Close
Enter your
text here

Social Technology

The Sedona Conference Has You Primed to Learn Best Practices for Handling Social Media: eDiscovery Best Practices

As Tom O’Connor and I discussed in our webcast last month, handling social media in discovery can be challenging.  Now, The Sedona Conference® (TSC) has updated a primer to help with social media issues.

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.

The first edition of the Primer was published in 2012 (light years ago in social media terms) and was designed to be a useful resource on various information governance and litigation issues, as it established a practical approach for addressing the corporate use and management of social media. Since 2012, however, there has been a proliferation of new messaging technologies and business applications, in addition to major evolution in “traditional” social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn – because they have such a long “tradition”, of course :o). There have also been significant developments in the law addressing social media and in the rules of discovery, evidence, and professional responsibility. In light of these developments, this edition of the Primer focuses exclusively on the discovery of social media in civil litigation. Therefore, WG1 recognized a compelling need to update the Primer and has prepared a public comment version of this Second Edition.

After the one-page introduction (Section I of the Primer), Section II of the Primer discusses traditional and emerging social media technologies and the discovery challenges that they present. Section III examines relevance and proportionality in the context of social media. It also explores preservation challenges, collection and search obligations, and the impact of the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), together with review and production considerations. Section IV describes the impact of cross-border issues on social media discovery while Section V explores authentication issues. The Primer analyzes ethical issues that lawyers should consider in connection with social media discovery in Section VI before ending with a one paragraph conclusion section.  The Primer weighs in at a fairly tidy 58 page PDF file, so it’s a reasonable read.

The Primer on Social Media, Second Edition is open for public comment through September 10, 2018. Questions and comments regarding the Primer may be sent to comments@sedonaconference.org.  And, a webinar on the Primer is scheduled for Wednesday, August 8, 2018, at 1 pm EDT. Further details will be announced by email and on The Sedona Conference website once registration is open. The webinar will give you the opportunity to ask questions and provide and gain additional insight on this important topic.

To download the Primer, free of charge, click here.

So, what do you think?  Do you have challenges in handling social media in litigation?  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.

Tinder Date Murder Case Highlights the Increasing Complexity of eDiscovery in Criminal Investigations: eDiscovery Trends

With things like social media, electronic purchases, GPS tracking, and the Internet of Things, a normal day in anyone’s life creates an in-depth data trail. So, it’s no surprise that more and more, electronic evidence plays a key component in criminal investigations. While eDiscovery technology is mostly used in the civil courts, namely because corporate and government organizations have more resources than municipal, county, and even state law enforcement agencies to conduct reviews of large data-sets, it’s still worthwhile to look at the varied ways electronically stored information (ESI) is used to help detectives piece together a chain of events in order to solve a crime.

In an article published in The Daily Beast this week, we find the seemingly mismatched couple, 51-year-old Aubrey Trail and 24-year-old Bailey Boswell, charged with the murder of a 24-year-old Nebraska woman, Sydney Loofe. The story echoes the Starkweather / Fugate crime spree throughout the same region 60 years ago, only this time digital evidence led investigators to the perpetrators.

Trail and Boswell were arrested as part of a gold coin theft racket in November, but after further investigation, are now charged with Loofe’s murder, who was last seen November 15th before going on a Tinder date with Boswell. Police found the remains of Loofe’s body in a field a few weeks later, and in the months that followed, used a wide variety of ESI, along with traditional forensics, to link Trail and Boswell to the murder. The list of evidence pieced together is remarkable from an eDiscovery point of view:

  • Tinder Profiles: 140 messages between Loofe and Boswell in the days before November 15th were pulled from their online dating profiles. The last was on Nov. 15 at 6:54 p.m., when Boswell said she’d arrived at Loofe’s apartment. Police also found that Boswell went by “Audrey” on her online-dating profile.
  • Snapchat Photo: Loofe sent a selfie to a friend via Snapchat on November 15th with the caption, “Ready for my date.”
  • Facebook Videos: Trail and Boswell both posted Facebook videos claiming innocence while police were looking for them. In one, Boswell said she was “Audrey on Tinder and a few other names because I have warrants.”
  • iPhone Reset: After her arrest, Boswell gave investigators permission to search her iPhone 7, which they found had been reset to factory default settings on November 17.
  • Cellphone Pings/GPS Locations: Loofe’s phone last pinged a cell tower near Wilber, where Boswell and Trail lived in a basement apartment. When detectives searched that residence, the landlord, who lived upstairs, “reported a strong odor of bleach coming from the basement.” Data from Boswell’s phone showed its location was “in close proximity to the area where the remains were discovered Dec. 16th.”
  • Security Video Footage: Security footage from a local Home Depot showed Trail and Boswell on Nov. 15 around 10:35 a.m., shopping for tools and supplies that could be used to cover up the crime.
  • Phone Calls from Jail: In two different phone calls, one to the Lincoln Journal Star and the other to the Omaha World-Herald, Trail gave different accounts, claiming he unintentionally killed Loofe in a sex game gone wrong.

