Close
Enter your
text here

Proportionality

eDiscovery Year in Review: eDiscovery Case Law, Part 1
 

Happy New Year from all of us at CloudNine Discovery and eDiscovery Daily!  If 2012 is like recent years, there should be plenty of interesting developments in the eDiscovery industry.

However, before we look ahead to the coming year, it’s worthwhile to look back at what transpired in 2011 to see what trends began to emerge last year.  And, there is no better way to do that than to review key cases during the year.  eDiscovery Daily has published 65 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 50 unique cases!  Needless to say, a lot happened in the courtroom that impacted the eDiscovery world.

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!

EDISCOVERY COST REIMBURSEMENT

One of the emerging trends for 2011 was the growing number of cases where the prevailing party was awarded reimbursement of eDiscovery costs.  Maybe that will change the “preserve and produce everything” mentality of some attorneys?  Here are four cases where this issue was addressed:

Sue Me and Lose? Pay My Costs.  In a ruling that may give some plaintiffs' lawyers pause, a federal judge in Pittsburgh has ruled that the winning defendants in an antitrust case are entitled to reimbursement of more than $367,000 in eDiscovery costs.

Plaintiff Responsible for Taxation of eDiscovery Costs.  It appears that making plaintiffs responsible for eDiscovery costs when they lose is becoming a trend. For this case, the Pennsylvania District Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to eliminate or reduce many of the costs at issue related to electronic discovery but did disallow or reduce some costs, including those incurred for the convenience of counsel.

Another Losing Plaintiff Taxed for eDiscovery Costs.  As noted previously, prevailing defendants are becoming increasingly successful in obtaining awards against plaintiffs for reimbursement of eDiscovery costs. In this case, a California District Court granted the defendants summary judgment on non-infringement and dismissed their counterclaims. The judgment included eDiscovery costs as valid taxed costs against the plaintiff, based on Rule 54(d) which creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party.

Award for Database Costs Reversed Due to Cost Sharing Agreement.  In this case, Ricoh looked to have the district court’s award of costs to Synopsys reversed for the parties’ use of Stratify for the production of email. While the appellate court decided that the district court properly decided that costs related to the database could be recovered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4), it nonetheless reversed the lower court’s award due to the parties' agreement to split the costs.

FORM OF PRODUCTION

There were several cases related to the form and format of produced ESI, with a number of key issues being debated in the courtroom.  Here are eight cases where production format decisions were made.

Responses to FOIA Requests Must Be Searchable.  Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ruled that federal agencies must turn over documents that include "metadata", which allows them to be searched and indexed.  Indicating that "common sense dictates" that the handling of FOIA requests should be informed by "the spirit if not the letter" of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Scheindlin indicated the government offered "a lame excuse" for delivering non-searchable documents.

Never Mind! Judge Scheindlin Withdraws FOIA Requests Opinion.  Four months later, Judge Scheindlin withdrew that opinion.

Facebook Did Not Deduce That They Must Produce.  In this case, United States Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd of the Northern District of California compelled Facebook to produce ESI that was previously produced in a converted, non-searchable format and further ordered Facebook not to use a third-party vendor's online production software to merely “provide access” to it. The court’s order granting the plaintiff’s Motion To Compel Production addressed the importance of ESI Protocols, the requirement to produce ESI in native formats, and production of documents versus providing access to them.

Downloading Confidential Information Leads to Motion to Compel Production.  The North Dakota District Court has recently decided in favor of a motion to compel production of electronic evidence, requiring imaging of computer hard drives, in a case involving the possible electronic theft of trade secrets.

Are Attachments Part of the Email Or Are They Separate?  A Special Master recently investigated the legal standard concerning whether or not attachments must be produced with the emails to which they were attached in discovery proceedings, and determined that there is no certain answer to be found in case law precedent.

Court Says Lack of eDiscovery Rules for Criminal Cases is a Crime.  A New York district court recently ordered the United States Government to reproduce thousands of pages of electronic discovery materials in a criminal case involving the distribution of cocaine. In this case, the Government produced thousands of pages of electronic documents and a number of audio recordings, none of which were text searchable. The court ultimately decided that the onus of producing searchable materials for eDiscovery fell on the Government itself.

