Close
Enter your
text here

Sanctions

2014 eDiscovery Case Law Year in Review, Part 4

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

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

SPOLIATION / SANCTIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2014 eDiscovery Case Law Yhttps://cloudnine.com/ediscoverydaily/case-law/2014-ediscovery-case-law-year-in-review-part-3/ear in Review, Part 3

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

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!

PRIVILEGE / INADVERTENT DISCLOSURES

There were a couple of cases related to privilege issues, including one where privilege was upheld when the plaintiff purchased the defendant’s seized computer at auction! Here are two cases where disclosure of privileged documents was addressed:

Privilege Not Waived on Defendant’s Seized Computer that was Purchased by Plaintiff at Auction: In Kyko Global Inc. v. Prithvi Info. Solutions Ltd., Washington Chief District Judge Marsha J. Pechman ruled that the defendants’ did not waive their attorney-client privilege on the computer of one of the defendants purchased by plaintiffs at public auction, denied the defendants’ motion to disqualify the plaintiff’s counsel for purchasing the computer and ordered the plaintiffs to provide defendants with a copy of the hard drive within three days for the defendants to review it for privilege and provide defendants with a privilege log within seven days of the transfer.

Plaintiff Can’t “Pick” and Choose When it Comes to Privilege of Inadvertent Disclosures: In Pick v. City of Remsen, Iowa District Judge Mark W. Bennett upheld the magistrate judge’s order directing the destruction of an inadvertently-produced privileged document, an email from defense counsel to some of the defendants, after affirming the magistrate judge’s analysis of the five-step analysis to determine whether privilege was waived.

SOCIAL MEDIA

Requests for social media data in litigation continue, though there were not as many disputes over it as in years past (at least, not with cases we covered). Here are three cases related to social media data:

Plaintiff Ordered to Produce Facebook Photos and Messages as Discovery in Personal Injury Lawsuit: In Forman v. Henkin, a Motion to Compel was granted in part for a defendant who requested authorization to obtain records of the plaintiff’s private postings to Facebook.

Plaintiff Ordered to Re-Open Social Media Account for Discovery: In Chapman v. Hiland Operating, LLC, while noting that he was “skeptical” that reactivating the plaintiff’s Facebook account would produce any relevant, noncumulative information, North Dakota Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller ordered the plaintiff to “make a reasonable, good faith attempt” to reactivate her Facebook account.

Order for Financial Records and Facebook Conversations Modified Due to Privacy Rights: In Stallings v. City of Johnston City, Illinois Chief District Judge David R. Herndon modified an earlier order by a magistrate judge in response to the plaintiff’s appeal, claiming that the order violated the privacy rights of the plaintiff, and of minor children with whom the plaintiff had held conversations on Facebook.

TECHNOLOGY ASSISTED REVIEW

Technology assisted review continued to be discussed and debated between parties in 2014, with some disputes involving how technology assisted review would be conducted as opposed to whether it would be conducted at all. Courts continued to endorse technology assisted review and predictive coding, even going so far as to suggest the use of it in one case. Here are six cases involving the use of technology assisted review in 2014:

Court Rules that Unilateral Predictive Coding is Not Progressive: In In Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Delaney, Nevada Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen determined that the plaintiff’s unannounced shift from the agreed upon discovery methodology, to a predictive coding methodology for privilege review was not cooperative. Therefore, the plaintiff was ordered to produce documents that met agreed-upon search terms without conducting a privilege review first.

Court Rules in Dispute Between Parties Regarding ESI Protocol, Suggests Predictive Coding: In a dispute over ESI protocols in FDIC v. Bowden, Georgia Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith approved the ESI protocol from the FDIC and suggested the parties consider the use of predictive coding.

Court Sides with Defendant in Dispute over Predictive Coding that Plaintiff Requested: In the case In re Bridgepoint Educ., Inc., Securities Litigation, California Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt ruled that expanding the scope of discovery by nine months was unduly burdensome, despite the plaintiff’s request for the defendant to use predictive coding to fulfill its discovery obligation and also approved the defendants’ method of using search terms to identify responsive documents for the already reviewed three individual defendants, directing the parties to meet and confer regarding the additional search terms the plaintiffs requested.

