my colleagues who have so effectively deflected the obligation to learn much of the nuts and bolts of eDiscovery. A mastery of buzzwords and buzz concepts is not the same thing. You can almost see the eagerness of some to deploy certain ideas that they have picked up as though simply encanting a buzz word is the same as applying it in a practical fashion. Lawyers focus on the work product privilege as a means to avoid transparency in essential applications. They trot out something that they’ve distilled from Zubulake, now ten years old. Again, they are fighting the last war. They are still over-preserving in shocking ways and still issuing legal holds that are boilerplate. They’re still failing to give useful information in legal hold notices (as they can’t tell people to do what they themselves don’t know how to do). We’re seeing little creativity and a copious quantity of uninspired mimicry. It isn’t working.

The problem I have with this is that it is that eDiscovery isn’t that hard. We make it hard. We sit down in a room and start talking about the moving parts and everyone starts getting very depressed. They’re desperate to seize upon a one-dimensional solution – they want to find a hammer that they can bang against everything. It isn’t that hard. Though there are strategies that you need for different kinds of evidence, there are recognitions you must make that there are different users that use data in different ways. Different levels of fragility. But, we’re not talking about learning Chinese pictographs here, we’re talking about a small handful of common productivity file types and a tiny handful of mechanisms for communication. In any other industry, they would be so happy to have so little complexity to deal with; but in our industry, any complexity at all seems to be overwhelming. And, it frustrates me because, if lawyers would devote a bit of of genuine energy and time to this, and if we made more resources available to them, we could really make not just incremental strides, but great leaps in reducing the cost and anguish associated with electronic discovery. It’s not that hard, it doesn’t have to be that expensive. But, it does require a certain minimal fluency to understand what you’re dealing with.

We all work with digital information, all day, every day. Right now you are taping me on a digital recorder, we’re having a conversation on digital phones where the conversation is being converted into packets and it’s moving back and forth. I’m staring at two screens now with my email on the left screen and the internet on the right screen with my smart phone and my tablet close by. That’s modern life. If we don’t approach electronic discovery with the same engagement that we do with digital tools in other aspects of our lives, we’re doomed to continue to commit malpractice in both how we approach eDiscovery and how we spend our client’s money on eDiscovery. And, it’s just sad, it remains deeply sad.

We aren’t deploying the right tools. Soon, our opponents and courts will realize that we’re fighting the last war and that it’s very easy to step around our defenses. We haven’t put the tools–the weapons in the hands of the infantry – the working stiff lawyer – to allow them to begin to deal with electronic discovery.

How is it going to get better? Right now, the only path I see is going to be the enthusiast, the individual lawyer who – out of boredom, ambition or aversion unemployment – decides that they’re going to craft a new career path for themselves. I hear from one of those lawyers nearly every day, so that means that I hear from 150-200 lawyers each year who tell me that they want to do what I do. That’s great, but the resources for them to achieve that, to get the information they need, are still sparse in the context of law practice. You can go out there and learn forensics and information systems and IT. But, to integrate the parts of those disciplines that are attendant to eDiscovery, it’s difficult. We’re still having electronic discovery taught, by and large, by people who consider it a body of law and who shun its technology aspect.

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

My mission for 2014 is wake our readers up on the issue of form of production. That’s a little silly because your readers are among the most enlightened of consumers of electronic discovery. But, helping requesting parties change the archaic way they ask for ESI has been a big part of what I want to accomplish in 2014. And, helping them to make sensible choices about forms of production so that they can get complete and utile forms, That’s not always a native form, but it’s rarely static images. I know that is something that I’ve jawed about for a long time and I imagine there are quite a few people that are tired of hearing me speak about it, but I’m finally starting to get some traction.

Judges are starting to listen and understand. As we chip away at this absurd practice to turn everything into electronic paper, what becomes clear is that the processes that we’ve developed to produce spreadsheets and PowerPoints in native forms apply with equal force and success to Word documents, and now you realize that you’ve covered the Microsoft Office complement of data. Those are the files that tend to make up the most common attachments to emails and, oh, by the way, emails can be provided in functional formats that are also complete. Everyone technologist knows what’s in an email. It has to have a certain complement of features to be called an email and traverse the internet. Why don’t we just start providing emails in forms that function? Helping parties to exchange forms that function is my mission for 2014.

I don’t expect that by next year that I will tell you that everyone has awakened to the fact that native and near-native productions are cheaper and better. Let’s face it, there are a lot of people conserving very old tools and workflows who will not give them up until they are forced to give them up. There are all sorts of changes for the greater good that decent, intelligent people resist too long, just as they did with women’s suffrage and civil rights. I don’t mean to trivialize civil rights by comparing them to litigants’ rights, but changes must and shall come to pass. We must evolve to become Juris Doctor Electronicus: modern, digitally-capable counsel.