Produced ESI Doesn’t Need to be Categorized, Even When Voluminous.  In this case, the defendants sought to compel re-production by the Government of ESI in categorized batches relating to transactions with certain characteristics. Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern District of New York denied the defendants’ motion.

New York Supreme Court Requires Production of Software to Review Files.  In this case, the petitioner requested records from the Department of Taxation and Finance in New York that were responsive to petitioner's request under Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) for records related to sales tax audit. The petitioner then moved to compel production of the Department’s Audit Framework Extension software program in order to install it on his computer and view the electronic files. The petitioner's motion was denied, not once, but twice. Would a final appeal result in compelling production of the software?

INTERNATIONAL EDISCOVERY

As companies “go global” and more data is stored “in the cloud”, discoverability of ESI within international jurisdictions is becoming increasingly in dispute.  Here are two cases with global ramifications:

Bankruptcy Court Denies Foreign Access to Debtor's Emails.  A Southern District of New York United States Bankruptcy Court denied access to a debtor's emails on July 22, in a foreign request involving international eDiscovery. In this case, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court determined that to permit a relief request from a German insolvency administrator would directly contravene the "fundamental principles" of U.S. public policy by undermining the right to privacy in electronic communications and the right of parties involved in any court order to receive notice of such proceedings and of their involvement.

U.S. Court Rules on ECPA Protection of Emails in the Cloud.  An October 3 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals offers new clarity in defining and protecting the eDiscovery rights of non-U.S. nationals using U.S. services online, by ruling that emails stored on servers located within the U.S. are protected by national laws on ESI.

Tune in tomorrow for more key cases of 2011!

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.

eDiscovery Case Law: Plaintiff Not Required to Review Millions of Pages of Unallocated Space
 

While plaintiff “should have known better than to agree to search terms” that arguably resulted in recovery from unallocated space files of 65 million pages of documents for plaintiff to review for privilege, a magistrate judge in I-Med Pharma, Inc. v. Biomatrix, Inc., No. 03-3677 (DRD), (D.N.J. Dec. 9, 2011) properly excused plaintiff from its stipulation to produce such documents after reviewing them for privilege.

Plaintiff alleged that defendants breached a distribution agreement relating to eye-drops after one of the defendants was acquired by another defendant. A stipulation among the parties provided for a keyword search by defendants’ expert of plaintiff’s computer network, servers, and related storage devices using English and French terms, including “claim”, “revenue*”, and “profit*”. The search resulted in over 64 million hits just in unallocated space of plaintiff’s computer systems.

District Judge Dickinson Debevoise affirmed a magistrate judge’s order excusing plaintiff from a privilege review of the estimated equivalent of 65 million documents in the unallocated space that contained an agreed search term. Judge Debevoise stated its concern over the cost of such a review:

“A privilege review of 65 million documents is no small undertaking. Even if junior attorneys are engaged, heavily discounted rates are negotiated, and all parties work diligently and efficiently, even a cursory review of that many documents will consume large amounts of attorney time and cost millions of dollars.”

Judge Debevoise rejected defendant’s suggestion that plaintiff could simply review documents with the word “privileged” and produce everything else:

“Even when dealing with intact files, potentially privileged information may often be found in emails, memoranda, presentations, or other documents that are not explicitly flagged as privileged or confidential. And since the data searched here is likely to contain fragmented or otherwise incomplete documents, it is entirely possible for privileged material to be found without its original identifying information.”

Defendants had not shown that relevant, non-duplicate information likely would be found in the unallocated space, according to the court. Thus, plaintiff should have known better than to agree on the search terms, but requiring a privilege review of the results would not be fair or just. Judge Debevoise added a list of factors that parties should consider in evaluating reasonableness of search terms:

“In evaluating whether a set of search terms are reasonable, a party should consider a variety of factors, including: (1) the scope of documents searched and whether the search is restricted to specific computers, file systems, or document custodians; (2) any date restrictions imposed on the search; (3) whether the search terms contain proper names, uncommon abbreviations, or other terms unlikely to occur in irrelevant documents; (4) whether operators such as "and", "not", or "near" are used to restrict the universe of possible results; (5) whether the number of results obtained could be practically reviewed given the economics of the case and the amount of money at issue.”

So, what do you think?  Did common sense prevail or should the plaintiff have been held to the agreement?  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).

