Close
Enter your
text here

Production

eDiscovery Case Law: Twitter to Appeal Decision in People v. Harris
 

As reported by The Wall Street Journal, Twitter plans to appeal a court order requiring the company to produce messages posted by Malcolm Harris, an Occupy Wall Street activist facing criminal charges.  He was one of more than 700 people arrested last October when demonstrators marched onto the Brooklyn Bridge roadway.

Back in April, Harris tried to quash a subpoena seeking production of his Tweets and his Twitter account user information in his New York criminal case.  That request was rejected, so Twitter then sought to quash the subpoena themselves, claiming that the order to produce the information imposed an “undue burden” on Twitter and even forced it to “violate federal law”.

On June 30, in People v. Harris, 2011NY080152, New York Criminal Court Judge Matthew Sciarrino Jr. ruled that Twitter must produce tweets and user information of Harris, noting: “If you post a tweet, just like if you scream it out the window, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. There is no proprietary interest in your tweets, which you have now gifted to the world. This is not the same as a private email, a private direct message, a private chat, or any of the other readily available ways to have a private conversation via the internet that now exist…Those private dialogues would require a warrant based on probable cause in order to access the relevant information.”

Judge Sciarrino indicated that his decision was “partially based on Twitter's then terms of service agreement. After the April 20, 2012 decision, Twitter changed its terms and policy effective May 17, 2012. The newly added portion states that: ‘You Retain Your Right To Any Content You Submit, Post Or Display On Or Through The Service.’”  So, it would be interesting to see if the same ruling would be applied for “tweets” and other information posted after that date.

“We're appealing the Harris decision,” wrote Benjamin Lee, Twitter's lead litigator. “It doesn't strike the right balance between the rights of users and the interests of law enforcement”.

Martin Stolar, the attorney representing Harris, praised Twitter's decision. "Privacy interests in the information age are a special category which has to be freshly looked at by the courts," he said in a statement. "We are pleased that Twitter sees the far-reaching implications of the ruling against Mr. Harris and against Twitter."

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

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

eDiscovery Case Law: Judge Scheindlin Says “No” to Self-Collection, “Yes” to Predictive Coding
 

When most people think of the horrors of Friday the 13th, they think of Jason Voorhees.  When US Immigration and Customs thinks of Friday the 13th horrors, do they think of Judge Shira Scheindlin?

As noted in Law Technology News (Judge Scheindlin Issues Strong Opinion on Custodian Self-Collection, written by Ralph Losey, a previous thought leader interviewee on this blog), New York District Judge Scheindlin issued a decision last Friday (July 13) addressing the adequacy of searching and self-collection by government entity custodians in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.  As Losey notes, this is her fifth decision in National Day Laborer Organizing Network et al. v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, et al., including one that was later withdrawn.

Regarding the defendant’s question as to “why custodians could not be trusted to run effective searches of their own files, a skill that most office workers employ on a daily basis” (i.e., self-collect), Judge Scheindlin responded as follows:

“There are two answers to defendants' question. First, custodians cannot 'be trusted to run effective searches,' without providing a detailed description of those searches, because FOIA places a burden on defendants to establish that they have conducted adequate searches; FOIA permits agencies to do so by submitting affidavits that 'contain reasonable specificity of detail rather than merely conclusory statements.' Defendants' counsel recognize that, for over twenty years, courts have required that these affidavits 'set [ ] forth the search terms and the type of search performed.' But, somehow, DHS, ICE, and the FBI have not gotten the message. So it bears repetition: the government will not be able to establish the adequacy of its FOIA searches if it does not record and report the search terms that it used, how it combined them, and whether it searched the full text of documents.”

“The second answer to defendants' question has emerged from scholarship and caselaw only in recent years: most custodians cannot be 'trusted' to run effective searches because designing legally sufficient electronic searches in the discovery or FOIA contexts is not part of their daily responsibilities. Searching for an answer on Google (or Westlaw or Lexis) is very different from searching for all responsive documents in the FOIA or e-discovery context.”

