Close
Enter your
text here

Social Technology

Court Sanctions Plaintiff for Spoliation of Facebook Account: eDiscovery Case Law

Shark Week on the Discovery Channel concludes this weekend, which means Case Week on the eDiscovery Channel (a.k.a., eDiscovery Daily) concludes as well (don’t be sad, it will be back next year!).  During our webcast on Wednesday on Key eDiscovery Case Law Review for the First Half of 2019 (which, if you missed it, can be viewed here), Tom O’Connor and I discussed several cases that couldn’t quite get to the stage of issuing an adverse inference sanction for spoliation of ESI.  This case shows that there are still cases out there where these sanctions happen – when the intent to deprive is clear enough.

In Cordova v. Walmart Puerto Rico, Inc. et al., No. 16-2195 (ADC) (D.P.R. July 16, 2019), Puerto Rico District Judge Aida M. Delgado-Colon granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion to dismiss for fraud on the Court, denying the defendant’s request for dismissal, but imposing a sanction of adverse inference regarding the content of the plaintiff’s Facebook page and her deletion of the related account.  Judge Delgado-Colon also ordered the defendant to “submit a proposed adverse-inference jury instruction to that effect before trial.”

Case Background

In this case filed by the plaintiff against the defendant alleging unlawful discrimination, retaliation, and unjust dismissal, when the defendant issued a set of interrogatories and request for production of documents asking the plaintiff to disclose and produce information and documents regarding her social media accounts, among other requests. The plaintiff responded, in essence, that she once had a social media account, but that it was closed and that she did not recall the name under which she had the account.

The defendant filed a motion to compel, contending that “the discovery was relevant in order to address plaintiff’s allegations of disability and her substantial allegations of severe mental, psychological, moral and emotional pain anguish and distress, loss of happiness and loss of capacity to enjoy life.”  The plaintiff claimed that prior to the discovery request, she had lost her cell phone, after which “she tried to access [her] Facebook account using [her] home computer” but got blocked out for unsuccessful attempts to log into the account and when she got a new phone, she tried again to access her Facebook account but was unable to do so and she did not “ha[ve] access to [the] Facebook account ever again.”  In a meeting between parties, the plaintiff was unsuccessful in accessing her Facebook account.

However, on September 19, 2018, the defendant was able to identify plaintiff’s public Facebook profile under the name `Córdova Eigna’—essentially, plaintiff’s second last-name and her first name spelled backwards.  That account was opened in 2009, the plaintiff updated her cover photo on August 23, 2018, and included a comment about `living happily ever after’ and posted a comment regarding the same as recently as September 6, 2018.  That same afternoon, however, the account became unavailable.  As a result, the defendant filed a motion, asserting that the plaintiff was duplicitous about the Facebook discovery in question and requested case dismissal.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Delgado-Colon found that “Mercado failed to comply with her obligation under Fed. R. Civ. 26(e) to supplement discovery responses to Walmart’s requests regarding her Facebook account. Specifically, taking as true Mercado’s contention that she was blocked out of said account for a period of time after having lost her cell phone, she was obligated to voluntarily inform Walmart when she later regained access and resumed her activities on Facebook. In that respect, the Court rejects Mercado’s explanation that she was unaware of having to do so because discovery had concluded, and Walmart’s summary judgment motion was pending adjudication. Those are not valid reasons for Mercado’s non-compliance with her disclosure obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e), especially regarding an ongoing, contentious discovery issue and given that Mercado has been represented by counsel at all times in this case.”

As a result, Judge Delgado-Colon granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion, stating: “Walmart’s request for dismissal is denied. However, the Court hereby imposes as sanction an adverse inference regarding the content of Mercado’s Facebook page and her deletion of the related account. Accordingly, Walmart shall submit a proposed adverse-inference jury instruction to that effect before trial.”

So, what do you think?  Did the spoliation warrant the adverse inference instruction?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily 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. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Judge’s Facebook Friendship with Party Causes Decision to Be Reversed and Remanded to Different Judge: eDiscovery Case Law

In the case In Re the Paternity of B.J.M., Appeal No. 2017AP2132 (Wis. App. Feb. 20, 2019), the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, concluding that “the circuit court’s undisclosed ESM connection with a current litigant in this case {by accepting a Facebook “friend” request from the litigant} created a great risk of actual bias, resulting in the appearance of partiality”, reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings before a different judge.