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: Sharon Nelson
 

This is the sixth and final installment of our Holiday Thought Leader Interview series. I interviewed several thought leaders to get their perspectives on various eDiscovery topics.

Today’s thought leader is Sharon Nelson.  Sharon is the President of Sensei Enterprises, where she has worked on the front lines of computer forensics and eDiscovery topics that are also discusses on her blog Ride the Lightning. She is a graduate of the Georgetown University Law Center and is the president elect of the Virginia Bar Association.

Last week, I interviewed Sharon’s husband, John Simek, who is vice president of Sensei. John is a technical computer forensics expert, while Sharon provides the legal perspective on eDiscovery issues. Together, they are frequent speakers and authors on computer forensic issues.

As a lawyer, how did you get into the world of computer forensics? What is the role of an attorney within a computer forensics firm?

I stumbled into computer forensics along with my partner John Simek. Peter Greenspun, one of the leading criminal attorneys in Virginia, had a case in 1999 involving electronic evidence and he asked if we could help as experts. That case is still taught by the FBI. It got me thinking that Sensei should expand from information technology to computer forensics – and I knew it was a field that only a true scientist could excel in, so the wannabes of the world would not be able to truly compete. The role of an attorney is to stay up with the law and the cases and render expert advice to both clients and employees – and act as corporate counsel of course.

How has your blogging at Ride the Lightning influenced your legal career?

Within the context of Sensei, I operate as an expert, not as a lawyer, although I retain a separate law office. Certainly Ride the Lightning has helped Sensei’s marketing enormously, which ultimately helps to attract clients. I was honored when RTL was named to the American Bar Association’s Blawg 100 for the second year in a row and also when the Library of Congress asked my permission to archive it and to make it available to scholars and researchers. And it is just plain fun writing it!

Have lawyers begun to grapple with social media issues or are many still in denial?

There are still some lawyers in denial but their numbers are declining. In fact, I organize a lot of CLEs and many of the social media sessions are standing room only. Many lawyers want to learn how to use social media and how to avoid the ethical pitfalls. Things simply go viral in this new e-world. It is amazing how far social media (which includes blogs) extends your reach. Blogs, in particular, tend to attract reporters, which can be really helpful to marketing a law practice.

I believe you are involved in a lot of family law cases and disputes involving individuals. How has social media changed these cases?

It’s a veritable gold mine. People are unbelievably foolish in what they put online. We had a case where the husband was discussing his latest hookup with his lover on his Facebook page. He knew his wife was not his “friend”, but he had forgotten that a mutual acquaintance was his friend and she simply printed out all his postings. It’s not just family law though – social media is particularly helpful in personal injury cases where the Plaintiff who is “wholly disabled” is using a chain saw and dancing a jig (and yes, that’s from a real case). I almost can’t think of an area of law where social media isn’t a treasure trove – law enforcement has wholly embraced it as evidence against criminals who post astonishing admissions online.

As people increasingly live their lives online, do digital records ever really go away? Are we going to be followed around by our digital selves forever?

Some digital records will certainly go away – the problem is that you’ll never know which ones. People forward your communications or preserve them for their own reasons. Your business competitor may be archiving your website and anything that is open on your social media sites. Social media sites let you deactivate your account or delete posts, but that doesn’t help if someone else already has the information. And, indeed, it does not appear that social media sites truly delete your information since law enforcement has been known to get data that was supposedly no longer online. Trusting social media sites to respect your privacy is foolhardy. The only privacy we have is in the sheer volume of data out there – but once someone lasers in on you, your privacy is gone.

On Ride the Lightning, you discuss sanctions and electronic evidence blunders. Is there a common reason why lawyers make mistakes with digital evidence? What are the keys to making the profession smarter about handling computer records?

Education is the key, and we’re slowly getting there, but it is very slow. Most lawyers are technophobic and find it difficult to understand electronic evidence. They really need to call in well-qualified experts early on – that saves the most money because good experts won’t let you spend your money foolishly. As an example, an order to “preserve everything” is nonsensical, but we hear it all the time. If the attorneys on both sides are reasonable and they have good experts, it’s amazing how fast they can come to a strategy that saves everyone time and money. And for heaven’s sake, why not go after the low-hanging fruit first? That might cause the case to settle early before vast sums of money have been expended. You can always go back and do more digging if necessary.