All of this led to a confession from Trail, stating that he had killed Loofe, and then he and Boswell covered up the crime scene and disposed of the body.

Using electronic evidence to solve crimes is nothing new, but now more than ever, the digital footprint that individuals and organizations leave is staggering in its depth and variance. At the same time, it’s amazing how skilled investigators are using the raw data left behind in order to put together cases in both the criminal and civil courts. The common denominator with both then becomes the ability to preserve, collect, and review this data in a timely and affordable fashion, in order to get the facts as quickly and efficiently as possible.

So, what do you think?  How do you see the influx of new data sources affecting your eDiscovery practices and policies in the future?  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.

Collecting Responsive ESI from Difficult Places: eDiscovery Webcasts

Happy June!  I don’t normally promote webcasts twice in one week, but this month’s webcast is a little earlier than normal.  What can I say, it’s family vacation season and my family has plans the last week of this month… :o)

Believe it or not, there was a time when collecting potentially responsive ESI from email systems for discovery was once considered overly burdensome. Now, it’s commonplace and much of it can be automated. But, that’s not where all of the responsive ESI resides today – much of it is on your mobile device, in social media platforms and even in Internet of Things (IoT) devices. Are you ignoring this potentially important data? Do you have to hire a forensics professional to collect this data or can you do much of it on your own?  We will discuss these and other questions in a webcast in a few weeks.

Wednesday, June 20th at noon CST (1:00pm EST, 10:00am PST), CloudNine will conduct the webcast Collecting Responsive ESI from Difficult Places. In this one-hour webcast that’s CLE-approved in selected states, we will discuss what lawyers need to know about the various sources of ESI today, examples of how those sources of data can be responsive to litigations and investigations, and how lawyers may be able to collect much of this data today using intuitive applications and simple approaches. Topics include:

  • Challenges from Various Sources of ESI Data
  • Ethical Duties and Rules for Understanding Technology
  • Key Case Law Related to Mobile Devices, Social Media and IoT
  • Options and Examples for Collecting from Mobile Devices
  • Options and Examples for Collecting from Social Media
  • Examples of IoT Devices and Collection Strategies
  • Recommendations for Addressing Collection Requirements
  • Resources for More Information

As always, I’ll be presenting the webcast, along with Tom O’Connor.  To register for it, click here.  Even if you can’t make it, go ahead and register to get a link to the slides and to the recording of the webcast (if you want to check it out later).  If you want to know how to collect electronically stored information from difficult places, this is the webcast for you!

So, what do you think?  Do you feel like you know when and how to collect ESI from mobile devices, social media and IoT devices?  If not, register for our webcast!  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.

Court Grants Adverse Inference Sanction Against Infringing Author: eDiscovery Case Law

In Nunes v. Rushton, No. 2:14-cv-00627-JNP-DBP (D. Utah May 14, 2018), Utah District Judge Jill N. Parrish, ruling that the plaintiff was prejudiced by the deletion of one of the defendant’s Google “sock puppet” accounts, granted the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions in part, ordering an adverse instruction to the jury regarding the “bad faith” deletion of that account.  Judge Parrish denied the motion with regard to several other accounts, ruling that the plaintiff was not prejudiced by deletion of those accounts (as most of the information was still available or recoverable).

Case Background

In this case, the defendant infringed the plaintiff’s copyright in her novel by copying protected elements of the book and distributing copies of the infringing work to reviewers and bloggers for promotional purposes. Around this time, the defendant created a number of “sock puppet” accounts on Google and Yahoo by registering these accounts under usernames that did not identify her as the individual controlling the accounts and used these accounts to create several sock puppet accounts on Facebook, Goodreads, and Amazon. The defendant then used the Goodreads and Amazon sock puppet accounts to post positive reviews of her own books and negative reviews of the plaintiff’s books. The defendant also created a Twitter account and a Blogspot account under her pen name to promote her books.