Thanks, Craig, for participating in the interview!

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

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.

Federal Court Partially Reverses District Court’s Taxation of Electronic Discovery Costs – eDiscovery Case Law

March 11, 2014

In CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., No. 2013-1036, 2013 U.S. App. (Fed. Circ. Dec. 13, 2013), the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part and vacated in part an earlier decision by the Georgia district court to require the plaintiffs to pay the defendants’ costs relating to the production and duplication of electronically stored information (ESI) offered as eDiscovery, limiting taxation to only those costs which were directly related to copying.

Circuit Judges O’Malley and Taranto heard the appeals case, which was filed by the plaintiff after a district court ruled in favor of the defendants regarding the taxation of costs for eDiscovery. The initial case, a patent infringement lawsuit, was found in favor of the defendants, and the district court determined that the plaintiffs should pay the defendants’ costs, with two defendants asking for nearly $270,000 and nearly $50,000, respectively.

In filing for costs, the first defendant categorized $243,000 of the requested amount as “other” costs, stating that the fees were to cover expenses for the eDiscovery vendor that produced the ESI. The remaining $4,500 was characterized as the costs of making copies of the data. The second defendant did not identify any costs for making copies, and categorized $34,000 of the total cost as expenses for its eDiscovery vendor.

On appeal, Judges O’Malley and Taranto followed the leads of previous cases in the Third Circuit (Race Tires America, Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp) and the Fourth Circuit (The Country Vintner of North Carolina, LLC v. E & J Gallo Winery, Inc.) with narrow interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1920, which is concerned with defining costs that are and are not recoverable regarding eDiscovery. The applicable law was noted as the scope of section 1920(4), which first defined as recoverable for costs “[f]ees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case.” Section 1920(4), amended in order to address electronic evidence, now states that recovery costs for ESI are allowed only for “the reasonable costs of actually duplicating those documents, not for the cost of gathering those documents as a prelude to duplication.”

Observation and examination of the defendants’ discovery process found that the first stage performed by the vendor was the closest in scope to the process of making copies, and therefore was recoverable. This stage includes imaging hard drives and other source media, and then processing the resultant images to extract relevant individual documents. Judges O’Malley and Taranto noted that “the statute covers costs for steps, which commonly involve an initial reproduction, that necessarily precede the creation of a final production copy: converting electronic files to non-editable formats . . . and scanning paper documents.”

However, the taxation line was drawn at “costs incurred in preparing to copy,” such as the next stage of the vendor’s process, which involved organizing the extracted documents into a database to be “indexed, decrypted, and de-duplicated, and filtered, analyzed, searched, and reviewed to determine which were responsive to discovery requests and which contained privileged information.” The defendants asked for these costs to be subject to recovery, categorizing them as “project management, keyword searching, ‘statistical previews,’ ‘auditing and logging of files and ensuring compliance with Federal Rules,’ and ‘extraction of proprietary data,’ along with other characterizations. In addition, the defendants requested that the costs of convenience actions such as buying, installing, and configuring a data-host server be relegated to the plaintiffs. The judges dismissed these costs as unrecoverable, but did classify the costs of creating “load files” – scanned images that indicate breaks in documents – as recoverable and subject to taxation.

Finally, Judges O’Malley and Taranto limited recovery costs to only the subset of documents that was actually produced by the defendants’ eDiscovery vendor. The matter was then remanded to the district court, which will consider what format was required for ESI production, and which costs were appropriate to assign to the plaintiff.

So, what do you think? Should the entirety of eDiscovery production costs be subject to taxation and awarded to the prevailing party? Is there a broader interpretation of costs related to copying electronic documents that should be considered? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

ASU-Arkfeld eDiscovery and Digital Evidence Conference – eDiscovery Trends

March 6, 2014

Apparently, next week is the week for eDiscovery conferences.

Last week, I told you about a two-day program being hosted next week in my hometown of Houston by The Sedona Conference®. Then, on Tuesday, I told you about the Second Annual Electronic Discovery Conference for the Small and Medium Case, hosted by the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida and EDRM also next week. Now, here is another conference alternative for next week – the Third Annual ASU-Arkfeld eDiscovery and Digital Evidence Conference, hosted by Arizona State University and noted eDiscovery expert Michael Arkfeld.

The conference will be held next week, March 12-14 at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law / Armstrong Hall at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona. As the downloadable brochure states, the conference will be “[f]ocusing on the practical issues affecting the discovery and admission of electronic information. Attendees will be participating with thought leaders and practitioners of eDiscovery on issues impacting legal professionals locally, nationally, and globally.”