How have you and husband John Simek managed to make a career out of computer forensics and eDiscovery? You seem to be busy with speaking and professional engagements- how do you make it work?

That’s the new world – our offices are in our laptops, so we carry our offices with us as we travel. There is very little that we cannot do remotely. We have fine-tuned the art of entering a hotel room and bringing up the laptops while unpacking our suitcases. People ask us all the time how a husband and wife can run a business and not make each other crazy. We really have a bright line – John makes the technical decisions and I make the legal, business and marketing decisions. We talk across that line, but we respect the line. It works for us – that and being in love of course. We always say that we get paid to play – we don’t know anyone who enjoys coming to work as much as we do. The word retirement is anathema to both of us!

Thanks, Sharon, 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!

eDiscovery Trends: Jason R. Baron
 

This is the first of the Holiday Thought Leader Interview series.  I interviewed several thought leaders to get their perspectives on various eDiscovery topics.

Today’s thought leader is Jason R. Baron. Jason has served as the National Archives' Director of Litigation since May 2000 and has been involved in high-profile cases for the federal government. His background in eDiscovery dates to the Reagan Administration, when he helped retain backup tapes containing Iran-Contra records from the National Security Council as the Justice Department’s lead counsel. Later, as director of litigation for the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Jason was assigned a request to review documents pertaining to tobacco litigation in U.S. v. Philip Morris.

He currently serves as The Sedona Conference Co-Chair of the Working Group on Electronic Document Retention and Production. Baron is also one of the founding coordinators of the TREC Legal Track, a search project organized through the National Institute of Standards and Technology to evaluate search protocols used in eDiscovery. This year, Jason was awarded the Emmett Leahy Award for Outstanding Contributions and Accomplishments in the Records and Information Management Profession.

You were recently awarded the prestigious Emmett Leahy Award for excellence in records management. Is it unusual that a lawyer wins such an award? Or is the job of the litigator and records manager becoming inextricably linked?

Yes, it was unusual: I am the first federal lawyer to win the Emmett Leahy award, and only the second lawyer to have done so in the 40-odd years that the award has been given out. But my career path in the federal government has been a bit unusual as well: I spent seven years working as lead counsel on the original White House PROFS email case (Armstrong v. EOP), followed by more than a decade worrying about records-related matters for the government as Director of Litigation at NARA. So with respect to records and information management, I long ago passed at least the Malcolm Gladwell test in "Outliers" where he says one needs to spend 10,000 hours working on anything to develop a level of "expertise."  As to the second part of your question, I absolutely believe that to be a good litigation attorney these days one needs to know something about information management and eDiscovery — since all evidence is "born digital" and lots of it needs to be searched for electronically. As you know, I also have been a longtime advocate of a greater linking between the fields of information retrieval and eDiscovery.

In your acceptance speech you spoke about the dangers of information overload and the possibility that it will make it difficult for people to find important information. How optimistic that we can avoid this dystopian future? How can the legal profession help the world avoid this fate? 

What I said was that in a world of greater and greater retention of electronically stored information, we need to leverage artificial intelligence and specifically better search algorithms to keep up in this particular information arms race. Although Ralph Losey teased me in a recent blog post that I was being unduly negative about future information dystopias, I actually am very optimistic about the future of search technology assisting in triaging the important from the ephemeral in vast collections of archives. We can achieve this through greater use of auto-categorization and search filtering methods, as well as a having a better ability in the future to conduct meaningful searches across the enterprise (whether in the cloud or not). Lawyers can certainly advise their clients how to practice good information governance to accomplish these aims.

You were one of the founders of the TREC Legal Track research project. What do you consider that project’s achievement at this point?

The initial idea for the TREC Legal Track was to get a better handle on evaluating various types of alternative search methods and technologies, to compare them against a "baseline" of how effective lawyers were in relying on more basic forms of keyword searching. The initial results were a wake-up call, in showing lawyers that sole reliance on simple keywords and Boolean strings sometimes results in a large quantity of relevant evidence going missing. But during the half-decade of research that now has gone into the track, something else of perhaps even greater importance has emerged from the results, namely: we have a much better understanding now of what a good search process looks like, which includes a human in the loop (known in the Legal Track as a topic authority) evaluating on an ongoing, iterative basis what automated search software kicks out by way of initial results. The biggest achievement however may simply be the continued existence of the TREC Legal Track itself, still going in its 6th year in 2011, and still producing important research results, on an open, non-proprietary platform, that are fully reproducible and that benefit both the legal profession as well as the information retrieval academic world. While I stepped away after 4 years from further active involvement in the Legal Track as a coordinator, I continue to be highly impressed with the work of the current track coordinators, led by Professor Doug Oard at the University of Maryland, who was remained at the helm since the very beginning.