“Simple keyword searching is often not enough: 'Even in the simplest case requiring a search of on-line e-mail, there is no guarantee that using keywords will always prove sufficient.' There is increasingly strong evidence that '[k]eyword search[ing] is not nearly as effective at identifying relevant information as many lawyers would like to believe.' As Judge Andrew Peck — one of this Court's experts in e-discovery — recently put it: 'In too many cases, however, the way lawyers choose keywords is the equivalent of the child's game of 'Go Fish' … keyword searches usually are not very effective.'”

Regarding search best practices and predictive coding, Judge Scheindlin noted:

“There are emerging best practices for dealing with these shortcomings and they are explained in detail elsewhere. There is a 'need for careful thought, quality control, testing, and cooperation with opposing counsel in designing search terms or keywords to be used to produce emails or other electronically stored information.' And beyond the use of keyword search, parties can (and frequently should) rely on latent semantic indexing, statistical probability models, and machine learning tools to find responsive documents.”

“Through iterative learning, these methods (known as 'computer-assisted' or 'predictive' coding) allow humans to teach computers what documents are and are not responsive to a particular FOIA or discovery request and they can significantly increase the effectiveness and efficiency of searches. In short, a review of the literature makes it abundantly clear that a court cannot simply trust the defendant agencies' unsupported assertions that their lay custodians have designed and conducted a reasonable search.”

Losey notes that “A classic analogy is that self-collection is equivalent to the fox guarding the hen house. With her latest opinion, Schiendlin [sic] includes the FBI and other agencies as foxes not to be trusted when it comes to searching their own email.”

So, what do you think?  Will this become another landmark decision by Judge Scheindlin?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

eDiscovery Trends: How Many Requests for User Information is Twitter Receiving? It’s Transparent.
 

As illustrated in the example we posted Tuesday, Twitter continues to receive requests from government agencies for user information (often related to litigation).  How many are they receiving?  Now, you can find out, simply by clicking on their new Transparency Report page to see the number of requests they have received.

Starting for the first six months of this year, Twitter’s report will be issued every six months and provides information in three areas:

  • Government requests received for user information;
  • Government requests received to withhold content; and
  • DMCA takedown notices received from copyright holders.

Twitter provides a table for each category.  For the government requests categories (first two sections), it shows requests by country.  In the User Information Requests table, it’s notable that, out of 849 total user information requests for the first half of 2012, 679 were requested by US government entities (we’re so litigious!).  They also provide stats for percentage of the requests where some or all information was produced and a count of users/accounts specified.  Here are some observations:

  • There were 849 total user information requests for the first half of 2012, 679 coming from US government entities.  The only other countries that had more than 10 requests were: Japan (98), Canada (11) and the United Kingdom (11).
  • Information was produced in 63% of those requests, 75% of the time for US requests.  Interestingly enough, only 20% of Japan’s 98 requests resulted in information produced.
  • The 849 total user information requests for the first half of 2012 specified 1,181 user accounts in those requests, with the 679 US requests specifying 948 user accounts.

Twitter notes that their report is inspired by Google’s own Transparency Report (click here to see their Transparency Report page and here to see user data requests they receive from government agencies and courts for a selected six-month period, starting with July through December 2009).  Early versions of the report don’t show the percentages of user data requests they comply with or the number of users or accounts about which data was requested.  But, it’s interesting to note that since Google began tracking requests, they have risen from greater than 12,539 in July through December 2009 to greater than 18,257 in July through December 2011, a 46% rise in two years.  It will be interesting to see if the number of Twitter requests rises in a similar fashion.  I’m betting yes.

Of course, there’s a protocol to follow if you’re a government entity or law enforcement organization requesting private information from Twitter as we detailed back in April.

So, what do you think?  Is this useful information?  Would you have expected more or less information requests to Twitter?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

eDiscovery Case Law: “Tweets” Are Public and Must Be Produced, Judge Rules
 

First, Malcolm Harris tried to quash a subpoena seeking production of his Tweets and his Twitter account user information in his New York criminal case.  That request was rejected, so Twitter then sought to quash the subpoena themselves, claiming that the order to produce the information imposed an “undue burden” on Twitter and even forced it to “violate federal law”.  Now, the criminal court judge has ruled on Twitter’s motion.