Case Background

In this case where the parties entered into an order granting parties Timothy Miller and Angela Carroll joint legal custody and shared physical placement of a minor child in 2011, Carroll filed a motion to modify the court order on the basis that Miller had engaged in a pattern of domestic abuse against Carroll. After the parties had submitted their written arguments, the judge deciding the motion – Judge Michael Bitney – accepted Carroll’s friend request on Facebook. Subsequently, Carroll “liked” eighteen of Judge Bitney’s Facebook posts and commented on two of his posts – none of which related to the pending litigation.  Judge Bitney did not “like” or comment on any of Carroll’s posts, nor did he reply to any of her comments on his posts; however, Carroll’s other activities (“liking” multiple posts from other parties and “sharing” one third-party photograph) did appear on Judge Bitney’s “newsfeed.” One of these shared stories related to domestic violence.

On July 14, 2017, Judge Bitney issued a decision granting Carroll’s modification motion. After the decision, Miller learned that Judge Bitney and Carroll were Facebook friends during the period prior to making his ruling, and moved to reconsider the judge’s decision.  At a hearing on Miller’s motion, Judge Bitney confirmed that he had accepted Carroll’s friend request after the custody hearing and before rendering his written decision. However, he concluded he was not subjectively biased by accepting Carroll’s “friend” request, because he already “had decided how I was going to rule, even though it hadn’t been reduced to writing.” Further, he concluded that “[e]ven given the timing of” his and Carroll’s Facebook connection, the circumstances did not “rise[] to the level of objective bias. . . .” Consequently, he denied Miller’s motion. Miller appealed the decision.

Court’s Ruling

In an opinion written by Justice J. Seidl, he noted that “This case involves what appears to be an issue of first impression in Wisconsin: a claim of judicial bias arising from a judge’s use of electronic social media (ESM)” and stated that “we need not determine whether a bright-line rule prohibiting the judicial use of ESM is appropriate or necessary”.  He also referenced a New Mexico supreme court in Thomas as “particularly instructive”, which said:

“While we make no bright-line ban prohibiting judicial use of social media, we caution that ‘friending,’ online postings, and other activity can easily be misconstrued and create an appearance of impropriety… A judge’s online ‘friendships,’ just like a judge’s real-life friendships, must be treated with a great deal of care.”

The opinion also stated that “the time when Judge Bitney and Carroll became Facebook ‘friends’ would cause a reasonable person to question the judge’s partiality. Although Judge Bitney apparently had thousands of Facebook ‘friends,’ Carroll was not simply one of the many people who ‘friended’ him prior to this litigation. Rather, Carroll was a current litigant who reached out to Judge Bitney and requested to become his Facebook ‘friend’ after testifying at a contested hearing, at which Judge Bitney was the sole decision-maker. Judge Bitney then took the affirmative step to accept this ‘friend’ request before issuing his decision in this case…This timing creates a great risk of actual bias and a resulting appearance of partiality because, even assuming that a Facebook ‘friendship’ does not denote the type of relationship traditionally associated with the term ‘friendship,’ it is unquestionably evidence of some type of affirmative social connection…Carroll’s choice to send a ‘friend’ request to Judge Bitney, combined with Judge Bitney’s choice to accept that request before issuing his decision, conveys the impression that Carroll was in a special position to influence Judge Bitney’s ultimate decision – a position not available to individuals that he had not ‘friended,’ such as Miller.”

As a result, the court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings before a different judge.

So, what do you think?  Should judges accepting friend requests from litigants disqualify them from ruling in their cases?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Hat tip to Sharon Nelson’s Ride the Lightning blog for coverage of this case.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily 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. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Facebook Will Shift to Emphasize Encrypted Ephemeral Messages, Zuckerberg Says: eDiscovery Trends

In a post to Facebook last week, founder Mark Zuckerberg outlined a vision of the future that includes end-to-end encryption and an ephemeral lifespan for private messages and photos.  Zuckerberg said that encryption will be one of the keys to Facebook’s future — and that the company is willing to be banned in countries that refuse to let it operate as a result.

According to The Verge (Mark Zuckerberg says Facebook will shift to emphasize encrypted ephemeral messages, written by Casey Newton), Zuckerberg wrote in a 3,200 word “missive”: “As I think about the future of the internet, I believe a privacy-focused communications platform will become even more important than today’s open platforms.  Today we already see that private messaging, ephemeral stories, and small groups are by far the fastest growing areas of online communication.”