To what extent has TREC’s research proven the reliability of computer-assisted review in litigation? Is there a danger that the profession assumes the reliability of computer-assisted review is a settled matter?

The TREC Legal Track results I am most familiar with through calendar year 2010 have shown computer-assisted review methods finding in some cases on the order of 85% of relevant documents (a .85 recall rate) per topic while only producing 10% false positives (a .90 precision rate). Not all search methods have had these results, and there has been in fact a wide variance in success achieved, but these returns are very promising when compared with historically lower rates of recall and precision across many information retrieval studies. So the success demonstrated to date is highly encouraging. Coupled with these results has been additional research reported by Maura Grossman & Gordon Cormack, in their much-cited paper Technology-Assisted Review in EDiscovery Can Be More Effective and More Efficient Than Exhaustive Manual Review, which makes the case for the greater accuracy and efficiency of computer-assisted review methods.

Other research conducted outside of TREC, most notably by Herbert Roitblat, Patrick Oot and Anne Kershaw, also point in a similar direction (as reported in their article Mandating Reasonableness in a Reasonable Inquiry). All of these research efforts buttress the defensibility of technology-assisted review methods in actual litigation, in the event of future challenges. Having said this, I do agree that we are still in the early days of using many of the newer predictive types of automated search methods, and I would be concerned about courts simply taking on faith the results of past research as being applicable in all legal settings. There is no question however that the use of predictive analytics, clustering algorithms, and seed sets as part of technology-assisted review methods is saving law firms money and time in performing early case assessment and for multiple other purposes, as reported in a range of eDiscovery conferences and venues — and I of course support all of these good efforts.

You have discussed the need for industry standards in eDiscovery. What benefit would standards provide?

Ever since I served as Co-Editor in Chief on The Sedona Conference Commentary on Achieving Quality in eDiscovery (2009), I have been thinking that the process for conducting good eDiscovery. That paper focused on project management, sampling, and imposing various forms of quality controls on collection, review, and production. The question is, is a good eDiscovery process capable of being fit into a maturity model of sorts, and might be useful to consider whether vendors and law firms would benefit from having their in-house eDiscovery processes audited and certified as meeting some common baseline of quality? To this end, the DESI IV workshop ("Discovery of ESI") held in Pittsburgh last June, as part of the Thirteenth International AI and Law Conference (ICAIL 2011), had as its theme exploring what types of model standards could be imposed on the eDiscovery discipline, so that we all would be able to work from some common set of benchmarks, Some 75 people attended and 20-odd papers were presented. I believe the consensus in the room was that we should be pursuing further discussions as to what an ISO 9001-type quality standard would look like as applied to the specific eDiscovery sector, much as other industry verticals have their own ISO standards for quality. Since June, I have been in touch with some eDiscovery vendors have actually undergone an audit process to achieve ISO 9001 certification. This is an area where no consensus has yet emerged as to the path forward — but I will be pursuing further discussions with DESI workshop attendees in the coming months and promise to report back in this space as to what comes of these efforts.

What sort of standards would benefit the industry? Do we need standards for pieces of the eDiscovery process, like a defensible search standard, or are you talking about a broad quality assurance process?

DESI IV started by concentrating on what would constitute a defensible search standard; however, it became clear at the workshop and over the course of the past few months that we need to think bigger, in looking across the eDiscovery life cycle as to what constitutes best practices through automation and other means. We need to remember however that eDiscovery is a very young discipline, as we're only five years out from the 2006 Rules Amendments. I don't have all the answers, by any means, on what would constitute an acceptable set of standards, but I like to ask questions and believe in a process of continuous, lifelong learning. As I said, I promise I'll let you know about what success has been achieved in this space.

Thanks, Jason, 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!

eDiscovery Best Practices: When is it OK to Produce without Linear Review?
 