On June 30, in People v. Harris, 2011NY080152, New York Criminal Court Judge Matthew Sciarrino Jr. ruled that Twitter must produce tweets and user information of, Harris, an Occupy Wall Street protester, who clashed with New York Police back in October of last year and faces disorderly conduct charges.

Noting that “The court order is not unreasonably burdensome to Twitter, as it does not take much to search and provide the data to the court.”, Judge Sciarrino provided an analogy regarding the privacy of the Twitter account information, as follows:

“Consider the following: a man walks to his window, opens the window, and screams down to a young lady, ‘I'm sorry I hit you, please come back upstairs.’ At trial, the People call a person who was walking across the street at the time this occurred. The prosecutor asks, ‘What did the defendant yell?’ Clearly the answer is relevant and the witness could be compelled to testify. Well today, the street is an online, information superhighway, and the witnesses can be the third party providers like Twitter, Facebook, Instragram, Pinterest, or the next hot social media application.”

Continuing, Judge Sciarrino stated: “If you post a tweet, just like if you scream it out the window, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. There is no proprietary interest in your tweets, which you have now gifted to the world. This is not the same as a private email, a private direct message, a private chat, or any of the other readily available ways to have a private conversation via the internet that now exist…Those private dialogues would require a warrant based on probable cause in order to access the relevant information.”

Judge Sciarrino indicated that his decision was “partially based on Twitter's then terms of service agreement. After the April 20, 2012 decision, Twitter changed its terms and policy effective May 17, 2012. The newly added portion states that: ‘You Retain Your Right To Any Content You Submit, Post Or Display On Or Through The Service.’”  So, it would be interesting to see if the same ruling would be applied for “tweets” and other information posted after that date.

Judge Sciarrino did note that the government must obtain a search warrant to compel a provider of Electronic Communication Service (“ECS”) to disclose contents of communication in its possession that are in temporary "electronic storage" for 180 days or less (18 USC §2703[a]).  So, he ordered “that Twitter disclose all non-content information and content information from September 15, 2011 to December 30, 2011” related to Harris’ account.

So, what do you think?  Did the judge make the right call or should Twitter have been able to quash the subpoena?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

eDiscovery Best Practices: Quality Assurance vs. Quality Control and Why Both Are Important in eDiscovery
 

People tend to use the terms Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) interchangeably and it’s a pet peeve of mine.  It’s like using the word “irregardless” – which isn’t really a word.  The fact is that QA and QC are different mechanisms for ensuring quality in…anything.  Products, processes and projects (as well as things that don’t begin with “pro”) are all examples of items that can benefit from quality ensuring mechanisms and those that are related to electronic discovery can particularly benefit.

First, let’s define terms

Quality Assurance (QA) can be defined as planned and systematic activities and mechanisms implemented so that quality requirements for a product or service will be fulfilled.

Quality Control, (QC) can be defined as one or more processes to review the quality of all factors involved in that product or service.

Now, let’s apply the terms to an example in eDiscovery

CloudNine Discovery’s flagship product is OnDemand®, which is an online eDiscovery review application.  It’s easy to use and the leader in self-service, online eDiscovery review (sorry, I’m the marketing director, I can’t help myself).

OnDemand has a team of developers, who use a variety of Quality Assurance mechanisms to ensure the quality of the application.  They include (but are not limited to):

  • Requirements meetings with stakeholders to ensure that all required functionality for each component is clearly defined;
  • Development team “huddles” to discuss progress and to learn from each other’s good development ideas;
  • Back end database and search engine that establish rules for data and searching that data (so, for example, the valid values for whether or not a document is responsive are “True” and “False” and not “Purple”) and;
  • Code management software to keep versions of development code to ensure the developers don’t overwrite each other’s work.

Quality Control mechanisms for OnDemand include:

  • Test plan creation to identify all functional areas of the application that need to be tested;
  • Rigorous testing of all functionality within each software release by a team of software testers;
  • Issue tracking software to track all problems found in testing that allows for assignment to responsible developers and tracking through to completion to address the issue and re-testing to confirm the issue has been adequately addressed;
  • Beta testing by selected clients interested in using the latest new features and willing to provide feedback as to how well those features work and how well they meet their needs.

