Close
Enter your
text here

Social Technology

eDiscovery Trends: Joshua Poje
 

This is the fourth 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 Joshua Poje.  Joshua is a Research Specialist with the American Bar Association’s Legal Technology Resource Center, which publishes the Annual Legal Technology Survey. He is a graduate of DePaul University College of Law and Augustana College. 

Why does the American Bar Association produce an annual legal technology survey? Why does legal technology demand special attention?

Technology is inescapable for lawyers today. It's integrated into most aspects of the profession, whether that's communicating with clients, interacting with the courts, or marketing a practice. At this point, if you want to understand how lawyers are practicing, you really have to understand how they're using technology.

That's what we're trying to measure with our survey and that's also the reason we direct our survey questionnaires to practicing attorneys rather than to IT staff or vendors. We aren't just interested in learning what tools are on the market or what technology firms are purchasing; we want to know what they're actually using.

How long have you been involved with the ABA Legal Technology Survey, and how has it changed in that time?

The 2011 ABA Legal Technology Survey Report is the fifth edition I've worked on personally, but the survey has been running in various forms for more than 15 years. Aside from moving to electronic publishing via PDF in 2008, the biggest change we've made in the time I've been here was adding a sixth volume–Technology Basics. That volume allowed us to take a deeper dive into basic questions about budgeting, training, and security.

Aside from that, most of the changes in the survey are evolutionary. We sit down every Fall and evaluate the questionnaire, sometimes adding a few questions about new technology and sometimes dropping questions about technology that's fallen out of use. We try to maintain a high level of consistency from year-to-year so that we can take a meaningful look at trends.

Lawyers have a reputation for being late adopters of technology and even technophobic in many respects. Is this an accurate assessment? Has that changed, or is there still an element of truth to the stereotype?

Lawyers are in a difficult position when it comes to new technology. Normal businesses and organizations have to deal with issues like cost, training, and implementation obstacles when they adopt new technology, and the biggest risk is usually just losing money. Lawyers share those challenges and risks, but also have to consider their obligations under their states' rules of professional conduct. A misstep under the rules can have serious and long-lasting professional consequences. So I think it's understandable that some lawyers take a cautious approach to new technology.

That said, lawyers have certainly become more comfortable with new technology over the last few years. Take Twitter, for example. A recent Pew study found that 13 percent of online adults use Twitter. That's right in line with our 2011 survey, where 14 percent of our lawyer respondents reported using Twitter for personal, non-professional purposes. Around 6 percent even use it for professional activities.

In some cases, lawyers actually seem to be leading on technology. A Nielsen study from May 2011 found that just 5 percent of US consumers own a tablet device like the iPad. In our survey, 20 percent of our respondents reported having tablets available at their firms with 12 percent reporting that they personally use the devices.

There seems to be a new trend or buzzword ever few years that dominates the legal technology conversation. At one point it was all about knowledge management and now it seems to be cloud computing, and then whatever comes next. Do you get the sense legal technologists are prone to getting taken in by hype? Or are they generally practical consumers of technology?

The endless hype cycle is just a reality of the technology sector, legal or otherwise. I think our challenge as legal technology professionals is to navigate the hype to identify the useful, practical tools and strategies that lawyers and other legal professionals can put to good use. We also have to be on alert for the technology that might be problematic for lawyers, given the rules of professional conduct.

There are certainly times when the technology we love doesn't catch on with practicing attorneys. Technology experts have been pushing RSS for years, and yet in 2011 we still had 64 percent of our respondents report that they never use it. But on the other hand, "paperless" was the hot buzzword five or six years ago, and now it's a standard strategy at many law firms of all sizes.

Have the demands of eDiscovery forced the profession to come to grips with their own technology use? Are lawyers more savvy about managing their data?

EDiscovery has certainly been influential for some attorneys, but it's worth noting that 42 percent of our respondents in 2011 reported that they never receive eDiscovery requests on behalf of their clients, and 49 percent reported that they never make eDiscovery requests. Those numbers have barely moved over the last few years.