At eDiscoveryDaily, the title of our daily post usually reflects some eDiscovery news and/or analysis that we are providing our readers.  However, based on a comment I received from a colleague last week, I thought I would ask a thought provoking question for this post.

There was an interesting post in the EDD Update blog a few days ago entitled Ediscovery Production Without Review, written by Albert Barsocchini, Esq.  The post noted that due to “[a]dvanced analytics, judicial acceptance of computer aided coding, claw back/quick-peek agreements, and aggressive use of Rule 16 hearings”, many attorneys are choosing to produce responsive ESI without spending time and money on a final linear review.

A colleague of mine sent me an email with a link to the post and stated, “I would not hire a firm if I knew they were producing without a doc by doc review.”

Really?  What if:

  • You collected the equivalent of 10 million pages* and still had 1.2 million potentially responsive pages after early data assessment/first pass review? (reducing 88% of the population, which is a very high culling percentage in most cases)
  • And your review team could review 60 pages per hour, requiring 20,000 hours to complete the responsiveness review?
  • And their average rate was a very reasonable $75 per hour to review, resulting in a total cost of $1.5 million to perform a doc by doc review?
  • And you had a clawback agreement in place so that you could claw back any inadvertently produced privileged files?

“Would you insist on a doc by doc review then?”, I asked.

Let’s face it, $1.5 million is a lot of money.  That may seem like an inordinate amount of money to spend on linear review and the data volume for some large cases may be so voluminous that an effective argument might be made to rely on technology to identify the files to produce.

On the other hand, if you’re a company like Google and you inadvertently produced a document in a case potentially worth billions of dollars, $1.5 million doesn’t seem near as big an amount to spend given the risk associated with potential mistakes.  Also, as the Google case and this case illustrate, there are no guarantees with regards to the ability to claw back inadvertently produced files.  The cost of linear review will, especially in larger cases, need to be weighed against the potential risk of not conducting that review for the organization to determine what’s the best approach for them.

So, what do you think?  Do you produce in cases where not all of the responsive documents are reviewed before production? Are there criteria that you use to determine when to conduct or forego linear review?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

*I used pages in the example to provide a frame of reference to which most attorneys can relate.  While 10 million pages may seem like a large collection, at an average of 50,000 pages per GB, that is only 200 total GB.  Many laptops and desktops these days have a drive that big, if not larger.  Depending on your review approach, most, if not all, original native files would probably never be converted to a standard paginated document format (i.e., TIFF or PDF).  So, it is unlikely that the total page count of the collection would ever be truly known.

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: Another Losing Plaintiff Taxed for eDiscovery Costs

As noted yesterday and back in May, prevailing defendants are becoming increasingly successful in obtaining awards against plaintiffs for reimbursement of eDiscovery costs.

An award of costs to the successful defendants in a patent infringement action included $64,295 in costs for conversion of data to TIFF format and $5,950 for an eDiscovery project manager in Jardin v. DATAllegro, Inc., No. 08-CV-1462-IEG (WVG), (S.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2011).

Defendants in a patent infringement action obtained summary judgment of non-infringement and submitted bills of costs that included $64,295 in costs for conversion of data to TIFF format and $5,950 for an eDiscovery project manager. Plaintiff contended that the costs should be denied because he had litigated the action and its difficult issues in good faith and there was a significant economic disparity between him and the corporate parent of one of the defendants.

The court concluded that plaintiff had failed to rebut the presumption in Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 in favor of awarding costs. The action was resolved through summary judgment rather than a complicated trial, and there was no case law suggesting that the assets of a parent corporation should be considered in assessing costs. The financial position of the party having to pay the costs might be relevant, but it appeared plaintiff was the founder of a company that had been sold for $500 million.

Taxing of costs for converting files to TIFF format was appropriate, according to the court, because the Federal Rules required production of electronically stored information and “a categorical rule prohibiting costs for converting data into an accessible, readable, and searchable format would ignore the practical realities of discovery in modern litigation.” The court stated: “Therefore, where the circumstances of a particular case necessitate converting e-data from various native formats to the .TIFF or another format accessible to all parties, costs stemming from the process of that conversion are taxable exemplification costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4).”

The court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that costs associated with an eDiscovery “project manager” were not taxable because they related to the intellectual effort involved in document production:

Here, the project manager did not review documents or contribute to any strategic decision-making; he oversaw the process of converting data to the .TIFF format to prevent inconsistent or duplicative processing. Because the project manager’s duties were limited to the physical production of data, the related costs are recoverable.