The conference will include:

noted eDiscovery judges, including Shira A. Scheindlin (who will be giving the keynote address on the first morning), John Facciola, and Craig Shaffer;
knowledgeable in-house counsel and eDiscovery specialists, including Robert Amicone from Office Depot, Tom Morrissey from Purdue Pharma and Kit Goetz from Qualcomm;
distinguished outside counsel, including Robert Singleton from Squire Sanders, Mark Sidoti from Gibbons, Joy Woller from Lewis Roca Rothgerber, Maura Grossman from Wachtell, and Ariana Tadler from Milberg and;
dedicated litigation support professionals including Tom O’Connor, Steven Goldstein, and Anne Kershaw.

Topics run the full range of the eDiscovery life cycle – from information management strategies to dispose of “zombie data” (I like that term) to meet and confer, preservation, collection, data analytics and technology assisted review, production formats, eDiscovery for criminal cases and cross-border issues and eDiscovery project management best practices. You can earn up to 15 hours of CLE credit for attending.

It’s too late for early bird pricing, but regular attendees can still register prior to the show for $595. Government, non-profit and paralegal registrants can do so for $345; if you’re a student, it only costs $95 to attend. Those rates are $695/$395/$115, respectively, if you wait until the day the show starts. Discounted group rates are also available. You can register for the conference online here.

So, what do you think? Do you plan to attend the program, or perhaps one of the other programs next week? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Dispute over Production Format and Search Terms for Electronic Discovery Highlights the Need for Cooperation – eDiscovery Case Law

February 21, 2014

In Saliga v. Chemtura Corp., No. 3:12cv832 (RNC), 2013 U.S. Dist. (D. Conn. Nov. 25, 2013), a discrimination case heard by Connecticut Magistrate Judge Donna F. Martinez, the plaintiff and the defendants had spent a year arguing over the format of production for Electronically Stored Information (ESI) to be used in discovery, as well as relevant search terms, before the plaintiff filed a motion to compel.

Prior to this motion, Judge Martinez had held a status conference and chastised both parties concerning the issue of cooperation, noting that discussions about ESI should begin early in the case under Rule 26(f), which requires that both parties confer in order to develop a discovery plan that addressed “any issues about disclosure or discovery of [ESI], including the form or forms in which it should be produced.” However, it was determined that given the current state of impasse, another meeting between parties would not reach a resolution, necessitating court intervention.

The format for production was the first matter addressed. Originally, the plaintiff had asked that the defendant produce emails for discovery in native format, which would contain application metadata and could also contain system metadata relevant to the litigation, such as file creation dates or the identity of the computer on which the email was created. The defendants’ objection stated that “standard practice is to produce ESI in searchable PDF or TIFF and there is ‘no basis or need’ to produce the emails in native format.”

However, the defendants did not claim any undue burden or expense with regards to the requested production format, nor did they offer a reason why they were unable to comply. Therefore according to Rule 34(b)(1)(c), which states that the requesting party, in this case the plaintiff, may “specify the form or forms in which electronically stored information is to be produced,” Judge Martinez ordered the defendant to produce the requested emails in native format.

The next issue addressed was a complaint by the defendant that two of the requests for production from the plaintiff were overly broad, and therefore unduly burdensome. The plaintiff listed 14 employees to search, and the defendant stated that search results for the employees’ emails yielded more than 925,000 hits. In addition, the complaint claimed this request was a duplicate of the plaintiff’s requested search terms, which caused similar problems.

Prior to the complaint, the parties had failed to agree on the search terms to be used, or how the search should proceed. The unresolved dispute necessitated Judge Martinez’s intervention, despite the fact that the court was “loath to decide the search terms to be used because the parties are far better positioned to do so.” In the discovery request, the plaintiff asked for the defendants to use 12 relevant words and phrases, variously combined with versions of the custodians’ names to create 37 search terms in total. The defendants objected to one of the 12 base search terms, “India Audit,” and claimed that inclusion of the custodians’ names would be “cumulative and unnecessary.”

Judge Martinez agreed that it would be “superfluous” to incorporate the names of the custodians into the search terms, but denied the defendants’ request to discard the contested search term “India Audit” and ordered that it be included.

Finally, the plaintiff’s request for information on the defendants’ data collection process was considered, in light of a letter the plaintiff had submitted to the defendants three months prior that contained “three pages of technical questions about the defendant’s system configuration, acquisition methods and data extraction” and told the defendant “not to produce any ESI discovery until the plaintiff was satisfied that her concerns and questions were resolved.” Judge Martinez rejected this request, stating that “the plaintiff’s questions may not impede the defendant’s production, which must take place immediately.” The plaintiff was advised to address the opposing counsel should she have any legitimate concerns about the procedures for data collection.