Though it was “Switching Horses in Midstream”, Court Approves Plaintiff’s Predictive Coding Plan: In Bridgestone Americas Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp., Tennessee Magistrate Judge Joe B. Brown, acknowledging that he was “allowing Plaintiff to switch horses in midstream”, nonetheless ruled that that the plaintiff could use predictive coding to search documents for discovery, even though keyword search had already been performed.

Court Approves Use of Predictive Coding, Disagrees that it is an “Unproven Technology”: In Dynamo Holdings v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Texas Tax Court Judge Ronald Buch ruled that the petitioners “may use predictive coding in responding to respondent’s discovery request” and if “after reviewing the results, respondent believes that the response to the discovery request is incomplete, he may file a motion to compel at that time”.

Court Opts for Defendant’s Plan of Review including TAR and Manual Review over Plaintiff’s TAR Only Approach: In Good v. American Water Works, West Virginia District Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. granted the defendants’ motion for a Rule 502(d) order that merely encouraged the incorporation and employment of time-saving computer-assisted privilege review over the plaintiffs’ proposal disallowing linear privilege review altogether.

APPLE V. SAMSUNG

Every now and then, there is a case that just has to be covered. Whether it be for the eDiscovery related issues (e.g., adverse inference sanction, inadvertent disclosures, eDiscovery cost reiumbursement) or the fact that billions of dollars were at stake or the fact that the case earned its own “gate” moniker, the Apple v. Samsung case demanded attention. Here are the six posts (just from 2014, we have more in previous years) about this case:

Quinn Emanuel Sanctioned for Inadvertent Disclosure, Samsung Escapes Sanction: California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal has now handed down an order on motions for sanctions against Samsung and the Quinn Emanuel law firm in the never-ending Apple v. Samsung litigation for the inadvertent disclosure of confidential agreements that Apple had with Nokia, Ericsson, Sharp and Philips – now widely referred to as “patentgate”.

Apple Can’t Mention Inadvertent Disclosure in Samsung Case: Back in January, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP was sanctioned for their inadvertent disclosure in the Apple vs Samsung litigation (commonly referred to as “patentgate”). California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal handed down an order on motions for sanctions against Quinn Emanuel (in essence) requiring the firm to “reimburse Apple, Nokia, and their counsel for any and all costs and fees incurred in litigating this motion and the discovery associated with it”. Many felt that Samsung and Quinn Emanuel got off lightly. Now, Apple can’t even mention the inadvertent disclosure in the upcoming Samsung trial.

Apple Wins Another $119.6 Million from Samsung, But It’s Only 6% of What They Requested: Those of you who have been waiting for significant news to report from the Apple v. Samsung litigation, your wait is over! As reported last week in The Recorder, a California Federal jury ordered Samsung on Friday to pay Apple $119.6 million for infringing three of Apple’s iPhone patents. However, the award was a fraction of the nearly $2.2 billion Apple was requesting.

Samsung and Quinn Emanuel Ordered to Pay Over $2 Million for “Patentgate” Disclosure: Remember the “patentgate” disclosure last year (by Samsung and their outside counsel firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) of confidential agreements that Apple had with Nokia? Did you think they were going to avoid having to pay for that disclosure? The answer is no.

Court Refuses to Ban Samsung from Selling Products Found to Have Infringed on Apple Products: Apple may have won several battles with Samsung, including ultimately being awarded over $1 billion in verdicts, as well as a $2 million sanction for the inadvertent disclosure of its outside counsel firm (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) commonly known as “patentgate”. But, Samsung has may have won the war with the court’s refusal to ban Samsung from selling products that were found to have infringed on Apple products.

Apple Recovers Part, But Not All, of its Requested eDiscovery Costs from Samsung: Apple won several battles with Samsung, including ultimately being awarded over $1 billion in verdicts, as well as a $2 million sanction for the inadvertent disclosure of its outside counsel firm (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) commonly known as “patentgate”, but ultimately may have lost the war when the court refused to ban Samsung from selling products that were found to have infringed on Apple products. Now, they’re fighting over relative chicken-feed in terms of a few million that Apple sought to recover in eDiscovery costs.