As you might expect, electronically stored information (ESI) has generally been a bigger concern at the large law firms. In 2011, 77 percent of respondents at firms with 500+ attorneys reported that their firm had been involved in a case requiring processing/review of ESI, compared to just 19 percent of solo practitioners. Those large firms, however, outsource a significant amount of their eDiscovery processing. In 2011, 62 percent reported outsourcing eDiscovery processing to eDiscovery consultants, 50 percent outsourced to computer forensics specialists, and 35 percent outsourced to other lawyers in the U.S.

What trends and technologies are you most interested in following in the next survey?

Cloud computing is definitely a topic to keep an eye on. In 2011, 76 percent of our respondents reported that they had never used a cloud-based tool for legal tasks. Of those, 63 percent cited unfamiliarity with the technology as a reason. A lot of attention has been focused on the cloud this year, though, particularly after Apple's iCloud announcement. It'll be interesting to see how those numbers move in 2012.

Mobile technology should be another interesting area. BlackBerry held onto the overall lead for smartphones in 2011, but iOS and Android made substantial gains. Among our solo and small firm respondents, the iPhone actually led the BlackBerry. Will that carry over to the larger firms in 2012? And on the tablet front, it should be interesting to see how the market shifts. In 2011, 96 percent of the respondents who reported having a tablet available specified the iPad. Apple now has competition from Motorola, Samsung, RIM, HP and others, so it's possible we could see movement in the numbers.

Thanks, Joshua, 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: Production is the “Ringo” of the eDiscovery Phases
 

Since eDiscovery Daily debuted over 14 months ago, we’ve covered a lot of case law decisions related to eDiscovery.  65 posts related to case law to date, in fact.  We’ve covered cases associated with sanctions related to failure to preserve data, issues associated with incomplete collections, inadequate searching methodologies, and inadvertent disclosures of privileged documents, among other things.  We’ve noted that 80% of the costs associated with eDiscovery are in the Review phase and that volume of data and sources from which to retrieve it (including social media and “cloud” repositories) are growing exponentially.  Most of the “press” associated with eDiscovery ranges from the “left side of the EDRM model” (i.e., Information Management, Identification, Preservation, Collection) through the stages to prepare materials for production (i.e., Processing, Review and Analysis).

All of those phases lead to one inevitable stage in eDiscovery: Production.  Yet, few people talk about the actual production step.  If Preservation, Collection and Review are the “John”, “Paul” and “George” of the eDiscovery process, Production is “Ringo”.

It’s the final crucial step in the process, and if it’s not handled correctly, all of the due diligence spent in the earlier phases could mean nothing.  So, it’s important to plan for production up front and to apply a number of quality control (QC) checks to the actual production set to ensure that the production process goes as smooth as possible.

Planning for Production Up Front

When discussing the production requirements with opposing counsel, it’s important to ensure that those requirements make sense, not only from a legal standpoint, but a technical standpoint as well.  Involve support and IT personnel in the process of deciding those parameters as they will be the people who have to meet them.  Issues to be addressed include, but not limited to:

  • Format of production (e.g., paper, images or native files);
  • Organization of files (e.g., organized by custodian, legal issue, etc.);
  • Numbering scheme (e.g., Bates labels for images, sequential file names for native files);
  • Handling of confidential and privileged documents, including log requirements and stamps to be applied;
  • Handling of redactions;
  • Format and content of production log;
  • Production media (e.g., CD, DVD, portable hard drive, FTP, etc.).

I was involved in a case recently where opposing counsel was requesting an unusual production format where the names of the files would be the subject line of the emails being produced (for example, “Re: Completed Contract, dated 12/01/2011”).  Two issues with that approach: 1) The proposed format only addressed emails, and 2) Windows file names don’t support certain characters, such as colons (:) or slashes (/).  I provided that feedback to the attorneys so that they could address with opposing counsel and hopefully agree on a revised format that made more sense.  So, let the tech folks confirm the feasibility of the production parameters.