Public social networks have their place, Zuckerberg added, but he sees a large future opportunity built on “a simpler platform that’s focused on privacy first.” That would mark a sharp reversal for Facebook, which has grown into one of the world’s wealthiest companies by inventing exotic new methods of personal data collection and allowing brands to sell advertising against it. Facebook has spent the past two years mired in scandals around data privacy, starting with last year’s revelations around Cambridge Analytica and continuing through the biggest data breach in company history.

“I believe the future of communication will increasingly shift to private, encrypted services where people can be confident what they say to each other stays secure and their messages and content won’t stick around forever,” Zuckerberg says. “This is the future I hope we will help bring about.“

From an eDiscovery standpoint, the ability to customize the lifespan of messages could wreak havoc, as discussed in this article in Legaltech News®, written by Frank Ready:

“The biggest problem is how are we going to train lawyers [and] how are they going to train their clients to preserve it?” said attorney and forensic technologist Craig Ball.  “A lot of people got into hot water or at least had to try to extricate themselves from hot water because they failed to disable the auto-delete, auto-purge function of their email collections,” Ball said.

Now, they may need to remember to change the settings for their Facebook messages as well when litigation hits.

“People don’t really have an appreciation for social media being evidence and so people will on occasion just delete things, not thinking they are doing anything bad,” said Mary Mack, executive director of the Association of Certified E-discovery Specialists (ACEDS).

Of course, ephemeral messaging has already been at issue in litigation, with the Waymo v. Uber case and Uber’s use of Wickr, an ephemeral messaging application, for internal communications.  Waymo contended that Uber was using Wickr to “hide the ball” with regard to its internal communications, but California District Judge William Alsup declined to severely sanction Uber, given that Waymo was also using its own ephemeral messaging app for communications.

Of course, there is no duty to preserve those messages until litigation is anticipated.  As Kelly Twigger, CEO of eDiscovery Assistant noted, “We’re surmising at this point but you might start to see, you know, a lot more attention paid to what is the date that the duty to preserve arises.”

We’ll see.  Craig, Mary and Kelly will be among the many eDiscovery experts that will be at the University of Florida E-Discovery Conference next week (I’m honored to be there again too!).  While it’s my understanding that the conference is booked as far as in-person attendance, you can still register for livestream attendance here.

So, what do you think?  Will ephemeral messaging make things easier or harder for attorneys?  As always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily 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. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Now, Wait Just an Internet Minute!: eDiscovery Trends

Have I mentioned lately that I love…an infographic?  Well, let me mention it again!  The past three years, we’ve taken a look at a terrific infographic each year that illustrated what happens within the internet in a typical minute.  Last week, the 2019 internet minute graphic came out, so, let’s take a look at what happens in an internet minute in 2019.

The updated graphic shown above, once again created by Lori Lewis, illustrates what happens within the internet in a typical minute in 2019.  As always, there are a couple of different categories tracked in this graphic than last year’s, but most are the same and those that are carried forward are, once again, (almost) all up compared to last year – some more than others.  Once again, Netflix more than doubled and Instagram nearly doubled, while others sources showed more incremental gains.

Here is a comparison between 2018 and 2019 (we previously published the graphic for 2016 and 2017):

Needless to say, I’ll be discussing this in my presentation next week at the University of Florida E-Discovery Conference.

In her post, Lori also goes through some of her observations on the trends.  Once again, I can’t vouch for the accuracy of the numbers, so take them for what it’s worth.  So, why do I love infographics so much?  One reason is because they make my job easier!  :o)

So, what do you think?  How have the challenges of various sources of data affected your organization?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily 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. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Emoji Are Showing Up in Court Cases More and More: eDiscovery Trends

Without a doubt, our forms of communication are continuing to evolve from just email and we now have to add social media, text messaging and other messaging apps as forms of communication that need to be routinely preserved, collected, processed, reviewed and produced.  But, it’s not just the forms of communication that are changing, it’s the way we communicate that is changing as well.  So, you may or may not be surprised that emoji (yes, the plural of “emoji” is still “emoji”, at least officially) are showing up in court cases exponentially.