Tomorrow, we will cover cases related to the most common theme of the year (three guesses and the first two don’t count). Stay tuned!

So, what do you think? Did you miss any of these? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Finding Defendant’s Destruction of Documents to be “Planned, Repeated and Comprehensive”, Court Awards Judgment to Plaintiff – eDiscovery Case Law

In Regulatory Fundamentals Group v. Governance Risk Management Compliance, 13 Civ. 2493 (KBF) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2014), New York District Judge Katherine B. Forrest granted the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and ordered that judgment be entered for the defendant’s “planned, repeated, and comprehensive” destruction of highly-relevant documents.

Case Background

In this copyright infringement action, after the parties engaged in limited discovery, the defendant informed the plaintiff that it “might be missing certain emails.” The defendant later revealed that he had canceled his email account with a third-party vendor, which had hosted his corporate defendants’ websites and email domains.  After the plaintiff noticed the defendant for a deposition to investigate the cancellation and he failed to appear, the plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions alleging that the defendant had engaged in spoliation.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Forrest began her ruling this way:

“A party to a lawsuit may not destroy relevant evidence without consequence. The nature and magnitude of the consequence follows from the level of culpability. Was, for instance, the destruction of evidence inadvertent and the result of an oversight? Or was it the product of a plan?

The individual defendant in this lawsuit destroyed a large number of highly relevant documents — preventing plaintiff and any finder of fact from ever knowing the full truth of what occurred. Following discovery, lengthy briefing, and an evidentiary hearing, the Court has found that defendant’s destruction was planned, repeated, and comprehensive. It was malicious. This finding is particularly unfortunate in light of the plain fact that the spoliation has turned what was a straightforward commercial dispute into a far more serious issue.

The spoliator here — defendant Gregory V. Wood — is a graduate of Cornell Law School and a member of the bar of the State of New York. His conduct has resulted in entry of judgment against him.”

Judge Forrest noted that “to support the imposition of sanctions, ‘the innocent party must prove the following three elements: that the spoliating party (1) had control over the evidence and an obligation to preserve it at the time of destruction or loss; (2) acted with a culpable state of mind upon destroying or losing the evidence; and that (3) the missing evidence is relevant to the innocent party’s claim or defense.’”

Finding that all three elements were satisfied in this case caused Judge Forrest to issue the following analysis:

“RFG has clearly been prejudiced by Wood’s intentional spoliation. The Court has considered whether sanctions less severe than termination are warranted. For example, the Court has considered monetary sanctions or the imposition of an adverse inference. Neither would be sufficient under the circumstances. The lack of emails prevents RFG from proving the full extent or scope of Wood’s conduct.

Wood’s deletion of emails and his attempted cover-up put RFG in an untenable litigation position — the evidence of the scope of defendants’ alleged misconduct is gone forever. Any sanction short of a terminating sanction would fail to account for the prejudice or to sufficiently penalize Wood or deter others from engaging in such misconduct. Accordingly, the Court grants RFG’s request for a terminating sanction.”

So, what do you think?  Did the defendant’s actions justify the ultimate sanction?  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.

The Watergate 18 Minute Gap in Audio Recordings Has Nothing on This Case – eDiscovery Case Law

Anybody who remembers Watergate remembers the big deal made about an 18 1/2 minute gap in audio recordings reported by President Nixon’s secretary, Rose Mary Woods.  This case involves a gap in audio recordings much longer than that.

In Novick v. AXA Network, LLC, 07-CV-7767 (AKH) (KNF) (S.D.N.Y.Oct. 22, 2014), New York Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox granted the plaintiff’s request for sanctions against the defendant, awarding an adverse inference jury instruction for several weeks of spoliated audio recordings and also awarding “reasonable attorney’s fees and costs” associated with the motion as well as retaking several depositions.