The workflow throughout the eDiscovery process should also keep in mind the end goal of meeting the agreed upon production requirements.  For example, if you’re producing native files with metadata, you may need to take appropriate steps to keep the metadata intact during the collection and review process so that the metadata is not inadvertently changed. For some file types, metadata is changed merely by opening the file, so it may be necessary to collect the files in a forensically sound manner and conduct review using copies of the files to keep the originals intact.

Tomorrow, we will talk about preparing the production set and performing QC checks to ensure that the ESI being produced to the requesting party is complete and accurate.

So, what do you think?  Have you had issues with production planning in your cases?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Facebook Content Discoverable Yet Again

It seems most, if not all, of the cases these days where discoverability of social media is at issue are being decided by courts in favor of the parties seeking to discover this information.  Here’s another example.

In Largent v. Reed, 2011 WL 5632688, (Pa. C.P. Franklin Co. Nov. 8, 2011) the court ruled that the plaintiff’s Facebook information was discoverable as being relevant and not privileged and ordered the plaintiff to turn over her Facebook login information to the defendant within 14 days, giving the defendant a 21-day window to inspect the plaintiff’s Facebook profile (after which she was allowed to change her password).

In this case, one of the plaintiffs claimed that a motorcycle accident caused by the defendant left her with chronic physical and mental pain. During a deposition of one of the plaintiffs, the defendant learned that she had a Facebook account and had accessed it as recently as the night before the deposition.  The defendant had reason to believe that the plaintiff had posted pictures of herself on Facebook enjoying life with her family as well as a status update about going to the gym. Accordingly, the defendant filed a Motion to Compel, demanding that the plaintiff provide her Facebook username and password to enable the defendant to demonstrate that the plaintiff’s injuries aren’t as bad as she claimed.

The defendant cited two cases where discovery of social network content was granted: Zimmerman v. Weis Markets, Inc., No. CV-09-1535, 2011 WL 2065410 (Pa. Comm. Pl. May 19, 2011) and McMillen v. Hummingbird Speedway, Inc., No. 113-2010 CD (C.P. Jefferson, Sept. 9, 2010).  The plaintiffs responded with two cases where courts denied discovery of Facebook material: Piccolo v. Paterson, No. 2009-4979 (Pa. C.P. Bucks May 6, 2011) and Kennedy v. Norfolk S. Corp., No. 100201437 (Pa. C.P. Phila. Jan 15, 2011).

The court considered the following factors in ruling for the defendant:

  • Relevancy: Since the plaintiff claimed that “she suffers from, among other things, chronic physical and mental pain” and that the defendant claimed that the plaintiff’s “formerly public Facebook account included status updates about exercising at a gym and photographs depicting her with her family that undermine her claim for damages” the court ruled that the information sought by the defendant is “clearly relevant”.
  • Privilege and Privacy: The court noted that there “is no confidential social networking privilege under existing Pennsylvania law” and that there is “no reasonable expectation of privacy in material posted on Facebook”.
  • Stored Communications Act of 1986 (SCA): While the SCA places limits on the government’s ability to compel Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to disclose information about their users, only one court has addressed whether Facebook is an entity covered by the SCA: Crispin v. Christian Audigier Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 52832 (C.D. Calif. May 26, 2010).  In that case, it was ruled that the information being sought directly from Facebook (and other social networking sites) was protected under the SCA, but this court ruled that the SCA does not apply in this case because the plaintiff “is not an entity regulated by the SCA.”
  • Breadth of Discovery Request: The court noted that the plaintiff’s contention that the defendant’s motion is “akin to asking her to turn over all of her private photo albums and requesting to view her personal mail” is “mistaken” as content posted on Facebook is not private.  So, such a request would not “cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense” as the cost to investigate the plaintiff’s Facebook information would be borne by the defendant.