As discussed in The Verge (Emoji are showing up in court cases exponentially, and courts aren’t prepared, written by Dani Lee), emoji are showing up as evidence in court more frequently with each passing year. Between 2004 and 2019, there was an exponential rise in emoji and emoticon references in US court opinions, with over 30 percent of all cases (53 out of 171 all time) appearing in 2018, according to Santa Clara University law professor Eric Goldman, who has been tracking all of the references to “emoji” and “emoticon” that show up in US court opinions.  Yes, there’s a guy who tracks that stuff!  Here’s a chart from Goldman, showing the rise of cases since 2004:

By the way, you do know the difference between an emoji and an emoticon, right?  An emoticon is created out of text, primarily via the use of punctuation marks, whereas an emoji is a small image, a pictograph. Nearly everyone has used an emoji and emoticon at least once in their lives, even if they didn’t know what it was called.  Personally, I’m not a big fan of emoticons… ;o)

Goldman has written extensively on the subject of “emoji law” – including his blog post Emoji Law 2018 Year-in-Review and his paper published last year titled Emojis and the Law.

So far, the emoji and emoticons have rarely been important enough to sway the direction of a case, but as they become more common, the ambiguity in how emoji are displayed and what we interpret emoji to mean could become a larger issue for courts to contend with.  Want a couple of examples?  Here you go:

  • Bay Area prosecutors were trying to prove that a man arrested during a prostitution sting was guilty of pimping charges, and among the evidence was a series of Instagram DMs he’d allegedly sent to a woman. One read: “Teamwork make the dream work” with high heels and money bag emoji placed at the end. Prosecutors said the message implied a working relationship between the two of them. The defendant said it could mean he was trying to strike up a romantic relationship. Another message from the defendant included the crown emoji, which was said to signify that the “pimp is the king.”
  • In 2017, a couple in Israel was charged thousands of dollars in fees after a court ruled that their use of emoji to a landlord signaled an intent to rent his apartment. After sending an enthusiastic text confirming that they wanted the apartment, which contained a string of emoji including a champagne bottle, a squirrel, and a comet, they stopped responding to the landlord’s texts and went on to rent a different apartment. The court declared that the couple acted in bad faith, ruling that the “icons conveyed great optimism” that “naturally led to the Plaintiff’s great reliance on the Defendants’ desire to rent his apartment,” according to Room 404.

Still, it’s rare for cases to turn on the interpretations of emoji. “They show up as evidence, the courts have to acknowledge their existence, but often they’re immaterial,” Goldman says. “That’s why many judges decide to say ‘emoji omitted’ because they don’t think it’s relevant to the case at all.” But emoji are a critical part of communication, and in cases where transcripts of online communication are being read to the jury, they need to be characterized as well instead of being skipped over. “You could imagine if you got a winky face following the text sentence, you’re going to read that sentence very differently than without the winky face,” he says. In the “pimp” case above, the ruling didn’t ultimately hinge on the interpretation of emoji, but they still provided evidentiary support.

Nonetheless, as Craig Ball has noted in several presentations that I’ve seen, the handling of emoji and emoticons will become increasingly important in discovery over time.  And, here’s one more challenge to leave you with – emoji often render differently across platforms, so the emoji you see may not be the emoji your audience sees in social media posts or text/other messages.  We may have to consult those Egyptian hieroglyphics textbooks soon to see how they managed to communicate thousands of years ago!

So, what do you think?  Are you surprised that emoji and emoticons are becoming an increasing part of legal cases?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily 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. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

NY Appeals Court Extends Discoverability of Social Media Photos to “Tagged” Photos: eDiscovery Case Law

In Vasquez-Santos v. Mathew, 8210NIndex 158793/13 (N.Y. App. Div. Jan. 24, 2019), the New York Appellate Division, First Department panel “unanimously reversed” an order by the Supreme Court, New York County last June that denied the defendant’s motion to compel access by a third-party data mining company to plaintiff’s devices, email accounts, and social media accounts, so as to obtain photographs and other evidence of plaintiff engaging in physical activities and granted the defendant’s motion.

It’s rare that we can include the entire case opinion in our blog post, but, in perhaps the shortest case ruling we’ve ever covered, here is that case opinion.