Case Background

In this wrongful termination case, the plaintiff contended that the defendants committed several “strikes” justifying his request for sanctions, including spoliating audio recordings because “audio recordings from the time period August 28, 2006 through November 5, 2006 (approximately one-third of the entire time period ordered) are missing,” and “Defendants admit that they were likely erased and taped over” (per defendants letter to the plaintiff on October 25, 2013).  According to the plaintiff, “these recordings are from the most important time period of all – directly before and directly after Mr. Novick’s termination.”  The plaintiff also contended that the defendant had numerous deficiencies in their email production, where the defendant again made several promises to rectify the mistakes.

The defendants contended that “no responsive emails have been withheld and there is no evidence that any emails are missing.”  They did, however, “acknowledge that there are approximately eight weeks of audio recordings, within the period of time for which production of audio recordings was eventually ordered, that cannot be located or produced,” but “[t]his is not a new issue,” and the defendants advised plaintiff of it, on October 17, 2013, when the majority of the recordings were produced to him, and “[t]he fact that these weeks of recordings are missing constitutes the only real issue in plaintiff’s sanctions motion.”  The defendant also acknowledged that they “cannot now explain the absence of these recordings”.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Fox stated that the court “determined that ‘[t]he defendants’ duty to preserve evidence arose when the plaintiff’s counsel notified the defendants, in the October 16, 2006 letter, that the audio recordings should be preserved because they may be relevant to future litigation’” and that the defendants conceded that “‘there are approximately eight weeks of audio recordings that are missing within the period for which defendants have been ordered to produce audio recordings,’ namely the period of August 28-31, 2006, and September 8-November 5, 2006, and they ‘have not been able to determine when, why or how these audio recordings came to be missing from the group of other audio recordings that were stored on DVDs and have been produced.’”  As a result, Judge Fox ruled that “the Court finds that the defendants spoliated relevant evidence, namely, audio recordings for the period August 28-31, 2006, and September 8-November 5, 2006”.

Judge Fox also noted that “Moreover, the defendants’ misconduct respecting the audio recordings was compounded by their deliberate and unjustified failure to search for and locate e-mail messages, as directed by the September 25, 2013 order. The defendants now admit that it was not until March 2014, that they realized that the Frontbridge archive was not searched for responsive documents, but contend this delay was ‘due to human error,’ without explaining what that error was or why they waited until March 2014 to conduct the investigation concerning the production of e-mail messages.”

As a result, Judge Fox Fox granted the plaintiff’s request for sanctions against the defendant, awarding an adverse inference jury instruction for the defendant’s actions and also awarding “reasonable attorney’s fees and costs” associated with the motion as well as retaking several depositions.

So, what do you think?  Did defense counsel’s quick reaction to the disclosure save the email’s privileged status?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

BTW, we also covered a ruling on this case last year 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.

Simply Deleting a File Doesn’t Mean It’s Gone – eDiscovery Best Practices
 

I seem to have picked up a bit of a bug and I’m on cold medicine, so my writing brain is a bit fuzzy.  As a result, so I’m revisiting a topic that has come up a few times over the years that we covered early on in the blog’s history.  I should be back in the saddle with new posts next week!

Disk drives use an index or table to keep track of where each file begins and ends on the disk.  You may have heard terms such as “FAT” (file allocation table) or NTFS ({Windows} NT File System) – these filing systems enable the file to be retrieved quickly on the drive.  They’re like a “directory” of all of the active files on the disk.  When a file is “deleted” (i.e., actually deleted, not just moved to the Recycle Bin), the data for that file isn’t actually removed from the disk (in most cases).  Instead, the entry pertaining to it is removed from the filing system.  As a result, the area on the disk where the actual data is located becomes unallocated space.

Unallocated space, also known as inactive data or drive free space, is the area of the drive not allocated to active data. On a Windows machine, deleted data is not actually destroyed, but the space on the drive that can be reused to store new information. Until the unallocated space is overwritten with new data, the old data remains.  This data can be retrieved (in most cases) using forensic techniques. On MAC O/S 10.5 and higher, there is an application that overwrites sectors when a file is deleted. This process more securely destroys data, but even then it may be possible to recover data out of unallocated space.

Because the unallocated space on a hard drive or server is that portion of the storage space to which data may be saved, it is also where many applications “temporarily” store files when they are in use. For instance, temporary Internet files are created when a user visits a web page, and these pages may be “cached” or temporarily stored in the unallocated space.  Rebooting a workstation or server can also clear some data from the unallocated space on its drive.