In August 2014, the plaintiff became aware of the potential infringement, attempted to obtain an advance copy of the infringing novel and discover the true identity of the defendant’s pen name. The defendant used her sock puppet social media accounts to anonymously criticize the plaintiff’s efforts to investigate the infringing novel. Sometime in August or September of 2014, after the plaintiff had discovered the defendant’s identity, The defendant deleted most of her sock puppet accounts. The defendant also deleted her pen name Twitter and Blogspot accounts. The plaintiff filed this lawsuit on August 28, 2014.

During litigation, the plaintiff made a discovery request for documents stored on the defendant’s various Google and Yahoo accounts. On August 12, 2015, while this discovery request was pending, the defendant deleted one of her Google sock puppet accounts.  When the court granted a motion to compel the defendant to produce documents from her Google and Yahoo accounts, counsel for the defendant represented that she had lost the passwords to the accounts, leading to subpoenas to those services.  The defendant deleted all of the remaining accounts on March 21, 2016, asserting that she did so because she believed that all of the documents associated with the accounts had been or would be produced by Google and Yahoo pursuant to the subpoenas.  Google stated that the account deleted on August 12, 2015 could not be recovered because too much time had passed, but preserved the accounts that had been deleted on March 21, 2016.

Judge’s Ruling

In analyzing the defendants’ motion, Judge Parrish denied the motion for sanctions regarding most of the accounts, determining that the plaintiff suffered no prejudice because the information pertaining to those accounts either remained, was saved by the plaintiff before the accounts were deleted or could be recovered by Google and Yahoo.

As for the August 12, 2015 deletion of one of the Google accounts, Judge Parrish stated: “At the time of the deletion, Rushton had a duty to preserve this account because litigation was pending. The court also finds that Nunes was prejudiced by the deletion because any documents or emails stored on this account were irretrievably lost… Given that litigation had been pending for almost a year, that Rushton was represented by counsel, and that Nunes had requested the production of documents associated with this Google account, the court infers that Rushton’s August 12, 2015 deletion of one of her Google accounts was done in bad faith.”

As a result, Judge Parrish ordering an adverse instruction to the jury regarding the “bad faith” deletion of that account.

So, what do you think?  Was an advance inference sanction a severe enough punishment?  Please share 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.

Defendant Sanctioned for “Deliberately” Altering a Skype Communication: eDiscovery Case Law

In GoPro, Inc. v. 360Heros, Inc., No. 16-cv-01944-SI (N.D. Cal. March 30, 2018), California District Judge Susan Illston denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied the defendant’s motion in limine to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s forensic analysis expert, but granted (in part) the plaintiff’s motion for partial terminating sanctions against the defendant for forging evidence in two Skype conversations, opting for an adverse inference instruction sanction and reimbursement of expenses related to forensic analysis and testimony instead of the terminating sanctions sought.

But first, this week’s eDiscovery Tech Tip of the Week is about Saving Searches.  Documentation is a key component of a sound discovery process. The ability to automatically save the searches that you have performed not only saves time in retrieving those documents later, but it also helps document the process for performing searches should you have to defend your approach in court.  Saving searches is just one component of an overall program for documenting your approach in eDiscovery.

To see an example of how Saving Searches is conducted using our CloudNine platform, click here (requires BrightTalk account, which is free).

Case Background

In this case regarding federal and state trademark infringement and unfair competition, the defendant (in November 2016) produced to the plaintiff two emails (in a single PDF format) containing the transcript of two 2014 Skype conversations between representatives of the plaintiff and defendant where . In the Skype conversations as produced by the defendant, the plaintiff referenced the term “abyss” twice (the parties had a dispute over plaintiff’s ABYSS mark).

At his deposition, the defendant representative testified under oath that the PDF document was a true and correct copy of the Skype conversation, stating that he had copied and pasted the Skype conversation into an email, and then sent it to himself. He claimed the only alteration he made to the document was to highlight the two lines of conversation containing the word “abyss”. In response to the plaintiff’s request for the Skype files in their native form, the defendant representative claimed the original Skype conversation was no longer available to him.