“Private social media information can be discoverable to the extent it ‘contradicts or conflicts with [a] plaintiff’s alleged restrictions, disabilities, and losses, and other claims’ (Patterson v. Turner Const. Co., 88 A.D.3d 617, 618, 931 N.Y.S.2d 311 [1st Dept. 2011] ). Here, plaintiff, who at one time was a semi-professional basketball player, claims that he has become disabled as the result of the automobile accident at issue, such that he can no longer play basketball. Although plaintiff testified that pictures depicting him playing basketball, which were posted on social media after the accident, were in games played before the accident, defendant is entitled to discovery to rebut such claims and defend against plaintiff’s claims of injury. That plaintiff did not take the pictures himself is of no import. He was “tagged,” thus allowing him access to them, and others were sent to his phone. Plaintiff’s response to prior court orders, which consisted of a HIPAA authorization refused by Facebook, some obviously immaterial postings, and a vague affidavit claiming to no longer have the photographs, did not comply with his discovery obligations. The access to plaintiff’s accounts and devices, however, is appropriately limited in time, i.e., only those items posted or sent after the accident, and in subject matter, i.e., those items discussing or showing defendant engaging in basketball or other similar physical activities (see Forman v. Henkin, 30 N.Y.3d 656, 665, 70 N.Y.S.3d 157, 93 N.E.3d 882 [2018]; see also Abdur–Rahman v. Pollari, 107 A.D.3d 452, 454, 967 N.Y.S.2d 31 [1st Dept. 2013] ).

So, what do you think?  Should discoverability of photos be extended to photos where the party is “tagged” in the photo or should privacy concerns weigh heavier here?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily 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. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Germans Order Facebook To Change How it Collects User Data: Data Privacy Trends

Two days, two stories about Germans finding fault with companies’ handling of personal data.

According to Law360 (Facebook Ruling Gives Antitrust Weight To Data Privacy, written by Ben Kochman – subscription required), Germany’s Federal Cartel Office ordered Facebook last week to give users the right to opt in or out before the company merges data gleaned from users’ activity on other websites and apps to their Facebook accounts. Facebook uses this type of data, including from its own WhatsApp and Instagram as well as from third-party websites with its “like” or “share” buttons, to amass detailed profiles on consumers that fuel its lucrative targeted advertising operation.

Facebook users can reasonably expect that the social network is monitoring its activity on the platform for targeted advertising purposes, the German regulator said. But to extend that tracking to third-party sites — including those that have the company’s invisible Facebook Analytics software installed — without asking users first amounts to “exploitative abuse,” it said, in which the company is abusing its unique position as a social media giant for which users have no real replacement.

“In view of Facebook’s superior market power, an obligatory tick on the box to agree to the company’s terms of use is not an adequate basis for such intensive data processing,” FCO President Andreas Mundt said in a statement announcing the ruling.

The FCO explained its logic in a Q&A attached to the decision. Even though users do not suffer a financial loss from Facebook’s data collection, “the damage for the users lies in a loss of control,” the regulator said.

“They are no longer able to control how their personal data are used,” the authority wrote. “They cannot perceive which data from which sources are combined for which purposes with data from Facebook accounts and used e.g. for creating user profiles.”

“Due to the combining of the data, individual data gain a significance the user cannot foresee,” it added.

Facebook immediately pushed back, arguing in a blog post that the FCO “underestimates the fierce competition we face in Germany,” including from YouTube, Snapchat and Twitter.  The ruling “misapplies German competition law to set different rules that apply to only one company,” wrote the post by Yvonne Cunnane, head of data protection for Facebook Ireland, and company Associate General Counsel Nikhil Shanbhag. Facebook vowed to appeal the case and has a month to do so.

“There’s a sentiment issue here. People are developing feelings about Facebook, especially after what happened with Cambridge Analytica,” Pam Dixon, executive director of the World Privacy Forum (a consumer privacy nonprofit) said. “I wonder if Facebook is having a tin ear here to what its customer base really wants.”

So, what do you think?  Is this just the beginning of data privacy reform?  And, will “zee germans” have anything else to say about data privacy soon?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Image Copyright © Columbia Pictures Corporation

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily 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. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Judge Recommends Sanctions for Defendant Under FRCP 37(e)(1): eDiscovery Case Law

In Franklin v. Howard Brown Health Ctr., No. 17 C 8376 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 4, 2018), the Illinois Magistrate Judge, stating that “the defendant has had to concede that, at the very least, it bollixed its litigation hold – and it has done so to a staggering degree and at every turn”, recommended that the plaintiff’s motion for discovery sanctions be granted to the extent that the “parties be allowed to present evidence and argument to the jury regarding the defendant’s destruction/failure to preserve electronic evidence in this case”.