So, what do you think? Should the court step in to define search terms when both parties fail to agree on them? Should the plaintiff’s right to specify a production form for ESI supersede standard practices? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Bad Faith Violations in Discovery Lead to Sanctions for Defendant – eDiscovery Case Law

February 20, 2014

Regarding the case In re Pradaxa (Dabigatran Etexilate) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2385, 3:12-md-02385-DRH-SCW, 2013 U.S. Dist. (S.D. III. Dec. 9, 2013), 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.

In the case before Chief District Judge David R. Herndon, the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (PSC) filed a motion to seek sanctions against the defendants due to failure to preserve evidence and a faulty discovery hold. The PSC stated four types of discovery violations outlining the defendants’ failure to: (1) identify and preserve the files of a key custodian, (2) preserve evidence or disclose and produce evidence in a timely manner, (3) preserve or produce text messages from employees in a timely manner, and (4) provide passwords for use in collecting documents, resulting in a delay for identifying and producing data.

Judge Herndon noted in addressing the motions that the defendants “have simply failed to follow the Court’s orders,” stating that the “ongoing discovery abuses” by the defendants have “plagued” the proceedings nearly since the beginning of this litigation. He went on to say that he had “never seen a litigation where the problems are just ongoing and continual, and every month or every week there’s an issue of this failure and that failure and the other failure. It is just astounding.”

Due to the egregious and continued issues brought on by the defendant’s “numerous and substantial” discovery violations, as well as the effect of prejudicing the plaintiffs and the defendants’ “contumacious disregard for [the Court’s] authority,” Judge Herndon followed Rule 37 which grants the Court the inherent authority to award sanctions and fined the defendants nearly $30,000 – an amount that is roughly equal to $20 per case in this multidistrict litigation (MDL). The defendants were also warned that Judge Herndon believes in “progressive discipline,” a clear statement that further sanctions would be imposed if the defendants’ “endless parade of excuses” continues.

Furthermore, the defendants were ordered to audit their records in an attempt to determine whether additional undiscovered material existed. While Judge Herndon expected that some deficiencies would be found, the audit uncovered a “growing number of ‘gaps’ in production” resulting from the defendants taking liberties with the company-wide litigation hold by applying a “too narrow and an incremental approach.”

Judge Herndon remarked to each of the excuses offered by the defendants with regards to various failures to preserve discovery documents and electronically stored information (ESI), stating that the defendants “do not get to pick and choose which evidence they want to produce from which sources” and that their “efforts to suggest that they and they alone decided to implement such a proportionality test to the litigation hold smacks of a post-debacle argument in desperation to salvage a failed strategy regarding production evasion.” Therefore, the defendants’ attempt to claim good faith was dismissed, as sanctions were imposed.

This case was previously covered on this blog here.

So, what do you think? Were these sanctions a strong enough deterrent to discovery violations in other cases? Or should apparent deliberate evasion and ignoring court orders lead to stiffer penalties? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

‘Discovery About Discovery’ Motions Lead to Unusual Court Decision – eDiscovery Case Law

February 7, 2014

In Ruiz-Bueno v. Scott, No. 2:12-cv-0809, 2013 U.S. Dist. (S.D. Ohio Nov. 15, 2013), 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.’

The dispute arose when the plaintiffs filed a second set of interrogatories. Due to concern regarding the small amount of electronically stored information (ESI) produced by the defendants during the first round of discovery, the plaintiffs sought to compel the defendants to answer two questions: “(1) what efforts they made to comply with plaintiffs’ previous discovery requests, and (2) what procedures or methods were used to search for responsive electronically stored information, or ESI.”

In response, the defendants offered a simple objection on the basis that information sought by the plaintiffs’ request was irrelevant and had “no bearing on any aspect of the case.” The defendants alleged that discovery is not a “claim or defense” in this particular case, and cited Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), which limits the proper scope of discovery to “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.”

Judge Kemp noted that not every case justifies directing council to provide discovery about discovery, but that the circumstances here required such direction, because the defendants were not “forthcoming with information needed to make further discussion of the issue a collaborative rather than contrarian process.” It was noted that the current dispute arose from the “plaintiffs’ distrust of the diligence with which defendants searched for ESI,” although it was conceded that the defendants likely believed they had “made a good faith effort to locate and produce all relevant emails.”

However, in this case the defendants had not collaborated with the plaintiffs to share information about their search protocols, other than to state that each of 50 defendants had been asked twice to produce their relevant emails. Judge Kemp noted that rather than relying on “50 different employees to search emails in some unspecified manner,” which likely resulted in searches carried out with different protocols—such as by sender, by recipient, by keyword, or by date, for example—the defendants could have instituted a controlled search that would have produce more comprehensive discovery responses.

Judge Kemp additionally noted that from personal observation and the “tenor of telephone conferences and written submissions,” it appears that there are issues in the relationship between counsel for the plaintiffs and counsel for the defense. It was recommended that counsel cooperate for the remainder of the discovery ahead, and for the potentially lengthy trial, in the interests of ensuring that processes are “cost-efficient for their own clients and for the Court.”