As a result, the court ruled in favor of the defendant and ordered the plaintiff to turn over her Facebook login information to the defendant within 14 days.  Hopefully, the plaintiff doesn’t resort to tampering with the content on their Facebook page.

So, what do you think?  Assuming relevance, should all parties be required to produce social media information? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Happy Thanksgiving from all of us at eDiscovery Daily and CloudNine Discovery!

eDiscovery Trends: Potential ESI Sources Abound in Penn State Case
 

Whether you’re a college football fan or not, chances are you’ve heard about the scandal associated with the allegations of serial child abuse by former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky.  There seems to be new developments almost daily and the scandal has already cost the jobs of the university president, vice president, athletic director and the head football coach, Joe Paterno, who had been head coach since 1965 and on the coaching staff since 1950 (most of us weren’t even born yet!).  Numerous lawsuits seem highly likely to arise as a result of the alleged abuse against a variety of defendants, including the university, individuals alleged to be involved in the abuse and cover-up and also the Second Mile Foundation founded by Sandusky.

Seth Row, an attorney with Parsons Farnell & Grein LLP in Portland (OR), has written an article published in the Association of Certified eDiscovery Specialists (ACEDS) web site providing a detailing of potential sources of ESI that may be relevant in the case.  The article illustrates the wide variety of sources that might be responsive to the litigation.  Here are some of the sources cited by Row:

  • Videotape of entry and exit from the athletic facilities at Penn State, to which Paterno gave Sandusky access after the latter resigned in 1999;
  • Entry/exit logs, which are likely housed in a database if keycards were used, for the Lasch Football Building, where abuse was allegedly witnessed
  • Phone records of incoming and outgoing calls;
  • Electronic rosters of football players, coaches, staff, student interns, and volunteers affiliated with the Penn State football program over time;
  • The personal records of these individuals, including telephone logs, internet search histories, email accounts, medical and financial records, and related information created over time;
  • University listservs;
  • Internet forums – a New York Times article reported last week that a critical break in the investigation came via a posting on the Internet, mentioning that a Penn State football coach might have seen something ugly, but kept silent;
  • Maintenance logs maintained by the two custodial employees who allegedly witnessed abuse;
  • Identities of all media beat reporters who covered the Penn State football team;
  • Passenger and crew manifests for all chartered flights of the Penn State football team in which Sandusky was a passenger;
  • Sandusky's credit card records to document meals and outings where he may have been accompanied by victims, and records of gifts he purchased for them;
  • All records of the Second Mile Foundation identifying boys who participated in its programs, as well as the names of donors and officers, directors and staff;
  • Paper record equivalents of this ESI that were produced in the 1990s before electronic recordkeeping became prevalent;
  • All electronic storage and computing devices owned or maintained by Sandusky, Paterno and other central figures in the scandal, including cell phones, personal computers, tablet computers, flash drives, and related hardware.

With such a wide variation of potential custodians and time frames, it will be difficult to quickly narrow down the potential ESI sources.  As the author points out, it seems likely that Penn State has already locked down its records retention policies throughout the university.  They certainly would seem to have a reasonable expectation of litigation.  Investigators and attorneys will likely be racing against time to identify as many other parties as possible with potentially responsive ESI.

So, what do you think?  Have you been involved in litigation with such a wide distribution of potentially responsive ESI?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Facebook Spoliation Significantly Mitigates Plaintiff’s Win

“Spoliation of evidence” refers to the deliberate destruction of evidence prior to a trial.  It is a rare event in civil litgation.  But, spoliation of evidence was found in a case involving a personal injury lawyer in Virginia.  Lawyer Matthew Murray was ordered to pay $522,000 for instructing his client to remove photos from his Facebook age.  His client was ordered to pay $180,000 for obeying his instructions.  A state district judge issued these sanctions in the case of Lester v. Allied Concrete Co., Nos. CL08-150, CL09-223 (Va. Cir. Ct. Oct. 21, 2011).