Case Background

In this case for workplace harassment and discrimination, this particular dispute began with the plaintiff’s document request, which required the defendant to produce emails and text messages exchanged between certain key parties involving the plaintiff.  The defendant referred plaintiff to a number of “emails” already produced, but the plaintiff was looking for “instant messages,” as this was the method the plaintiff alleged the individuals used to harass him, but the defendant produced only two of those, despite the fact that deposition testimony indicated that was the standard way employees communicated with one another and one of the key parties said he saved “instant messages” to his Outlook email folder (despite the defendant’s claims that they weren’t as a matter of course).

According to the plaintiff’s supervisor, the plaintiff specifically promised a lawsuit based on “racism, transphobia and sexism” among the staff as early as July 24, 2015, but the defendant’s attorney categorized that as a “vague threat”.  One of the plaintiff’s alleged harassers left the company a mere two days after that, but his computer was wiped within 7 days of his last day at work.  According to the defendant’s general counsel, the litigation hold was not instituted until August 28, 2015.  In the GC’s affidavit, she indicated that he instructed an IT administrator to remove the plaintiff’s computer from the wiping process, but apparently never followed up or looked at the computer (that IT administrator had also left the company and was also now suing the defendant) and that data was lost as well.  The defendant’s GC also never instructed anyone in the IT department to stop the auto-delete of any saved instant messages – as a result, “barely a handful” of them were produced.

Judge’s Ruling

Noting that the “failure to preserve electronic evidence is covered by Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(e)”, the Magistrate Judge said that “In the end, given at least what appears to be the defendant’s gross negligence – and that’s viewing things favorably to the defendant – the best route is that proposed by the Advisory Committee in its notes to the 2015 amendment to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(e)(1), specifically, allowing the parties to present evidence to the jury regarding the situation that was caused by defendant’s faulty and failed litigation hold… Accordingly, it is recommended that parties be allowed to present evidence and argument to the jury regarding the defendant’s destruction/failure to preserve electronic evidence in this case, and that the jury be instructed as the trial judge deems appropriate.”

So, what do you think?  Is the recommendation an appropriate application of FRCP 37(e)(1)?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Also, it’s time for the Fall 2018 eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey on Rob Robinson’s Complex Discovery site.  This quarter’s survey is unique in the fact that it asks three additional questions beyond the standard nine business confidence questions asked during the previous eleven surveys. These new questions are focused on understanding operational business trajectories around the areas of days sales outstanding (DSO), monthly recurring revenue (MRR), and revenue distribution across customer bases.  The response period is between today and achievement of 66 responses or November 30, 2018 (whichever comes first).  66 is not a lot of responses, so you’ll want to get your response in quickly!  We’ll cover the results once they’re published.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily 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. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Grants Defendant’s Motion to Compel Various Records from Plaintiff in “Slip and Fall” Case: eDiscovery Case Law

In Hinostroza v. Denny’s Inc., No.: 2:17–cv–02561–RFB–NJK (D. Nev. June 29, 2018), Nevada Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe granted the defendant’s motion to compel discovery various sources of ESI related to the plaintiff’s claim of injuries resulting from a “slip and fall” accident at one of the defendant’s restaurants.

Case Background

In March 2018, the defendant requested various releases from Plaintiff to obtain documents regarding her employment, a prior car accident in 2015, and records from medical providers and the plaintiff provided some of the requested releases in the same month.  In April 2018, the parties met and conferred three times regarding the outstanding releases, as well as the plaintiff’s responses to the defendant’s amended second set of requests for production of documents. When the parties were unable to resolve their discovery disputes, the defendant filed the instant motion to compel the outstanding releases and responses to its requests.

Judge’s Ruling

Noting that the “burden is on the party resisting discovery to show why a discovery request should be denied by specifying in detail, as opposed to general and boilerplate objections, why ‘each request is irrelevant’”, Judge Koppe ruled on each of the following sources of ESI requested by the defendant:

  • Copies of any and all documents related to the 2015 car accident the plaintiff identified in your response to Defendant’s Interrogatory No. 18, as well as information regarding two slip and fall accidents in 2012 where the plaintiff was treated by an orthopedist and a neurologist: Judge Koppe said that “Medical records of injuries prior to an alleged accident are relevant to the issue of whether the injuries existed at the time of the accident and whether the accident caused or aggravated the injuries” and also noted that “police reports and insurance records are relevant because they likely contain statements, photographs, or other information ‘to confirm or refute [a plaintiff’s] allegation [he or she] was not injured’ in an accident”. Because “Courts within the Ninth Circuit have found that medical records and reports dating between three years to ten years prior to an alleged accident are discoverable”, Judge Koppe granted the defendant’s request for this information.
  • Copies of any text messages, emails, or other written communications between either the plaintiff or her counsel and several witnesses and a copy of all text messages or emails the plaintiff sent in the 48 hours after the Subject Accident: Noting that “Phone records are discoverable if the request is narrowly tailored in date and time and relates to a key issue in the case”, Judge Koppe granted in part this request.
  • Copies of any [of] the data of any type of FitBit, or other activity tracker device from five (5) years prior to the Subject Accident through the present: Noting that the plaintiff had waived objections that the request was overbroad and unduly burdensome because she did not raise these objections in her initial response to Defendant’s amended second set of requests for production, Judge Koppe ordered the plaintiff to “supplement her response to Defendant’s request for production number 30 to fully describe the search she conducted for responsive documents, by July 20, 2018.”
  • Copies or allow for inspection, any social media account the plaintiff had from five (5) years prior to the Subject Accident through the present: Noting that “information from social media is relevant to claims of emotional distress because social media activity, to an extent, is reflective of an individual’s contemporaneous emotions and mental state”, Judge Koppe found “that social media information and communications are relevant and, thus, discoverable under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)” and granted the defendant’s request for that information.
  • Authorization for the release of the plaintiff’s employment records: Despite the fact that the plaintiff claimed she was no longer pursuing a lost wage claim, Judge Koppe noted that “an amended complaint reflecting Plaintiff’s new claims has not been filed” and also observed that “it appears that Plaintiff’s claims of “limited occupational … activities … [and] loss of earning capacity” remain in her complaint”, so she granted that defendant’s request as well.

So, what do you think?  Did the judge fail to take into account privacy concerns of the plaintiff or should relevancy override privacy concerns in this case?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily 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. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Want to Learn More About the Sedona Conference Primer on Social Media? Check Out this Video: eDiscovery Best Practices

As we discussed earlier this month, The Sedona Conference® (TSC) and its Working Group 1 on Electronic Document Retention & Production (WG1) have announced the publication of the Public Comment Version of The Sedona Conference Primer on Social Media, Second Edition.  Want to learn more about it without reading the 58 page PDF file?  Check out this video.

On the blog Techno Gumbo which is maintained by my buddy and colleague Tom O’Connor and the Gulf Coast Legal Technology Center – “gumbo”, from New Orleans, get it? – Tom has just posted a video chat between his wife Gayle O’Connor and noted thought leader Craig Ball regarding the Primer, downloadable here.  Both Gayle and Craig have informed perspectives on the topic – Gayle, because of her experience in providing marketing assistance (including social media marketing) to attorneys and legal vendors and Craig, because of his experience as an attorney and Special Master focusing on eDiscovery issues.

Interestingly, both Craig and Gayle had high praise for the Primer.  Craig noted that he was “pleasantly surprised” and stated that it was a “very high-quality document”, “carefully thought out”, “very current”, “useful in its structure” and “tremendously balanced for the most part in terms of the interests of requesting parties and producing parties”.  Gayle noted that she was “very, very impressed in how they included everything that’s going on these days”, including updates (from the 2012 edition) to reflect the new Federal rules, the ABA guidelines regarding technical competence for attorneys and even the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).  Both Craig and Gayle also particularly noted coverage of messaging and messaging apps in addition to the traditional sources of social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Instagram and they discussed the challenges and considerations associated with social media in eDiscovery in general.

I won’t be “that guy” and spoil the whole conversation; instead, feel free to check out the discussion here.  Gayle has also written an article about the Primer on the ACEDS site, which you can check out here.

TSC has scheduled a webinar on the public comment version of the Primer for Wednesday, August 8, at 1 pm EDT.  You can register for the webinar here – it’s free of charge to judges, court staff, all other full-time government employees, and to accredited law schools and a minimal charge (no more than $99) for regular folks.  As for the public comment period, it’s open for public comment through September 10, 2018. Questions and comments regarding the Primer may be sent to comments@sedonaconference.org.

So, what do you think?  Do you have challenges in handling social media in litigation?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily 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. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.