The defendants were directed to answer the plaintiffs’ interrogatories concerning ‘discovery about discovery,’ and also left with a standing order that presumes any issues remaining after the document retrieval process is satisfactorily described, will be addressed cooperatively by counsel.

So, what do you think? Should parties be permitted to compel answers concerning method of discovery in all cases when those methods are unclear? Should there be special exceptions, either for or against discovery about discovery? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Discovery of Privileged Documents and Form of Production Addressed in Ruling on Second Motion to Compel – eDiscovery Case Law

February 3, 2014

In RPM Pizza LLC v. Argonaut Great Central Insurance Co., No. 10-684-BAJ-SCR, 2013 U.S. Dist. (M.D. La. Nov. 15, 2013), Louisiana Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger delivered a partial ruling on a Second Motion to Compel the Production of Documents and Interrogatory Responses filed by the plaintiffs, who filed the motion in effect to renew their previous motion to compel, to which the defendant did not respond in a timely manner. Largely due to the delayed response, Judge Reidlinger ruled in favor of the plaintiff on several aspects of the motion.

In both the original and second motion to compel, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s production of discovery documents was deficient in multiple ways. First, the defendant produced 555 documents in response to discovery requests, of which 520 had already been provided to the plaintiff. Second, the documents produced did not provide answers to the interrogatories posed in discovery, and those which answered three of the 17 Requests for Production were highly unlikely to include all of the documents that were responsive to those requests. Finally, the plaintiff objected to the quality and format of the production—specifically, that the defendant had provided PDF files without metadata instead of TIFF with metadata.

The defendant not only opposed the motion, but also sought an award for expenses and fees they had incurred to oppose. The defendant stated that the motion should be denied, since the response was supplemented voluntarily upon the Second Motion to Compel, and a privilege log was produced.

The plaintiff contested the form of production for the privilege log, asserting that it did not contain enough detail to determine whether the documents were in fact privileged. The supplied log indicated that the plaintiff had withheld documents that were “‘NRC’ (not reasonably calculated), or ‘CPTS’ (confidential, proprietary and/or trade secret)” rather than privileged. Furthermore, the plaintiff asserted, the defendant’s statement that it would rely on an advice-of-counsel defense for discovery responses meant that the defendant had waived the attorney-client privilege.

While the defendant acknowledged that its privilege log lacked the required detail, it asserted that there was insufficient time to prepare, since it had reviewed “thousands of documents on short notice” in response to the plaintiff’s “unreasonably broad discovery requests.” Furthermore, the defendant claimed that it experienced “unexpected technical issues with electronic discovery” and requested a time extension for completing the privilege log.

In his decision, Judge Reidlinger agreed that the defendant had waived the claim of privilege over withheld documents, and found the defendant’s justification for the deficiencies and delays in producing the privilege log to be “vague, unsupported, and unpersuasive.” Additionally, Judge Reidlinger dismissed the excuses of tight deadlines and time constraints because, according to the record, “the cause of Argonaut having to review and produce thousands of documents on short notice and in a short period of time is Argonaut’s own failure to take prompt, appropriate actions when it was served with the plaintiff’s discovery requests on April 19, 2013.” The 555 pages of mostly duplicate documents were not produced by the defendant until six weeks after the plaintiff’s first motion to compel was filed.

Finally, the defendant’s general objection to document production in a “particular format or matter” was overruled, due to the plaintiff’s right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2)(E) to specify a form of production without the need to prove why a specific form was necessary—and due to the defendant’s failure to specifically object to the form of production until its delayed supplemental response. The defendant was ordered to produce the documents in the requested format, with metadata.

So, what do you think? Should a delayed response result in stricter enforcement of discovery responses? How much does document format matter? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Court Grants Motion to Compel Defendant to Produce Documents as Requested and Chronicle Approach – eDiscovery Case Law

January 24, 2014

In Home Instead, Inc. v. Florance, No. 8:12CV264, 2013 U.S. Dist. (D. Neb. Nov. 8, 2013), 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.

During this dispute over a franchise agreement, the parties were ordered to meet for a discussion of the discovery matter but failed to resolve any issues. The plaintiff alleged the documents were not produced due to the defendant’s destruction, deleting, selling, shredding, or otherwise discarding of the documents. The plaintiff also alleged that their attempts at searching electronically for documents fell short of a good faith effort and was therefore inadequate. According to testimony by both David and Michelle Florance, the defendants, there was not a thorough search of email accounts for responsive documents. This “broad” search did not include reviewing client paper files, employee files, caregiver logs, or client care plans or service contracts.