As part of its investigation into the defendant’s claims, the plaintiff accessed equipment containing its end of the Skype conversation and its Skype records did not contain the two highlighted lines referencing “abyss.” To confirm their findings, GoPro retained a forensic expert (Derek Duarte of Blackstone Discovery) to conduct a forensic analysis, which determined that it’s representative’s imaged Skype database did not contain the two highlighted lines referencing “abyss”, leading to the motion for partial terminating sanctions.  In response, the defendant claimed that the expert’s results were unverifiable and unreliable because he could not verify that the data on the hard drive contained the same data as it did in 2014.

Judge’s Ruling

In ruling on the motion, Judge Illston ruled, as follows:

“The Court is not persuaded by defendant’s explanation of the suspect document, and concludes on the present record that defendant deliberately altered it in an effort to strengthen its legal position with respect the ABYSS mark. GoPro argues it has been prejudiced because as part of its investigation into 360Heros’ prior use defense, GoPro incurred various expenditures, including having to locate and hire an expert to forensically investigate the Skype chat. Sanctions less drastic than terminating sanctions are available to remedy any potential prejudice to GoPro. Accordingly, the Court finds that sanctions are warranted, and that the appropriate sanctions in this case are twofold: (1) an adverse inference instruction at trial, related to Mr. Kintner’s conduct; and (2) reimbursement to GoPro of the costs incurred in retaining Mr. Duarte, including expenses paid to Mr. Duarte and the cost of attorney time required to locate and retain Mr. Duarte. Plaintiff shall submit its statement of costs so incurred in a sworn document to be filed no later than April 13, 2018.”

Judge Illston also denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, finding that “defendant raises material issues of fact as to numerous of the factors”.  She also denied the defendant’s motion in limine to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s forensic analysis expert, but Judge Illston found the expert to be “qualified to testify on these matters” and that his proposed testimony was “directly relevant to the authenticity of the disputed Skype conversation.”

So, what do you think?  Did the judge go far enough with her sanctions?  Please share 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.

NY Appellate Court Reverses Ruling on Discovery of “Private” Facebook Posts: eDiscovery Case Law

In Forman v. Henkin, No. 1. (N.Y. Feb. 13, 2018), the Court of Appeals of New York reinstated a trial judge’s ruling requiring the plaintiff who was disabled in a horse riding accident to turn over “private” photos to the defendant taken before and after her injuries.

But first, this week’s eDiscovery Tech Tip of the Week is about Fuzzy Searching.  When performing keyword searching, you may know what terms you’re searching for, but it’s easy to miss important search hits if the term is misspelled or has OCR inaccuracies.  So, if you’re looking for the term “petroleum”, you can find variations such as “peroleum”, “petoleum” or even “petroleum” – misspellings or OCR errors that could be relevant.  Fuzzy searching is a way to catch many of those variations, expanding the potential recall of your search.  The ability that fuzzy searching provides to find words that are one or two characters off from the correct spelling of the term could enable you to locate important ESI to your case that would otherwise be missed, simply because the term is not spelled correctly.

To see an example of how Fuzzy Searching is conducted using our CloudNine platform, click here (requires BrightTalk account, which is free).

Case Background

In this case regarding allegations that the plaintiff was injured when she fell from a horse owned by defendant and maintained that, since the accident, she had become reclusive as a result of her injuries and also had difficulty using a computer and composing coherent messages.  In particular, she contended that a simple email could take hours to write because she had to go over written material several times to make sure it made sense.  The defendant sought an unlimited authorization to obtain plaintiff’s entire “private” Facebook account, contending the photographs and written postings would be material and necessary to his defense of the action under CPLR 3101(a).  When the plaintiff failed to provide the authorization, the defendant moved to compel, asserting that the Facebook material sought was relevant to the scope of plaintiff’s injuries and her credibility.  The plaintiff opposed the motion arguing that the defendant failed to establish a basis for access to the “private” portion of her Facebook account because, among other things, the “public” portion contained only a single photograph that did not contradict the plaintiff’s claims or deposition testimony.

In February 2014, the trial court ordered the plaintiff to give the defendant pre-accident photos she intended to use at trial, post-accident photos not depicting nudity or romantic encounters, and access to post-accident records of her messages.  However, in December 2015, the appeals court limited the disclosure to photos intended for trial, saying the defendant could not go on a “fishing expedition” for evidence.  Two Justices dissented, concluding the defendant was entitled to broader access to the plaintiff’s Facebook account and calling for reconsideration of that court’s recent precedent addressing disclosure of social media information as unduly restrictive and inconsistent with New York’s policy of open discovery. The Appellate Division granted the defendant leave to appeal to this Court, asking whether its order was properly made.