These QA and QC mechanisms help ensure that OnDemand works correctly and that it provides the functionality required by our clients.  And, we continue to work to make those mechanisms even more effective.

QA & QC mechanisms aren’t just limited to eDiscovery software.  Take the process of conducting attorney review to determine responsiveness and privilege.  QA mechanisms include instructions and background information provided to reviewers up front to get them up to speed on the review process, periodic “huddles” for additional instructions and discussion amongst reviewers to share best practices, assignment of “batches” so that each document is reviewed by one, and only one, reviewer and validation rules to ensure that entries are recorded correctly.  QC mechanisms include a second review (usually by a review supervisor or senior attorney) to ensure that documents are being categorized correctly and metrics reports to ensure that the review team can meet deadlines while still conducting a thorough review.  QA & QC mechanisms can also be applied to preservation, collection, searching and production (among other eDiscovery activities) and they are critical to enabling discovery obligations to be met.

So, what do you think?  What QA & QC mechanisms do you use in your eDiscovery processes?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

eDiscovery Best Practices: Types Of Metadata and How They Impact Discovery
 

If an electronic document is a “house” for information, then metadata could be considered the “deed” to that house. There is far more to explaining a house than simply the number of stories and the color of trim. It is the data that isn’t apparent to the naked eye that tells the rest of the story. For a house, the deed lines out the name of the buyer, the financier, and the closing date among heaps of other information that form the basis of the property. For an electronic document, it’s not just the content or formatting that holds the key to understanding it. Metadata, which is data about the document, contains information such as the user who created it, creation date, the edit history, and file type. Metadata often tells the rest of the story about the document and, therefore, is often a key focus of eDiscovery, such as in cases like this one we recently covered here.

There are many different types of metadata and it is important to understand each with regard to requesting that metadata in opposing counsel productions and being prepared to produce it in your own productions.  Examples include:

  • Application Metadata: This is the data created by an application, such as Microsoft® Word, that pertains to the ESI (“Electronically Stored Information”) being addressed. It is embedded in the file and moves with it when copied, though copying may alter the application metadata.
  • Document Metadata: These are properties about a document that may not be viewable within the application that created it, but can often be seen through a “Properties” view (for example, Word tracks the author name and total editing time).
  • Email Metadata: Data about the email.  Sometimes, this metadata may not be immediately apparent within the email application that created it (e.g., date and time received). The amount of email metadata available varies depending on the email system utilized.  For example, Outlook has a metadata field that links messages in a thread together which can facilitate review – not all email applications have this data.
  • Embedded Metadata: This metadata is usually hidden; however, it can be a vitally important part of the ESI. Examples of embedded metadata are edit history or notes in a presentation file. These may only be viewable in the original, native file since it is not always extracted during processing and conversion for eDiscovery.
  • File System Metadata: Data generated by the file system, such as Windows, to track key statistics about the file (e.g., name, size, location, etc.) which is usually stored externally from the file itself.
  • User-Added Metadata: Data created by a user while working with, reviewing, or copying a file (such as notes or tracked changes).
  • Vendor-Added Metadata: Data created and maintained by an eDiscovery vendor during processing of the native document.  Don’t be alarmed, it’s impossible to work with some file types without generating some metadata; for example, you can’t review and produce individual emails within a custodian’s Outlook PST file without generating those out as separate emails (either in Outlook MSG format or converted to an image format, such as TIFF or PDF).

Some metadata, such as user-added tracked changes or notes, could be work product that may affect whether a document is responsive or contains privileged information, so it’s important to consider that metadata during review, especially when producing in native format.

So, what do you think? Have you been involved in cases where metadata was specifically requested as part of discovery? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

eDiscovery Best Practices: Documentation is Key to a Successful Discovery Effort
 

We like to point out good articles about eDiscovery on this blog to keep our readers aware of trends and best practices.  I recently read an article on InsideCounsel titled E-discovery: Memorializing the e-discovery process, written by Alvin Lindsay, which had some good specific examples of where good documentation is important to prevent sanctions and save litigation costs.