Since computers are dynamic and any computer operation may write data to the drive, it is nearly impossible to preserve data in the unallocated space on the hard drive and that data is not accessible without special software tools. To preserve data from the unallocated space of a hard drive, the data must be forensically collected, which basically copies the entire drive’s contents, including every sector (whether those sectors contain active data or not). Even then, data in the unallocated space may not be complete. Because the unallocated space is used to store new data, writing a new file may overwrite part of a deleted file, leaving only part of that file in the unallocated space.

Nonetheless, “deleted” files have been recovered, collected and produced in numerous lawsuits, despite efforts of some producing parties to destroy that evidence.

So, what do you think?  Have you ever recovered deleted data that was relevant to litigation?  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.

Judgment of $34 Million against Insurer Dodging Malpractice Claim is a “Dish” Served Cold – eDiscovery Case Law
 

In my hometown of Houston, attempting to deny coverage to a client successfully sued for discovery-related negligence cost OneBeacon Insurance Company a $34 million judgment by a federal jury.

As reported by Robert Hilson in ACEDS (Insurer dodging malpractice claim must pay $34 million for attorney’s discovery blunder, subscription required), OneBeacon Insurance Company attempted to rescind a policy from T. Wade Welch & Associates (TWW), the Houston-based law firm that was sued by former client Dish Network in 2007 after one of its attorneys provided incomplete discovery responses to Dish’s adversary. That failure resulted in so-called “death penalty” sanctions against Dish in a contractual interference case brought by Russian Media Group (RMG), which accepted a $12 million settlement.

After Dish won an arbitration award against TWW for that amount last year, OneBeacon sued TWW in federal court seeking a declaration the law firm voided coverage on its policy by failing to disclose the Dish sanctions prior to entering into that policy. OneBeacon alleged that TWW should have known that those penalties in the Dish case would give rise to a malpractice claim, which would trigger a so-called “prior knowledge exclusion” in the insurance policy that rescinds coverage, the insurer claimed. It also accused the firm of making misrepresentations on its policy application.

However, a jury in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas begged to differ, finding that:

  • OneBeacon failed to move for a swift settlement with Dish when its liability had become clear; and
  • OneBeacon’s failure to settle the Dish claim amounted to gross negligence.

The jury assessed damages as follows:

  • TWW’s lost profits sustained in the past: $3 million;
  • TWW’s lost profits that, in reasonable probability, it will sustain in the future: $5 million;
  • Sum assessed in exemplary damages for OneBeacon’s gross negligence: $5 million;
  • Sum assessed in exemplary damages because OneBeacon’s conduct was committed knowingly: $7.5 million.

TOTAL: $20.5 million.  Plus, although the OneBeacon policy had a $5 million limit, the “Stowers Doctrine,” which holds that an insurer undertaking the defense of an insured has the obligation to make a good faith attempt to settle the insured’s claim within those policy limits, additionally put the company on the hook for the entire $12.6 million arbitration settlement.  Ouch!

This was after US district Judge Gray Miller, in June, denied summary judgment to OneBeacon, finding that it was not clear from the evidentiary record whether TWW attorneys should have reasonably foreseen the malpractice claim that eventually arose from the Dish sanctions.

For more information on the case, including the jury’s verdict, click here (subscription required).

So, what do you think?  Should OneBeacon have been “on the hook” for the settlement amount or should the “prior knowledge exclusion” have excluded them?  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.

Plaintiff Slips, But Defendant Takes the Fall – eDiscovery Case Law
 

In Riley v. Marriott Int’l, 12-CV-6242P (W.D. N.Y. Sept. 25, 2014), New York Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson agreed with the plaintiffs that spoliation of data had occurred when the defendant failed to preserve video surveillance and “sweep logs” after one of the plaintiffs slipped and fell in the defendant’s hotel garage and that the defendant was at least grossly negligent for not preserving the information.  However, the judge denied the plaintiffs request for summary judgment, granting an adverse inference instruction instead.