Appellate Court’s Ruling

In considering that appeal, the Court observed that “a threshold rule requiring [the party seeking disclosure] to ‘identify relevant information in [the] Facebook account’ effectively permits disclosure only in limited circumstances, allowing the account holder to unilaterally obstruct disclosure merely by manipulating ‘privacy’ settings or curating the materials on the public portion of the account. Under such an approach, disclosure turns on the extent to which some of the information sought is already accessible – and not, as it should, on whether it is ‘material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of an action’”.  So, while the Court stated that “we reject the notion that the account holder’s so-called ‘privacy’ settings govern the scope of disclosure of social media materials”, it also stated that “we agree with other courts that have rejected the notion that commencement of a personal injury action renders a party’s entire Facebook account automatically discoverable”.

Nonetheless, the Court acknowledged that “even private materials may be subject to discovery if they are relevant. For example, medical records enjoy protection in many contexts under the physician-patient privilege…But when a party commences an action, affirmatively placing a mental or physical condition in issue, certain privacy interests relating to relevant medical records – including the physician-patient privilege – are waived”.  With that in mind, the Court stated:

“Applying these principles here, the Appellate Division erred in modifying Supreme Court’s order to further restrict disclosure of plaintiff’s Facebook account, limiting discovery to only those photographs plaintiff intended to introduce at trial. With respect to the items Supreme Court ordered to be disclosed (the only portion of the discovery request we may consider), defendant more than met his threshold burden of showing that plaintiff’s Facebook account was reasonably likely to yield relevant evidence.”  So, the Court reversed the Appellate Division order and reinstated the lower court order.

So, what do you think?  Should “private” Facebook posts be discoverable?  Please share 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.

Germany Finds that Facebook’s Privacy Settings and Terms of Service Violate Their Privacy Rules: Data Privacy Trends

One of the things that Tom O’Connor and I discussed in last week’s webcast about the upcoming Europe General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was how consent will be interpreted for use of data for its data subjects.  Last month, a German court may have given an early indication of how consent will be enforced.

In Legaltech News (Facebook Foreshadowing: German Court Underscores Tech’s Uncertain GDPR Future, written by Rhys Dipshan, free subscription required), the author notes that after a three-year battle, a regional court in Berlin has found that Facebook’s default privacy settings, terms of service, and requirement that users register under their own name violate Germany’s data privacy and consent rules.

The January 2018 ruling (available here, in German, of course) based on German law on a case brought by The Federation of German Consumer Organisations (VZBV) could nonetheless illustrate trouble for international technology companies under the GDPR, once it takes effect on May 25th of this year.

Germany’s data privacy laws are currently based on the EU Directive 95/46/EC, the data privacy directive passed by the European Union in 1995 which has provisions that mirror those in the GDPR, especially around the issue of consent.  EU Directive 95/46/EC will be replaced by GDPR on May 25th.

Last November, the EU Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (WP29) issued Guidelines on Consent under Regulation 2016/679 to clarify how the EU would move to define and regulate consent and that guidance aligns closely with how the German court interpreted consent in the case against Facebook. For example, the court ruled that the pre-activated privacy settings on Facebook’s mobile application, such as allowing geotagging and for search engines to index a user’s Facebook profile, are a violation of user consent.

The court also found that eight clauses in Facebook’s terms of service assumed and framed consent too broadly and declared that asking users to register under their own names “was a covert way of getting people’s consent to use their real names,” said Nick Wallace, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Data Innovation.

The WP29’s guidance affirms both points and it also notes, “If consent is bundled up as a non-negotiable part of terms and conditions, it is presumed not to have been freely given.”  WP29 also states, “The use of pre-ticked opt-in boxes is invalid under the GDPR. Silence or inactivity on the part of the data subject, as well as merely proceeding with a service cannot be regarded as an active indication of choice.”

Debbie Reynolds, director of EimerStahl Discovery Solutions, an affiliate of law firm Eimer Stahl, stated that “Facebook and a lot of tech companies sell marketing,” and having their users register under their real names “makes the information they collect more valuable. So I think this is going to in some way change the foundation of how they are operating today.”

As you can imagine, the requirements of specific consent could change things for a lot of companies that currently collect data from individuals, including EU data subjects – perhaps significantly.  We will see.