So, what do you think?  Will more prevailing defendants seek to recover eDiscovery costs from plaintiffs? 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.

eDiscovery Case Law: Plaintiff Responsible for Taxation of eDiscovery Costs

Back in May, we discussed a case where the plaintiff, after losing its lawsuit, was responsible for repaying the defendant more than $367,000 in eDiscovery costs.  It appears that making plaintiffs responsible for eDiscovery costs when they lose is becoming a trend.

In re Aspartame Antitrust Litig., No. 2:06-CV-1732-LDD, (E.D. Pa. Oct. 5, 2011),a case with a “staggering” volume of discovery, successful defendants were awarded about $500,000 of their electronic discovery costs for a litigation database, imaging hard drives, keyword searches, de-duplication, and data extraction that allowed for cost-effective discovery. However, the court refused to award costs for defendants’ use of an eDiscovery program that provided visual clustering of documents and went beyond necessary keyword search and filtering functions.

Defendants in an artificial sweetener market allocation and price fixing class action obtained summary judgment against two representative plaintiffs that had not purchased the sweetener within the four-year statute of limitations. Defendants filed bills of costs, and the plaintiffs asked the court to deny or reduce those costs.

The court granted about $500,000 in disputed costs, most of which were incurred by defendants during electronic discovery. The volume of discovery was “staggering,” according to the court, and “in cases of this complexity, eDiscovery saves costs overall by allowing discovery to be conducted in an efficient and cost-effective manner.” Defendants’ use of third party vendors for keyword searches and culling of duplicates allowed one defendant to reduce over 366 gigabytes of potentially responsive data by 85%. The court stated:

“We therefore award costs for the creation of a litigation database, storage of data, imaging hard drives, keyword searches, de-duplication, data extraction and processing. Because a privilege screen is simply a keyword search for potentially privileged documents, we award that cost as well. In addition, we award costs associated with hosting data that accrued after defendants produced documents to plaintiffs because, as the plaintiffs themselves acknowledged earlier in the proceedings, discovery was ongoing in this case up until summary judgment was issued.”

The court also awarded costs for technical support and the creation of load files. However, it would “draw the line” at awarding costs for use of a “sophisticated eDiscovery program” that provided concept-based visual clustering of document collections. Such a service was “undoubtedly helpful,” but it was “squarely within the realm of costs that are not necessary for litigation but rather are acquired for the convenience of counsel.”

So, what do you think?  Should plaintiffs have to reimburse eDiscovery costs to defendants if they lose? 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.

eDiscovery Trends: Congress Tackles Costs and Burdens of Discovery
 

Sometimes, it does take an “act of Congress” to get things done.

On December 13, a key subcommittee of the House of Representatives will conduct hearings regarding “The Costs and Burdens of Civil Discovery”.  The 10-member House Constitution Subcommittee led by Chairman Trent Franks (R. AZ) will hear from various witnesses regarding these issues — the first such hearing since the rules were last updated in December 2006.

Since the new rules took effect five years ago, sanctions for discovery violations have increased exponentially. A 2010 study published in the Duke Law Journal (and reported in this blog one year ago today) found that there were more eDiscovery sanction cases (97) and more eDiscovery sanction awards (46) in 2009 than in any prior year – more than in all years prior to 2005 combined!!

The hearings were originally scheduled for earlier this month, on November 16.  According to the Lawyers for Civil Justice web site (which has not yet been updated to reflect the new hearings date), the hearings are expected to cover:

  • Scope and dimensions of the problems with the federal litigation system;
  • Costs and burdens faced by litigants particularly in the areas of preservation and discovery of information;
  • The impact of those costs and burdens on the American economy and the competitiveness of American companies;
  • The magnitude of the cost savings that would better be spent on improving products and services and creating jobs; and
  • Expressions of support for the Judicial Conference Committee on Practice and Procedure’s primary responsibility to develop rule based solutions that would help relieve some of those costs and burdens, increase efficiency, and improve access to the federal court system (more on their recent efforts and meeting here).