Case Background

The plaintiffs filed suit, claiming a slip and fall accident had occurred at the defendant’s hotel in Maui when Linda Riley slipped and fell on the floor of the hotel's parking garage after exiting an elevator because the floor was wet from rainwater that had been permitted to pool there.  The defendant had a surveillance camera that monitored and recorded the area of Linda's accident twenty-four hours a day and the loss prevention manager at the hotel, testified that the recordings are maintained for thirty days, at which time the stored recordings are overwritten by new recordings.  

According to the loss prevention manager, once he is notified of a potential claim against the Hotel, he is responsible for preserving information relating to that claim and he testified that the video showed Linda's fall, her removal from the scene in a wheelchair, and hotel employees placing wet floor signs and sweeping up the water on the floor.  He also testified that he turned the recording over to the hotel's liability insurance carrier.  The plaintiffs stated that the defendant provided only approximately seven minutes of the footage, which begins about one minute before Linda's accident and filed the motion for summary judgment due to the unavailability of more of the video as well as “sweep logs” that kept a record of floor maintenance by employees.  The defendant did not dispute that the sweep logs and video footage existed or that it had a duty to preserve them, but objected, claiming that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate prejudice due to the destruction of data.

Judge’s Ruling

Noting that “Marriott has not challenged the Rileys' contention that it had a duty to preserve the destroyed evidence” and that “no genuine question exists that video footage depicting the scene of an accident and sweep logs reflecting maintenance performed at the scene of an accident is likely to contain relevant information”, Judge Payson “easily conclude[d] that Marriott had a duty to preserve both the sweep logs and the video footage from the day of the accident”.  She also stated that “Marriott has failed to offer any justification for its failure to preserve the evidence” and “failed to offer any facts concerning how or why the evidence was destroyed”; therefore, “Marriott's failure to preserve the entire video footage relating to Linda's accident and the sweep logs for the day in question despite the Hotel's loss prevention employee's testimony that he knew that he had a duty to preserve relevant evidence constitutes, at a minimum, gross negligence.” 

However, Judge Payson stopped short of granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, concluding “that an adverse inference instruction is both appropriate and sufficient to deter Marriott from similar future conduct, to shift the risk of an erroneous judgment to Marriott and to restore the Rileys' position in this litigation.”

So, what do you think?  Did the judge go far enough or should the motion for summary judgment have been granted?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine 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.

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid – eDiscovery Horrors!

Today is Halloween.  Every year at this time, because (after all) we’re an eDiscovery blog, we try to “scare” you with tales of eDiscovery horrors.  This is our fifth year of doing so, let’s see how we do this year.  Be afraid, be very afraid!

Did you know that overlaying Bates numbers on image-only Adobe PDF files causes the text of the image not to be captured by eDiscovery processing applications?

What about this?

Finding that the information was relevant and that the defendants “acted with a culpable state of mind” when they failed to preserve the data in its original form, New York Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis granted the plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions against the defendant, ordering the defendant to bear the cost of obtaining all the relevant data in question from a third party as well as paying for plaintiff attorney fees in filing the motion.

Or this?

It’s Friday at 5:00 and I need 15 gigabytes of data processed to review this weekend.

How about this?

Ultimately, it became clear that the defendant had not exported or preserved the data from salesforce.com and had re-used the plaintiffs’ accounts, spoliating the only information that could have addressed the defendant’s claim that the terminations were performance related (the defendant claimed did not conduct performance reviews of its sales representatives).  As a result, Judge Kemp stated that the “only realistic solution to this problem is to preclude Tellermate from using any evidence which would tend to show that the Browns were terminated for performance-related reasons”…

Or maybe this?

Could an “unconscionable” eDiscovery vendor actually charge nearly $190,000 to process 505 GB and host it for three months?  Could another vendor charge over $800,000 to re-process and host data (that it had previously hosted) for approximately two months?  Yes, in both cases (though, at least in the second case, the court disallowed over $700,000 of the billed costs).

Scary, huh?  If the possibility of additional processing charges for your PDF files, sanctions because you didn’t preserve data in its original format or preserve it in your cloud-based system or inflated eDiscovery vendor charges scares you, then the folks at eDiscovery Daily will do our best to provide useful information and best practices to enable you to relax and sleep soundly, even on Halloween!