Speaking of data privacy, today is the day that the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in United States v. Microsoft Corp (which we’ve referred to as the “Microsoft Ireland” case).  Needless to say, the ruling in this case will have major impact on how organizations treat data privacy as well.  We will certainly cover the ruling when it’s issued.

So, what do you think?  Is your organization changing how it obtains consent from individuals for handling their data?  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.

Defendant’s Request for Social Media Data is Reasonably Calculated to Be Overbroad: eDiscovery Case Law

In Ehrenberg v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 16-17269 (E.D. La. Aug. 18, 2017), Louisiana Magistrate Judge Janis van Meerveld, rejecting the defendant’s request for the plaintiff’s social media data as “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence”, identified a level of social media data to be produced by the plaintiff that considered “weighing relevance and proportionality”.

Case Background

In this case where the plaintiff sued the defendant for additional damages to compensate her for all of her injuries and losses sustained when she was struck by a motor vehicle, after learning of numerous vacations taken by the plaintiff, the defendant requested complete social media data (“a complete copy of your post-accident…data link from your…account, including but not limited to messages, photos, wall posts, friends posts, your posts, metadata associated with photos, etc.) from the plaintiff’s Facebook, Twitter and Instagram accounts.  The defendant filed a Motion to Compel when the plaintiff objected to the requests as “invasion of privacy and not relevant”.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge van Meerveld began her analysis by pointing out the defendant’s request was not in line with current rules:

“Although State Farm focuses its briefing on whether its requests are ‘reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,’ the Court must point out that this phrase does not guide the scope of discovery. The amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that went into effect in December 2015 deleted this language from Rule 26. That Rule now provides that ‘parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.’” 

Judge van Meerveld also noted that “In addition to being relevant, discovery must be proportional to the needs of the case.”  With that in mind, she ruled that “after weighing relevance and proportionality, including privacy considerations, as to Ms. Ehrenberg’s Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram accounts, the Court finds discoverable the following categories of information from the date of the alleged accident through the present:

  1. Posts or photos that refer or relate to the accident.
  2. Posts or photos that refer or relate to physical injuries that Ms. Ehrenberg alleges she sustained as a result of the accident and any treatment she received therefore.
  3. Posts or photos that refer or relate to other, unrelated physical injuries suffered or sustained by Ms. Ehrenberg.
  4. Posts or photos reflecting physical activity by Ms. Ehrenberg and/or which reflect a physical capability of Ms. Ehrenberg.
  5. Posts or photos that refer or relate to emotional distress or mental anguish that Ms. Ehrenberg alleges she sustained as a result of the accident and any treatment she received therefore.
  6. Posts or photos that refer or relate to any alternative potential emotional stressors experienced by Ms. Ehrenberg.
  7. Posts or photos that refer or relate to any vacations taken by Ms. Ehrenberg, including but not limited to the specific vacations referred to by State Farm in its Motion to Compel.”

Judge van Meerveld also stated that if the defendant were to discover evidence that the plaintiff had deleted social media posts (which the defendant had suggested happened), then “it may return to the Court to request relief.”

So, what do you think?  What should courts do (if anything) to make sure parties know the current Rules?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

If you’ve been watching the news the past few days, you’ve seen the devastation in my hometown of Houston from Hurricane Harvey.  What can you do to help?  Consider donating online to the Houston Food Bank, Galveston County Food Bank or Corpus Christi Food Bank.  Or the Coastal Bend Disaster Recovery Group.  And, if you’re in the Houston area, you can volunteer at the American Red Cross here or by calling 713-526-8300.  Thanks for your help.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

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 Denies Defendant’s Motion to Overrule Plaintiff’s Objections to Discovery Requests

Court Defines Narrowed Scope for Requests for Social Media Data: eDiscovery Case Law

In Scott v. United States Postal Service, No. 15-712-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La. Dec. 27, 2016), Louisiana Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes granted the defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery in part, ordering the plaintiff to provide complete responses to the defendant’s interrogatory and request for production, but only after she limited the scope of both requests, determining them to be “overly broad”.

Case Background

In this personal injury case stemming from an automobile accident involving a vehicle driven by a United States Postal Service worker while that worker was on the job, the defendant requested via Interrogatory for the plaintiff to “Identify any and all social media (including but not limited to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter)” she had used since June 6, 2014 (the date of the accident).  The defendant also requested (via Request for Production) for the plaintiff to “Produce all postings related to any type of physical or athletic activities from June 6, 2014, to present on all social media websites, including, but not limited to Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.”