Additionally, the defendants were unable to explain what efforts their employees used to find information. Furthermore, their electronic search merely consisted of looking for the words “Home Instead”, and they subsequently deleted any documents found. The defendants did not retain a copy or forward the document to counsel. Judge Zwart agreed with the plaintiff and felt they were entitled to a sworn affidavit, “not only to determine the extent of the defendants’ search for production of responsive discovery”, but to also assess the defendant’s culpability in failing to preserve evidence used in litigation.

As to the manner of production, the plaintiff alleged the defendants provided “one large PDF that contains no metadata, no indication of parent-document relationship, on no indication as to the beginning and end of each document.” The motion requested Judge Zwart to compel the defendants to produce their discovery responses in compliance with the Federal Rules.

According to the parties’ Rule 26(f) report, any document maintained in electronic form during a party’s normal course of business will also be produced in electronic form as “searchable TIFF images with load files to allow images to be loaded into a document production database.” Those documents not produced in electronic form in a party’s ordinary course of business and not scanned into electronic form prior to the date of production are allowed to be produced in the manner in which they are maintained. In addition, Rule 34(b)(2)(e) of the FRCP states 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.”

The defendant’s deposition testimony showed that while the defendants located electronic documents, they did not produce them in an electronic format as required under their agreement with the Plaintiff or the federal rules. They also failed to organize and label any documents that may have existed in their usual course of business, a requirement under the Federal Rules. Judge Zwart agreed with the plaintiff, stating that the defendants “failed to organize and label [the documents] as required under the Federal Rules,” and granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel.

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

2013 eDiscovery Year in Review: eDiscovery Case Law, Part 4

January 21, 2014

As we noted on Thursday, Friday and yesterday, eDiscoveryDaily published 78 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 62 unique cases! Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to proportionality and the first half of the cases related to sanctions (yes, there were that many). Today, here are the rest of the cases related to sanctions.

We grouped those cases into common subject themes and have been reviewing them over the previous three posts. Today is the last post in the series. Perhaps you missed some of these cases? Now is your chance to catch up!

SANCTIONS

Of the 62 cases we covered this past year, over 40% of them (26 total cases) related to sanctions, either due to spoliation issues or inadequate or untimely productions, many of which were granted, but some were denied. Oh, and, apparently, having your case dismissed isn’t the worst that can happen to you for spoliation of data. Here are the remaining 13 cases:

Judge Rules Against Spoliation Sanctions when the Evidence Doesn’t Support the Case. In Cottle-Banks v. Cox Commc’ns, Inc., California District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel denied the plaintiff’s motion for spolation sanctions because the plaintiff was unable to show that deleted recordings of customer calls would have likely been relevant and supportive of her claim.

Spoliation of Data Can Get You Sent Up the River. Sometimes, eDiscovery can literally be a fishing expedition. I got a kick out of Ralph Losey’s article on E-Discovery Law Today (Fishing Expedition Discovers Laptop Cast into Indian River) where the defendant employee in a RICO case in Simon Property Group, Inc. v. Lauria threw her laptop into a river. Needless to say, given the intentional spoliation of evidence, the court imposed struck all of the defenses raised by the defendant and scheduled the case for trial on the issue of damages.

Adverse Inference Sanction for Defendant who Failed to Stop Automatic Deletion. Remember the adverse inference instructions in the Zubulake v. UBS Warburg and Apple v. Samsung cases? This case has characteristics of both of those. In Pillay v. Millard Refrigerated Servs., Inc., Illinois District Judge Joan H. Lefkow granted the plaintiff’s motion for an adverse inference jury instruction due to the defendant’s failure to stop automatic deletion of employee productivity tracking data used as a reason for terminating a disabled employee.

Appellate Court Upholds District Court Discretion for Determining the Strength of Adverse Inference Sanction. In Flagg v. City of Detroit, the Sixth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a permissive rather than mandatory adverse inference instruction for the defendant’s deletion of emails, noting that the district court has discretion in determining the strength of the inference to be applied.

eDiscovery Vendors Are Not Immune to eDiscovery Sanctions. In Nuance Communications Inc. v. Abbyy Software House et al., California District Judge Jeffrey S. White refused Wednesday to dismiss Nuance Communications Inc.’s patent infringement suit against Lexmark International Inc. and Abbyy Software House, and awarded reimbursement of plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs in excess of $130,000 as part of discovery abuse sanctions resulting from the late production of relevant documents from Abbyy.

Hard Drive Turned Over to Criminal Defendant – Eight Years Later. If you think discovery violations by the other side can cause you problems, imagine being this guy. As reported by WRAL.com in Durham, North Carolina, the defense in State of North Carolina v. Raven S. Abaroa filed a Motion to Dismiss the Case for Discovery Violations after the state produced a forensic image of a hard drive (in the middle of trial) that had been locked away in the Durham Police Department for eight years.