Scheduled witnesses include:

  • Rebecca Love Kourlis, former Colorado Supreme Court Justice, now Director of the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System;
  • William H.J. Hubbard, Assistant Professor of Law. University of Chicago Law School;
  • Thomas H. Hill, Senior Executive Counsel, Environmental Litigation & Legal Policy, General Electric Company; and
  • William P. Butterfield, Hausfeld LLP, plaintiff class action counsel.

According to the International Data Corporation (IDC), the amount of digital information created, captured and replicated in the world as of 2002 was 5 exabytes (5 billion gigabytes), rising to 988 exabytes by 2010 (nearly a 20,000% increase)!  As a result, expenses associated with storing, collecting, searching and producing ESI in discovery have skyrocketed and many say that changes to the Federal Rules are inevitable (though some say it is too soon to fully grasp the impact of the 2006 Federal Rules changes).  It will be interesting to see what comes out of the hearings next month.

So, what do you think?  Do you expect major changes to the rules regarding eDiscovery, and if so, what would you like to see changed, and why?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: New York Pilot Program Requires Joint Electronic Discovery Submission for Cases Involving ESI
 

On November 1, 2011, the Southern District of New York implemented a new Pilot Program for Complex Cases in "response to the federal bar's concerns about the high costs of litigating complex civil cases." The program is "designed to improve judicial case management of these disputes and reduce costs and delay" and will run for eighteen months.

Fourteen types of civil lawsuits are designated as "complex civil cases," including "stockholder's suits, patent and trademark claims, product liability disputes, multi-district litigation, and class actions." District court judges have the power to add or remove a case from the pilot, even if it does not fall in these categories.

Parties to complex cases must submit Exhibit B, Joint Electronic Discovery Submission if they believe relevant ESI that is potentially responsive to current or future discovery requests exists. In addition, parties must certify that "they are sufficiently knowledgeable in matters relating to their clients' technological systems to discuss competently issues relating to electronic discovery, or have involved someone competent to address these issues on their behalf." They must also meet and confer prior to the Rule 16 conference on preservation; methodologies for search and review; sources of ESI; limitations on the scope of production; form of production; managing privileged material, including inadvertent production, clawback and quick peek agreements, and Rule 502(d) orders; and the costs of production, cost-saving measures, and cost allocation.

So, what do you think?  Should more jurisdictions adopt such a program? Or should they wait until the results of this pilot are published?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery.  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.

eDiscovery Case Law: Court Grants Adoption of Model Order for Patent Case

Model orders to limit discovery for patent cases have gained popularity in various jurisdictions, including this recent order proposed in Texas.  Here’s one patent case where the defendant sought to adopt such a model order.

In DCG Sys., Inc. v. Checkpoint Techs., LLC, No. C-11-03792 PSG, (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2011), defendant Checkpoint asked the court to enter a version of the model order. (The proposed version differed from the model order in the number of keywords and custodians and on an issue of metadata.) The court granted defendant’s motion.

Plaintiff DCG objected to the entry of the order. It argued that since this was a case between competitors, and not a case brought by a nonpracticing entity (an “NPE,” or sometimes called a “patent troll”), the discovery would be improperly impeded by the model order’s limitations on email discovery.

NPE or patent troll cases often involve asymmetrical discovery – the plaintiff has few documents but the defendant has many. And some commentators have proposed that the model eDiscovery order seeks to reduce the ill-effects of this asymmetry. In this case plaintiff argued that it would need discovery on legitimate issues that may have arisen with an actual competitor, e.g., whether defendant copied plaintiff’s technology and whether plaintiff was entitled to an injunction. Plaintiff’s argument presupposed that the model order’s limitations would cut into the scope of that purported legitimate discovery.

The court rejected plaintiff’s arguments. It found that: (1) nothing in the model order or the Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit’s speech unveiling the order suggested that it was intended only for NPE cases, and (2) there was no reason to believe that non-NPE (competitor) cases presented less compelling circumstances in which to impose reasonable restrictions on the timing and scope of email discovery.

The court also addressed the notion that the model order would help only in NPE cases or cases involving asymmetrical eDiscovery. It observed that the model order could have double the benefit in competitor cases. If using the model order to relieve the burden on the producing party in an NPE case was a good thing, then using it in a suit between competitors benefit both sides and be twice as good.

So, what do you think?  Are model orders to limit discovery a good idea?  If so, should they apply to other types of cases? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: Practical eDiscovery Blog, by Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP.

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.