Then again, if it really is Friday at 5:00 and you need 15 gigabytes of data processed to review this weekend (inexpensively, no less), maybe you should check this out.

Of course, if you seriously want to get into the spirit of Halloween, click here.  This will really terrify you!  (Rest in Peace, Robin)

What do you think?  Is there a particular eDiscovery issue that scares you?  Please share your comments and let us know if you’d like more information on a particular topic.

Happy Halloween!

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.

Battle Continues between Attorneys and Client over Attorneys’ Failure to Review Documents – eDiscovery Case Law

In Price Waicukauski & Riley v. Murray, 1:10-cv-1065-WTL-TAB (S.D. Ind. Sept. 18, 2014), Indiana District Judge William T. Lawrence granted the plaintiff’s request for summary judgment for failure to pay attorney’s fees of over $125,000, and refused to issue summary judgment for either party related to a legal malpractice claim for the plaintiff’s admitted failure to review documents produced in the defendants’ case against another party because of a factual dispute regarding the plaintiff’s knowledge of the documents produced.

Case Background

This case was filed in August 2010 by the Plaintiff, Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC, (“PWR”) against the Defendants, Dennis and Margaret Murray and DPM, Ltd. (“Murrays”), to recover $127,592.91 in attorneys’ fees owed to the plaintiff. The attorneys’ fees stem from the plaintiff’s representation of the defendants in a rather contentious lawsuit against Conseco that spanned more than six years, ultimately settling.  In November 2010, unhappy with the plaintiff’s representation, the defendants filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff alleging legal malpractice.

Legal Malpractice Claim of Breach of Duty of Loyalty

The defendants alleged several allegations of legal malpractice against the plaintiff, including conflict of interest, failure to properly plead federal subject matter jurisdiction and failure to take depositions and conduct discovery as they requested, among other allegations.  One allegation related to the defendants’ claim that the plaintiff breached the duty of loyalty to the defendants by failing (despite the defendant’s request to do so) to review documents before production in the case that revealed a Trust set up on behalf of the plaintiffs that wasn’t disclosed in interrogatory responses.  The plaintiff informed Mr. Murray that it reviewed the documents; however, it ultimately admitted that it did not.  As a result of the misleading interrogatory responses, Conseco filed a motion for sanctions which was granted, resulting in the defendants being ordered to pay over $85,000 in attorneys’ fees to their opponent’s lawyers.

The defendants claimed that the plaintiff knew about the Trust from the outset of its representation; however, the plaintiff (“falsely and underhandedly”, according to the defendants) represented to the magistrate judge assigned to the Underlying Litigation that it had no knowledge of the Trust until the defendants’ accountant produced the Murrays’ tax returns.

Judge’s Analysis and Ruling

The plaintiffs referenced Niswander v. Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC, where the court held that “[w]hether . . . the Plaintiffs’ attorneys had a duty to review the documents personally before producing them in discovery . . . is simply not something within the knowledge of a layperson.”  However, Judge Lawrence noted, “[t]he Murrays have no expert testimony on either of these two related claims; however, they claim they fall into the above-mentioned exception for when no expert testimony is needed: ‘when the question is within the common knowledge of the community as a whole or when an attorney’s negligence is so grossly apparent that a layperson would have no difficulty in appraising it.’”  Judge Lawrence also agreed with the defendants differentiation of Niswander to this case in that they specifically directed the plaintiff to review the documents while the plaintiffs in Niswander did not.

Judge Lawrence also stated that “[t]he same rings true with the Murrays’ allegation that PWR falsely denied knowledge of the Trust… Again, the Court believes that it is well within the knowledge of a layperson that attorneys should not lie and falsely implicate their own clients in order to shield themselves from liability. Thus, the Court agrees that no expert testimony is needed on this claim regarding the standard of care.”

However, Judge Lawrence decided that “neither party is entitled to summary judgment on this issue” because “there is a factual dispute that precludes granting summary judgment on this claim. PWR maintains that it did not lie; it steadfastly maintains that it had no knowledge of the Trust at the outset of the litigation. Thus, when asked by the magistrate judge when it found out about the Trust, it informed her truthfully. Therefore, whether or not PWR breached a duty that caused injury to the Murrays depends on whom the jury believes: Mr. Murray or PWR.”