When Lawyers Get Sued, They Have Preservation Obligations Too. In Distefano v. Law Offices of Barbara H. Katsos, PC., New York Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson found that the defendant (an attorney who was being sued by the plaintiff she previously represented for breach of contract, negligence/legal malpractice, and breach of fiduciary duty/duty of care) had a duty to preserve information from a discarded computer and ordered a hearing for the defendant to address a number of questions to determine the potential relevance of the destroyed data and whether the defendant had a sufficiently culpable state of mind.

Plaintiff Receives Adverse Inference Sanction for Deleting Facebook Profile. In Gatto v. United Air Lines, Inc., New Jersey Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion issued an adverse inference sanction against the plaintiff for failing to preserve data due to the fact that he either, deactivated his Facebook account and allowed the account to be automatically deleted after fourteen days, or that he deleted the account outright. Judge Mannion denied the defendant’s request for attorney’s fees and costs for “the time and effort it was forced to expend in an effort to obtain discovery”.

The Hammer Comes Down on Losing Plaintiff for Spoliation of Data. Apparently, having your case dismissed isn’t the worst that can happen to you for egregious spoliation of data. You can also be ordered to pay the winning party over $200,000 in fees and costs for the case. In Taylor v. Mitre Corp., Virginia District Judge Liam O’Grady partially granted the prevailing defendant’s motion for fees and costs after the court dismissed the case due to the plaintiff’s spoliation of evidence.

Defendants Sanctioned, Sort Of, for Failure to Preserve Text Messages. In Christou v. Beatport, LLC, Colorado District Judge R. Brooke Jackson ruled that the plaintiffs could introduce evidence at trial to show the defendants failure to preserve text messages after the key defendant’s iPhone was lost. However, the judge also ruled that the defendants could present “evidence in explanation…and argue that no adverse inference should be drawn”.

JP Morgan Chase Sanctioned for a Failure to Preserve Skill Codes. In EEOC v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, District Judge Gregory L. Frost granted the EEOC’s motion for sanctions for spoliation of data, entitling the plaintiff to “a permissive adverse jury instruction related to the spoliation if this litigation proceeds to a jury trial”, and denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

EEOC Sanctioned for Failing to Comply with Motion to Compel Production. As noted previously in this blog, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was ordered to turn over social media information related to a class action case alleging sexual harassment and retaliation. Apparently, they were less than cooperative in complying with that order. In EEOC v. Original Honeybaked Ham Co. of Georgia, Colorado Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty sanctioned the EEOC for failing to provide discovery of social media content.

Blind Reliance on Vendor for Discovery Results in Sanctions. In Peerless Indus., Inc. v. Crimson AV, LLC, Illinois Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox sanctioned the defendant for a “hands off approach” to discovery by relying on a vendor for conducting the discovery from a closely related non-party to the suit.

That’s our eDiscovery case review for 2013. Let’s do it again next year!

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.

2013 eDiscovery Year in Review: eDiscovery Case Law, Part 3

January 20, 2014

As we noted on Thursday and Friday, eDiscoveryDaily published 78 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 62 unique cases! Friday, we looked back at cases related to production format disputes, search disputes and technology assisted review. Today, let’s take a look back at cases related to proportionality and the first half of the cases related to sanctions (yes, there were that many).

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!

PROPORTIONALITY / COOPERATION

There were certainly at least a handful of cases where proportionality of eDiscovery and cooperation between parties was at issue, including the most viewed post in the history of this blog. Here are three such cases:

Is a Blended Document Review Rate of $466 Per Hour Excessive? Remember when we raised the question as to whether it is time to ditch the per hour model for document review? One of the cases we highlighted for perceived overbilling was ruled upon last month. In the case In re Citigroup Inc. Securities Litigation, New York District Judge Sidney H. Stein rejected as unreasonable the plaintiffs’ lead counsel’s proffered blended rate of more than $400 for contract attorneys—more than the blended rate charged for associate attorneys—most of whom were tasked with routine document review work.

Court Rejects Defendants’ Claim of Undue Burden in ERISA Case. In the case In re Coventry Healthcare, Inc.: ERISA Litigation, Maryland Magistrate Judge Jillyn K. Schulze rejected the defendants’ claim of undue burden where they failed to suggest alternatives to using the plaintiffs’ search terms and where they could enter a clawback order to eliminate the cost of reviewing the data for responsiveness and privilege.

Court Agrees with Defendant that Preserving 5 Terabytes of Data is Enough. In United States ex rel. King v. Solvay, S.A., Texas District Judge Gray Miller granted the defendant’s request for a protective order where the plaintiffs only offered generalized, unsupported claims to support their request to extend and expand discovery.