Litigation Holds

The author notes that, since the Zubulake opinions issued by Judge Shira Scheindlin in 2003 and 2004, 1) most jurisdictions have come to expect that parties must issue a litigation hold “as soon as litigation becomes reasonably foreseeable”, and 2) “oral” litigation holds are unlikely to be sufficient since the same Judge Scheindlin noted in Pension Committee that failure to issue a “written” litigation hold constitutes “gross negligence”.  His advice: “make sure the litigation hold is in writing, and includes at minimum the date of issue, the recipients and the scope of preservation”.  IT personnel responsible for deleting “expired” data (outside of retention policies) also need to receive litigation hold documentation; in fact, “it can be a good idea to provide a separate written notice order just for them”.  Re-issuing the hold notices periodically is important because, well, people forget if they’re not reminded.  For previous posts on the subject of litigation holds, click here and here.

Retention Policies and Data Maps

Among the considerations for documentation here are the actual retention and destruction policies, system-wide backup procedures and “actual (as opposed to theoretical) implementation of the firm’s recycle policy”, as well as documentation of discussions with any personnel regarding same.  A data map provides a guide for legal and IT to the location of data throughout the company and important information about that data, such as the business units, processes and technology responsible for maintaining the data, as well as retention periods for that data.  The author notes that many organizations “don’t keep data maps in the ordinary course of business, so outside counsel may have to create one to truly understand their client’s data retention architecture.”  Creating a data map is impossible for outside counsel without involvement and assistance at several levels within the organization, so it’s truly a group effort and best done before litigation strikes.  For previous posts on the subject of data maps, click here and here.

Conferences with Opposing Counsel

The author discusses the importance of documenting the nature and scope of preservation and production and sums up the importance quite effectively by stating: “If opposing parties who are made aware of limitations early on do not object in a timely fashion to what a producing party says it will do, courts will be more likely to invoke the doctrines of waiver and estoppel when those same parties come to complain of supposed production infirmities on the eve of trial.”  So, the benefits of documenting those limitations early on are clear.

Collecting, Culling and Sampling

Chain of custody documentation (as well as a through written explanation of the collection process) is important to demonstrating integrity of the data being collected.  If you collect at a broad level (as many do), then you need to cull through effective searching to identify potentially responsive ESI.  Documenting the approach for searching as well as the searches themselves is key to a defensible searching and culling process (it helps when you use an application, like FirstPass®, powered by Venio FPR™, that keeps a history of all searches performed).  As we’ve noted before, sampling enables effective testing and refinement of searches and aids in the defense of the overall search approach.

Quality Control

And, of course, documenting all materials and mechanisms used to provide quality assurance and control (such as “materials provided to and used to train the document reviewers, as well as the results of QC checks for each reviewer”) make it easier to defend your approach and even “clawback” privileged documents if you can show that your approach was sound.  Mistakes happen, even with the best of approaches.

So, what do you think?  These are some examples of important documentation of the eDiscovery process – can you think of others?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

eDiscovery Case Law: There’s a New Sheriff in Town – Judge Facciola
 

In Taydon v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., District of Columbia Magistrate Judge John Facciola laid down the law to the parties in the case requiring cooperation on eDiscovery issues after “[t]he filing of forty-page discovery motions accompanied by thousands of pages of exhibits” and made it clear that the parties would be expected to “meet and confer in person in a genuine, good faith effort to plan the rest of discovery”.

According to the plaintiffs, defendant infringed on their wireless technology by utilizing the plaintiffs’ technology on its buses. Each side claimed discovery deficiencies and delays by the parties and filed motions accordingly.  The case was referred to Judge Facciola for discovery and in his 12 page Memorandum Opinion on June 6, he denied both motions.  However, he did note that the defendant’s application for sanctions has merit based on Rule 37, which indicates that “if a motion to compel is denied, the court may order the moving party to pay the opposing party’s expenses, including attorney’s fees, unless the motion was “substantially justified.””  Finding that not to be the case, Judge Facciola ordered the plaintiffs “to show cause why a sanction, in the form of attorney’s fees, should not be awarded against them for the time defendant spent opposing plaintiffs’ motion to compel”.