Ultimately, Judge Lawrence granted the summary judgment on behalf of the plaintiffs for the attorney’s fees of $127,592.91 (which the defendant did not dispute, but argued that “[t]he successful pursuit of [their] claims would effectively eliminate PWR’s claim”) and denied the defendant’s summary judgment request, but refused a final judgment as outstanding claims remained against the plaintiff.  Judge Lawrence concluded his ruling by noting that “The only claims that remain to be tried are the proximate cause issue with regard to the federal subject matter jurisdiction claim and the allegation of malpractice committed by PWR as a result of its alleged failure to review certain documents that led to sanctions being imposed on Mr. Murray.”

So, what do you think?  Does the failure by the plaintiff to review the defendant’s production constitute legal malpractice?  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.

Failure to Preserve Data on Various Devices Causes Special Master to Recommend Default Judgment – eDiscovery Case Law
 

In Small v. University Medical Center of Southern Nevada, No. 2:13-cv-00298-APG-PAL (D. Nev. Aug. 18, 2014), Special Master Daniel B. Garrie, calling the defendant’s widespread failure to preserve data a “mockery of the orderly administration of justice”, recommended that the court enter an order of default judgment, along with further sanctions, in favor of the plaintiffs.

This employment law dispute had required to date “a fully briefed motion to compel with accompanying oral argument; seven discovery status conferences over eight months before Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen; the appointment of Special Master Daniel B. Garrie; five in person, all day hearings conducted by the Special Master; 14 telephonic hearings before the Special Master; over 20 declarations submitted by employees and agents of UMC (many supplementing or amending prior incomplete or inaccurate declarations); and written submissions by counsel and ESI experts.”

A partial chronology within the Special Master’s report demonstrated that the defendant did not issue or put any litigation hold in place until after the plaintiffs had deposed a defendant witness, which was more than 250 days after the plaintiffs initiated the action.  As Special Master Garrie noted, “In fact, these proceedings confirmed UMC has no ‘litigation hold’ policy, and did not institute any "litigation hold" procedures in response to this lawsuit.”

The defendant had two policies for mobile devices: a “company-issued, personally enabled” (COPE) device policy and a “bring your own device” (BYOD) policy where employees used personal smart phones. Ultimately, it was determined that the devices under the COPE policy were not put under litigation hold until after a number of the devices were wiped clean, which resulted in the loss of 26,310 messages. As for devices under the BYOD policy, the defendant did not issue a litigation hold on the devices at all, which resulted in the loss of approximately two years of ESI that would have been potentially responsive to the case. 

The defendant also failed to identify and preserve network file shares, two laptops belonging to key custodians and work computers used by 24 of the 27 custodians, among other data sources.  As Special Master Garrie noted, “Not a single UMC executive took any of the steps necessary to ensure the preservation of evidence. No UMC executive took responsibility for instituting or enforcing a ‘litigation hold,’ or otherwise acting to ensure the preservation of documents in this case.”

As a result, Special Master Garrie recommended sanctions, stating, “Defendant UMC's extraordinary misconduct and substantial and willful spoliation of relevant ESI in this case resulted in substantial prejudice to Plaintiffs and the classes, and misled Plaintiffs, the Court, and the Special Master on numerous discovery issues…The level of intentional destruction of evidence by UMC shocks the conscious. As such, as to the 613 Opt-In Plaintiffs, default judgment should be entered against UMC pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(iii) & (vi) and the Court's inherent powers.”  He also stated his belief that “Plaintiffs are entitled to sanctions in the form of specific factual findings relating to class certification, and a rebuttable presumption regarding certain merit issues.”  Finally, he recommended that the defendant “be ordered to reimburse Plaintiffs' reasonable costs and fees in these proceedings, including their costs in bringing a motion to compel production, in attending discovery status conferences before Magistrate Judge Leen, and for time spent in the proceedings before Special Master Garrie.”

So, what do you think?  Do the actions by the defendant merit such a harsh sanction?  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.