Murray was found to have told his client to remove pictures, such as the one of him holding a beer and wearing a t-shirt that said “I ♥ hot moms.”  The client was a recent widower suing about the death of his wife.

In this case, the defendant was able to show via expert testimony that the widower deleted 15 photos from his Facebook account and perhaps a 16th.  The photos were provided to the defendant later, before the trial.  The jury found in favor of Mr. Lester and awarded $10 million.  Subsequent to the trial, the judge ordered that Plaintiff’s counsel provide copies of emails between the lawyer and his client to the court for in camera inspection (i.e., for the judge’s eyes only).  When the district judge ordered production of these emails, he ruled that emails related to Defendant’s request for production were not attorney-client privileged.

This all started when one of the defense lawyers apparently “hacked” into Mr. Lester’s Facebook page via a mutual friend and observed the photos showing Mr. Lester as apparently non too distraught over his wife’s death.

The court found that the plaintiff, Isaiah Lester, lied about his depression and treatment.  The court found that Murray told Lester via email “to clean up” his Facebook page and told the client that “blow-ups” of pictures like the “I [heart] hot moms” photo would cause problems at trial.  Lester deactivated his Facebook page.  A few days later, in responding to discovery requests, the plaintiff said he did not have a Facebook account.  The defendants complained – at this point they knew Lester had or should have a Facebook account.  Murray then asked Lester to reactivate his account.  The plaintiff’s lawyer also provided hard copies of the 16 photos to the defense.

At his subsequent deposition, Mr. Lester lied about what he had done and denied he had deactivated his Facebook account.

Defendants then issued a subpoena duces tecum for emails between Lester and his lawyer for the time period when the request for production was issued.  Plaintiff resisted.  The defense then filed a motion to compel.  The court required a privilege log of the disputed emails.  The judge found the initial privilege log deficient.  When Murray finally produced the incriminating email, he claimed its prior omission was error and blamed the omission on a paralegal, ultimately leading to the sanctions.

So, what do you think?  Were those sanctions fair or were they excessive? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: San Antonio Employment Law Blog.

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 Rewind: Eleven for 11-11-11
 

Since today is one of only 12 days this century where the month, day and year are the same two-digit numbers (not to mention the biggest day for “craps” players to hit Las Vegas since July 7, 2007!), it seems an appropriate time to look back at some of our recent topics.  So, in case you missed them, here are eleven of our recent posts that cover topics that hopefully make eDiscovery less of a “gamble” for you!

eDiscovery Best Practices: Testing Your Search Using Sampling: On April 1, we talked about how to determine an appropriate sample size to test your search results as well as the items NOT retrieved by the search, using a site that provides a sample size calculator. On April 4, we talked about how to make sure the sample set is randomly selected. In this post, we’ll walk through an example of how you can test and refine a search using sampling.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Your ESI Collection May Be Larger Than You Think: Here’s a sample scenario: You identify custodians relevant to the case and collect files from each. Roughly 100 gigabytes (GB) of Microsoft Outlook email PST files and loose “efiles” is collected in total from the custodians. You identify a vendor to process the files to load into a review tool, so that you can perform first pass review and, eventually, linear review and produce the files to opposing counsel. After processing, the vendor sends you a bill – and they’ve charged you to process over 200 GB!! What happened?!?

eDiscovery Trends: Why Predictive Coding is a Hot Topic: Last month, we considered a recent article about the use of predictive coding in litigation by Judge Andrew Peck, United States magistrate judge for the Southern District of New York. The piece has prompted a lot of discussion in the profession. While most of the analysis centered on how much lawyers can rely on predictive coding technology in litigation, there were some deeper musings as well.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?: Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care? OK, it’s an old song by Chicago (back then, they were known as the Chicago Transit Authority). But, the question of what time it really is has a significant effect on how eDiscovery is handled.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Message Thread Review Saves Costs and Improves Consistency: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. But, in ESI review, it can be even worse when you get a different result. Most email messages are part of a larger discussion, which could be just between two parties, or include a number of parties in the discussion. To review each email in the discussion thread would result in much of the same information being reviewed over and over again. Instead, message thread analysis pulls those messages together and enables them to be reviewed as an entire discussion.