SANCTIONS

Yes, once again, the topic with the largest number of case law decisions related to eDiscovery is those decisions related to sanctions. Of the 62 cases we covered this past year, over 40% of them (26 total cases) related to sanctions, either due to spoliation issues or inadequate or untimely productions, many of which were granted, but some were denied. Here are the first 13 cases:

Company Should Have Preserved Personal eMails, But No Sanctions (Yet). In Puerto Rico Telephone Co. v. San Juan Cable LLC, Puerto Rico Magistrate Judge Bruce J. McGiverin found that “plaintiff has proffered sufficient evidence to establish that [the defendant] OneLink failed to preserve relevant emails within its control”, but denied the plaintiff’s request for sanctions at this time because of the “absence of bad faith” on the defendant’s part and the plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate prejudice.

The Ubiquitous Apple Samsung Case and “Patentgate”. When something gets the “gate” suffix added to it, that’s not a good thing. It’s hard to believe that a case can get more intense than when a billion dollar verdict is awarded (later reduced to a measly $599 million, then increased back up to $930 million), but the Apple v. Samsung case seems to only be getting more intense, due to the disclosure of confidential agreements that Apple had with Nokia, Ericsson, Sharp and Philips – now widely referred to as “patentgate”.

Duty to Preserve Triggered When Litigation is “Imminent”, Not “Reasonably Foreseeable”. In the case In re Pradaxa (Dabigatran Etexilate) Products Liability Litigation, Chief District Judge David R. Herndon ruled that at least in the Seventh Circuit, the duty to preserve is triggered not when litigation is “reasonably foreseeable” but when “a litigant knew or should have known that litigation was imminent.”

Leaving Your Hard Drives in a Rental House is Negligent, Court Rules. In Net-Com Services, Inc. v. Eupen Cable USA, Inc., the plaintiff’s destruction of evidence was negligent where its principal failed to take steps to preserve evidence he had stored in a home he rented to nonaffiliated lessees.

Despite Missing and Scrambled Hard Drives, Court Denies Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions. In Anderson v. Sullivan, a Pennsylvania court found “that no sanctions are warranted” despite the disappearance of one hard drive, “scrambling” of another hard drive and failure to produce several e-mails because the evidence was not relevant to the underlying claims and because there was no showing the defendants intentionally destroyed evidence.

Court Awards Sanctions, But Declines to Order Defendants to Retain an eDiscovery Vendor – Yet. In Logtale, Ltd. v. IKOR, Inc., California Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to discovery and awarded partial attorney’s fees as a result of defendants’ conduct. The judge did not grant the plaintiff’s request to order Defendants to retain an eDiscovery vendor to conduct a thorough and adequate search for responsive electronic documents, but did note that the court would do so “if there are continuing problems with their document productions”.

Imagine if the Zubulake Case Turned Out Like This. You’ve got an employee suing her ex-employer for discrimination, hostile work environment and being forced to resign. During discovery, it was determined that a key email was deleted due to the employer’s routine auto-delete policy, so the plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions. Sound familiar? Yep. Was her motion granted? Nope.

Scheindlin Reverses Magistrate Judge Ruling, Orders Sanction for Spoliation of Data. If you’re hoping to get away with failing to preserve data in eDiscovery, you might want to think again if your case appears in the docket for the Southern District of New York with Judge Shira Scheindlin presiding.

Permissive Adverse Inference Instruction Upheld on Appeal. In Mali v. Federal Insurance Co., the Second Circuit explained the distinctions between two types of adverse inference instructions: a sanction for misconduct versus an explanatory instruction that details the jury’s fact-finding abilities. Because the lower court opted to give a permissive adverse inference instruction, which is not a punishment, the court did not err by not requiring the defendant to show that the plaintiffs acted with a culpable state of mind.

Default Judgment Sanction Upheld on Appeal. In Stooksbury v. Ross, the Sixth Circuit upheld the entry of default judgment as a sanction against defendants that repeatedly failed to comply with discovery obligations, including producing a “document dump” of tens of thousands of pages of nonresponsive information that prejudiced the plaintiffs.

Spoliation Sanctions Can Apply to Audio Files Too. In Hart v. Dillon Cos., Colorado Magistrate Judge David L. West granted the plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence for failing to preserve a tape recorded interview with the plaintiff and set a hearing and oral argument as to what sanctions should be imposed for October.

Printed Copies of Documents Not Enough, Spoliation Sanctions Upheld for Discarding Computer. On May 30, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department upheld a spoliation sanction against a plaintiff that failed to preserve electronic files and discarded his computer containing those files.

Appellate Court Denies Sanctions for Routine Deletion of Text Messages. In PTSI, Inc. v. Haley, the appellate court denied a motion for spoliation sanctions where the defendants routinely deleted text messages and other data to “clean up” their personal electronic devices: the volume of messages and limited amount of phone storage made it difficult to retain all data and still use the phone for messaging.

Tune in tomorrow for the remaining thirteen sanctions cases in 2013!