However, it’s the closing of the opinion where he laid down the law to the parties regarding the cooperation he expects moving forward on eDiscovery issues:

“III. High Noon

As explained at the discovery status hearing held on April 30, 2012, there is a new sheriff in town—not Gary Cooper, but me. The filing of forty-page discovery motions accompanied by thousands of pages of exhibits will cease and will now be replaced by a new regimen in which the parties, without surrendering any of their rights, must make genuine efforts to engage in the cooperative discovery regimen contemplated by the Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation…First, the parties will meet and confer in person in a genuine, good faith effort to plan the rest of discovery. They shall discuss and agree, if they can, on issues such as the format of any additional productions, the timing and staging of all depositions, the submission to each other of discovery reports, and the scope and timing of any Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) depositions. The parties will then jointly submit their discovery plan for my approval. I commit myself to work with them in resolving any disagreements, whether they arise initially or during discovery. To that end, I will schedule a telephonic status conference every two weeks in which I will ask the parties about their progress (or lack thereof) and try to resolve any disagreements they have.”

To download a copy of the Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation, click here.

Requiring a conference every two weeks to discuss discovery issues when parties can’t agree – sounds like a great idea to me!  So, what do you think?  Are attorneys taking the responsibility to conduct a Rule 26(f) conference to discuss discovery issues seriously?  Would Judge Facciola look good in a ten gallon hat?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

eDiscovery Trends: X1 Social Discovery – Social Media Discovery for Professionals
 

According to EDDUpdate.com, social media will be eclipsing email as the primary discovery resource within three years.  Social media has become a normal part of our everyday life as we share our photos on Facebook, tweet news on Twitter, and make professional connections on LinkedIn.  We’ve previously covered social media archiving tools here, highlighting a firm named Smarsh, and the need for effective electronic discovery methods is only growing by the day.  As you can imagine, the sheer amount of content being generated is astounding.  Twitter CEO Dick Costolo announced on June 6th that Twitter had broken the 400 million tweet-per-day barrier, up 18% from 340 million back in March.  These aren’t simply meaningless ones and zeroes, either. X1 Discovery has information for 689 cases related to social media discovery from 2010 and 2011 linked on their website, making it clear just how many cases are being affected by social media these days.

With regard to ESI on social media networks, X1 Discovery features a solution called X1 Social Discovery, which is described as “the industry's first investigative solution specifically designed to enable eDiscovery and computer forensics professionals to effectively address social media content.  X1 Social Discovery provides for a powerful platform to collect, authenticate, search, review and produce electronically stored information (ESI) from popular social media sites, such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.”

We reached out to X1 Discovery for more information about X1 Social Discovery, especially with regard as to what sort of challenges faces a new tool developed for a new type of information.  For example, why isn’t support for Google+, Google’s fledgling social network, offered?  X1 Discovery Executive Vice President for Sales and Business Development, Skip Lindsey, addressed that question accordingly:

“Our system can be purposed to accommodate a wide variety of use cases and we are constantly working with clients to understand their requirements to further enhance the product.  As you are aware there are a staggering number of potential social media systems to be collected from, but in terms of frequency of use, Facebook, Twitter and Linkedin are far and away the most prominent and there is a lot of constant time and attention we provide to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data we obtain from those sites. We use a combination of direct API’s to the most popular systems, and have incorporated comprehensive web crawling and single page web capture into X1 Social Discovery to allow capture of virtually any web source that the operator can access. Google + is on the roadmap and we plan support in the near future.”

So, who is going to benefit most from X1 Social Discovery, and how is it different than an archiving tool like Smarsh?  According to Lindsay:

“X1 Social Discovery is installable software, not a service. This means that clients can deploy quickly and do not incur any additional usage charges for case work. Our investigative interface and workflow are unique in our opinion and better suited to professional investigators, law enforcement and eDiscovery professionals that other products that we have seen which work with social media content. Many of these other systems were created for the purpose of compliance archiving of web sites and do not address the investigation and litigation support needs of our client base. We feel that the value proposition of X1 Social Discovery is hard to beat in terms of its functionality, defensibility, and cost of ownership.”

With so many cases requiring collection by experienced professionals these days, it seems appropriate that there’s a tool like X1 Social Discovery designed for them for collecting social media ESI.