eDiscovery Best Practices: When Collecting, Image is Not Always Everything: There was a commercial in the early 1990s for Canon cameras in which tennis player Andre Agassi uttered the quote that would haunt him for most of his early career – “Image is everything.” When it comes to eDiscovery preservation and collection, there are times when “Image is everything”, as in a forensic “image” of the media is necessary to preserve all potentially responsive ESI. However, forensic imaging of media is usually not necessary for Discovery purposes.

eDiscovery Trends: If You Use Auto-Delete, Know When to Turn It Off: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(f), adopted in 2006, is known as the “safe harbor” rule. While it’s not always clear to what extent “safe harbor” protection extends, one case from a few years ago, Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington v. Washington Metrop. Trans. Auth., D.D.C. June 2007, seemed to indicate where it does NOT extend – auto-deletion of emails.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Checking for Malware is the First Step to eDiscovery Processing: A little over a month ago, I noted that we hadn’t missed a (business) day yet in publishing a post for the blog. That streak almost came to an end back in May. As I often do in the early mornings before getting ready for work, I spent some time searching for articles to read and identifying potential blog topics and found a link on a site related to “New Federal Rules”. Curious, I clicked on it and…up popped a pop-up window from our virus checking software (AVG Anti-Virus, or so I thought) that the site had found a file containing a “trojan horse” program. The odd thing about the pop-up window is that there was no “Fix” button to fix the trojan horse. So, I chose the best available option to move it to the vault. Then, all hell broke loose.

eDiscovery Trends: An Insufficient Password Will Thwart Even The Most Secure Site: Several months ago, we talked about how most litigators have come to accept that Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) systems are secure. However, according to a recent study by the Ponemon Institute, the chance of any business being hacked in the next 12 months is a “statistical certainty”. No matter how secure a system is, whether it’s local to your office or stored in the “cloud”, an insufficient password that can be easily guessed can allow hackers to get in and steal your data.

eDiscovery Trends: Social Media Lessons Learned Through Football: The NFL Football season began back in September with the kick-off game pitting the last two Super Bowl winners – the New Orleans Saints and the Green Bay Packers – against each other to start the season. An incident associated with my team – the Houston Texans – recently illustrated the issues associated with employees’ use of social media sites, which are being faced by every organization these days and can have eDiscovery impact as social media content has been ruled discoverable in many cases across the country.

eDiscovery Strategy: "Command" Model of eDiscovery Must Make Way for Collaboration: In her article "E-Discovery 'Command' Culture Must Collapse" (via Law Technology News), Monica Bay discusses the old “command” style of eDiscovery, with a senior partner leading his “troops” like General George Patton – a model that summit speakers agree is "doomed to failure" – and reports on the findings put forward by judges and litigators that the time has come for true collaboration.

So, what do you think?  Did you learn something from one of these topics?  If so, which one?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscoveryDaily would like to thank all veterans and the men and women serving in our armed forces for the sacrifices you make for our country.  Thanks to all of you and your families and have a happy and safe Veterans Day!

eDiscovery Trends: Is Email Still the Most Common Form of Requested ESI?
 

Email has historically been the most common form of requested electronically stored information (ESI), but that has changed, according to a survey performed by Symantec and reported in Law Technology News.

According to the article, Symantec’s survey, conducted this past June and July, included lawyers and technologists at 2,000 enterprises worldwide.  However, the article doesn’t indicate the total number of respondents or whether that’s the number of organizations receiving the survey or the number actually responding.

Regarding how frequently (percentage of situations requested) various types of ESI are requested during legal and regulatory processes, the survey yielded some surprising answers:

  • Files and Documents: 67 percent
  • Application and Database Records: 61 percent
  • Email: 58 percent
  • Microsoft SharePoint records: 51 percent
  • Messaging Formats (e.g., instant messaging, texts, and BlackBerry PIN messages): 44 percent
  • Social Media Data: 41 percent

Email requested in legal and regulatory processes just over half the time?  That’s more than surprising, that’s shocking!

Symantec’s survey also asked about implementation of a formal data retention policy, with 30 percent of responding companies indicating that they have discussed but have not implemented a policy and 14 percent indicating that they have no plans to implement a policy (44 percent total that have not implemented a policy).  Reasons for not doing so were as follows (respondents were allowed to pick multiple reasons):

  • No Need Identified: 41 percent
  • Cost: 38 percent
  • No Designated Employee (to implement the policy): 27 percent
  • Too Time Consuming: 26 percent
  • Lack of Expertise: 21 percent

Many of these companies may not feel compelled to implement a policy because they are not frequently in litigation nor are they in regulated industries.

So, what do you think?  Do the percentages above reflect your experience as to how frequently the different types of ESI are requested?  Does the email percentage seem significantly low?  In my experience, it does.  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Defendant Ordered to Re-Post Infringing Photograph to Facebook Profile

A New Jersey court ordered the defendant to re-post a photograph displaying infringing trade dress to his Facebook profile for a brief period of time to allow the plaintiff to print copies, in a case involving trademark infringement.

In Katiroll Co., Inc. v. Kati Roll & Platters, Inc., No. 10-3620 (GEB), 2011 WL 3583408 (D.N.J. Aug. 3, 2011), the plaintiff argued for sanctions after the defendant pulled down infringing materials from his Facebook page and altered his Facebook profile photo, removing a profile picture that included the distinctive trade dress at issue in this case. The court ultimately decided against sanctions, but did order the defendant to re-post the photo in question, as follows.

  • The court first set out to establish whether or not the defendant’s actions could be considered as spoliation, citing the standard of review for the four criteria in spoliation. The four criteria include the party’s control over the evidence, apparent suppression or withholding of evidence, relevance of the destroyed evidence, and that it be “reasonably foreseeable” that the evidence would be required for discovery at a current or later date.
  • The altered profile photograph was deemed by the court to be relevant, and under the control of the defendant. However, whether that evidence was suppressed or withheld, and whether it was foreseeable that it would be required as part of discovery, remained at issue.
  • The plaintiff argued that the defendant should be sanctioned for failing “to preserve his Facebook pages in their original state” and “wanted PDFs of these pages prior to their being taken down”, but the court maintained that because these infringing pages had been removed at the plaintiff’s earlier request, it “would be unjust” to sanction the defendant for those actions.
  • The court also noted that Facebook profile photos are changed as often as weekly by those who use the site regularly, and that the defendant could not have known that changing his photo would have been an issue. “It would not have been immediately clear that changing his profile picture would undermine discoverable evidence,” the court maintained.
  • As result, the court declined to order sanctions against the defendant. Instead, the defendant was ordered to re-post the Facebook profile photo in question “for a brief time,” including the trade dress at issue (as they “ha[d] not been destroyed” and were “attached in several PDFs” to the court), so that the plaintiff might print whatever photos and Facebook pages it wishes. Afterward, the defendant was told to replace the photo again with a non-infringing image.

So, what do you think? Was the court’s decision fair, or should the defendant have been sanctioned for spoliation? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Social Media Lessons Learned Through Football
 

The NFL Football season begins tonight with the kick-off game pitting the last two Super Bowl winners – the New Orleans Saints and the Green Bay Packers – against each other to start the season.

An incident associated with my team – the Houston Texans – recently illustrated the issues associated with employees’ use of social media sites, which are being faced by every organization these days and can have eDiscovery impact as social media content has been ruled discoverable in many cases across the country.