So, what do you think?  Do you collect your own social media ESI or do you use experienced professionals for this collection?  What tools have you used?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

eDiscovery Case Law: Privilege Waived Because Defendants Failed to Notice “Something Had Gone Awry” with Their Production
 

In D’Onofrio v. Borough of Seaside Park, No. 09-6220 (AET), (D.N.J. May 30, 2012), New Jersey Magistrate Judge Tonianne Bongiovanni denied the defendants’ motion for discovery to reclaim privileged documents that were inadvertently produced, finding that privilege was waived because the defendants failed to take reasonable measures to rectify the disclosure. 

During the course of discovery in a case where the plaintiff alleged the defendants engaged in conduct that violated the plaintiff’s constitutional and statutory rights, the defendants reviewed 14 boxes of documents for possible production to the plaintiff. Six of those boxes, the “Ryan/McKenna” boxes, were reviewed by a partner at the law firm representing the defendants. The partner marked certain documents as privileged and then instructed a clerical employee to separate privileged and non-privileged documents, to Bates stamp the separated documents, and to burn the non-privileged documents onto a disc for production. The clerical employee failed to follow instructions, and privileged documents were inadvertently produced. 

Despite subsequent events where the defendants could have discovered the mistake, the defendants remained unaware of the accidental disclosure for approximately eight months until the plaintiff attached some of the privileged documents to an exhibit of his brief on an unrelated matter. The intervening events where the defendant failed to notice the production of privileged documents included the following: (1) the defendants voluntarily recalled the disc to reorganize the documents and remove electronic comments inadvertently left on some documents, and then resubmitted the disc to the plaintiff; (2) the defendants again recalled the disc after the plaintiff informed them the new disc was unreadable, and, after a clerical employee performed a “quality control audit” on the disc to ensure the defendants were producing the same set of documents, the defendants again produced the disc; (3) the defendants created a privilege log but did not realize the number of documents for the Ryan/McKenna boxes marked privileged was too small; and (4) after the plaintiff informed them that some of the documents on another disc were out of order, the defendants discovered hundreds of privileged documents from the “borough” boxes, another set of boxes, had been accidentally produced, but the defendants did not re-review the Ryan/McKenna documents that were produced.

Judge Bongiovanni articulated the applicable standard of review under Federal Rule of Evidence 502(b), stating that the factors to be considered in determining whether a waiver occurred are: (1) the reasonableness of the precautions taken to prevent inadvertent disclosure in view of the extent of the document production; (2) the number of inadvertent disclosures; (3) the extent of the disclosure; (4) any delay and measures taken to rectify the disclosure; and (5) whether the overriding interests of justice would or would not be served by relieving the party of its error.

Judge Bongiovanni had no trouble finding that the defendants “initially” took reasonable precautions to prevent production of privileged documents by devoting sufficient time to review, having a partner personally review all of the Ryan/McKenna documents, delegating to a clerical employee the task of separating privileged and non-privileged documents, and even by reviewing the disc before producing it to the plaintiff.

She then noted that the number and extent of the defendant’s unintentional disclosures were “neutral.”

Turning to the defendants’ efforts to rectify the disclosure, however, Judge Bongiovanni concluded that the defendants “did not take reasonable steps to remedy their error.” She stated, “Defendants should have been aware that something was amiss with their document production long before Plaintiff relied on three privileged documents” in his brief. Furthermore, although the defendants were not obligated to “engage in a post-production review to determine whether any protected communication or information [was] produced by mistake,” once a party is “‘on notice that something [i]s amiss with its document production and privilege review,’ then that party has an obligation to ‘promptly re-assess its procedures and re-check its production.’” The court pointed out that “the combination of the inadvertently produced attorney electronic comments and 728 pages of privileged Borough documents should have put the [ ] Defendants on notice that something had gone profoundly awry with their document production and privilege review.” A “reasonable person” would have rechecked the disc containing the Ryan/McKenna documents, and yet the defendants failed to do so.

Finally, the court also found that the interests of justice favored finding that a waiver occurred because the defendants’ “negligence” led to the inadvertent disclosure of privileged information.

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

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).  For eDiscovery news and best practices, check out the Applied Discovery Blog here.

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.