Last year’s NFL rushing leader, Arian Foster, recently “tweeted” a picture of the MRI image showing his injured hamstring to all of his followers on Twitter. The “tweet” provided an explanation of where his hamstring was specifically damaged.

The problem is that NFL teams guard specific injury information regarding their players as if they were trade secrets and in a sport where sidelining your opponents’ best players is a competitive advantage, telling those opponents where your injury is located is not a wise move (what was he thinking?).  Also, there are strict guidelines within the NFL regarding the disclosure of injury information because (big surprise!) it can impact betting on the games.

Foster, who subsequently “tweeted” that he was just joking around, provided yet the latest reminder that former congressman Anthony Weiner and many others have provided before: think before you hit send.

But, as bad as the consequences can be to individuals who post content on social media sites unwisely, it can be just as bad (or worse) for organizations that employ those individuals.

Postings on social media sites by employees can range from simply embarrassing for an organization from a public relations standpoint to downright damaging to the organization in the form of disclosure of confidential information.  The risk is clear.  Yet, in the socially technological world in which we live today, it is impractical for organizations to “ban” use of social media sites by their employees.  It’s going to happen and companies have to be prepared to address it.

The best way to address it is to implement a sound social governance policy that provides guidelines for acceptable and unacceptable behavior on social media sites and the consequences for the unacceptable behavior.  Implementation includes education with training examples that clarify any ambiguities.  This blog post from last year illustrates factors to address in a good social governance policy.  Hopefully, someone from the Texans is explaining these concepts to Arian Foster.

So, what do you think? Does your organization have a social governance policy?  Does it train employees on the use of that policy? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: A Pennsylvania Court Conducts Its Own Social Media Relevancy Review

Pennsylvania seems to be taking the lead in setting social media discovery precedents, as evidenced by this case summarized on eDiscovery Daily earlier this week.  In this case, a Pennsylvania court agreed to review a plaintiff’s Facebook account in order to determine which information is subject to discovery in a case relating to the plaintiff’s claim of injury in a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff in Offenback v. L.M. Bowman, Inc., No. 1:10-CV-1789, 2011 WL 2491371 (M.D. Pa. June 22, 2011) was directed to allow the court to access his Facebook and MySpace accounts in order to determine which parts of his social media accounts are subject to discovery. After a thorough review, the court expressed its “confusion” over the plaintiff’s inability to conduct this review himself in order to present discoverable information to the court:

  • The plaintiff claimed that he suffered injuries in a car accident on November 6, 2008 that “limited his ability to sit, walk, stand, ride in a vehicle, bend, stoop, push, pull, and lift”. He also claimed he could not work and was unable to relocate as he’d planned to do before the accident.  Additionally, the plaintiff claimed that he “suffers anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress as a result of the accident”.
  • The court found the client’s physical and emotional experience relevant in this case, and sought discovery of key information in his social media accounts that might shed light on his health and well-being at the time of the accident and thereafter.
  • The court initially requested access to both the plaintiff’s Facebook and MySpace accounts, but changed the order to request access exclusively to his Facebook account once the plaintiff had asserted that he had not accessed MySpace since November 2008 and had lost the requested login information in the intervening period.
  • After its review, the court consulted both the plaintiff and the defendant about the Facebook photos, updates, and other materials it considered relevant, in consideration of the “broad scope of relevance” argued by the defendants.
  • Notably, the court ordered discovery of photographs and Facebook updates indicating that the plaintiff purchased a motorcycle in 2010 and may have ridden it from Kentucky to Pennsylvania and possibly on a trip to West Virginia.
  • The court ended its review by expressing its “confusion about why the parties required the Court’s assistance in deciding which information within the plaintiff’s Facebook account is responsive to Defendants’ discovery requests”. The court stated its desire that, in future cases of a similar nature, the plaintiff be accountable for reviewing his own Facebook profile, presenting discoverable materials and raising objections if so desired.

So, what do you think? Should the court have conducted the review itself? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.