In her written discovery responses, Plaintiff objected to each of these requests by asserting that “the information requested is inclement, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

The defendant sent a letter to the plaintiff in July 2016, explaining that it had a good faith basis for believing that the plaintiff had posted photographs and other information on social media about her activities since the accident, which involve physical activity (including one photograph on Facebook account showing the plaintiff and her fiancé in ski attire on a snow covered mountain), and that such information is relevant to the case.

After efforts to confer were unable to resolve the dispute, the defendant filed its Motion to Compel in September 2016.  In response, the plaintiff argued that the defendant’s request for all of her social media photos was overly broad because it would require the production of a significant amount of irrelevant information.  In its Reply Memorandum, the defendant maintained that the plaintiff had waived her objections to the discovery requests at issue and that the defendant was entitled to the information and documents requested because they are relevant to the plaintiff’s personal injury claims.

Judge’s Ruling

Noting that “Plaintiff does not address Defendant’s argument that her failure to timely voice adequate objections to the discovery requests constitutes a waiver of any objection she may have to the discovery requests”, Judge Wilder-Doomes found that the “boilerplate” language used by the plaintiff in objecting “does not suffice to assert a valid objection to the discovery requests” and found that the plaintiff had waived her objections to the discovery requests.

Despite that ruling, Judge Wilder-Doomes found the discovery requests to be “overbroad” and decided to “limit the requests in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)”.  With regard to the Interrogatory, Judge Wilder-Doomes limited the request to “identifying all social media accounts that Plaintiff has used since the underlying accident on June 6, 2014, her usernames, whether she has accessed the accounts since the accident, and the last time she accessed the accounts”.

With regard to the Request for Production, she limited the request to “all of Plaintiff’s social media postings, including photographs, since the June 6, 2014 accident that: (1) refer or relate to the physical injuries Plaintiff alleges she sustained as a result of the accident and any treatment she received therefor; or (2) reflect physical capabilities that are inconsistent with the injuries that Plaintiff allegedly suffered as a result of the accident.”

So, what do you think?  Should courts limit the scope of discovery requests?  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. 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 Denies Defendant’s Motion to Overrule Plaintiff’s Objections to Discovery Requests

2016 eDiscovery Case Law Year in Review, Part 3

As we noted yesterday and Monday, eDiscovery Daily published 74 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 62 unique cases!  Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to cooperation, disputes about discovery, eDiscovery cost reimbursement, form of production disputes, privilege disputes and (once again) the ubiquitous Apple v. Samsung case.  Today, let’s take a look back at cases related to social media discovery, technology assisted review and the first part of the cases relating 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!

But first, if you want to learn more about what every attorney should know about eDiscovery in 2017, click here.

SOCIAL MEDIA DISCOVERY

In addition to our usual cases where defendants want to discover social media data of the plaintiffs suing them, we have two heavyweight companies that wanted to mine for prospective jurors’ social media information (until the judge stepped in, that is).  Here are three cases related to discovery of social media data:

If Google and Oracle are Going to Mine for Jurors’ Social Media Info, They Have to Inform the Court: When the big guys sue each other, the cases last forever.  We’ve been covering developments in the Apple v. Samsung case since July 2012, and that case is still going on.  Another case that we’ve covered a long time ago (way back in November 2011) is Oracle Corp. v. Google Inc. and that case is still going on too.  In that case, with a trial approaching, the judge has told lawyers to disclose Internet and social media research about jurors to the court or agree not to conduct it.

Court Orders Plaintiff to Perform a “Download Your Info” From Facebook: In Rhone v. Schneider Nat’l Carriers, Inc., Missouri Magistrate Judge Noelle C. Collins ordered the plaintiff to disclose a complete list of her social media accounts to the defendant and also provide a “Download Your Info” report from her Facebook account from June 2, 2014 to the present within fourteen days and ordered the defendant to disclose to the plaintiff any and all posts, photos or other media from the report it intends to use in support of its defense.

Court Compels Plaintiff to Provide Social Media Account and Activity Data: In Waters v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Kansas Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale granted the defendant’s motion to compel the plaintiff to produce account information associated with his social media accounts as well as postings from the dates he missed work in conjunction with his injury claims against the defendant.  Judge Gale also granted most of the components of the plaintiff’s motion to compel against the defendant for various discovery requests.

TECHNOLOGY ASSISTED REVIEW

Quite an active year with regard to cases involving technology assisted review (TAR), with the first English case approving the use of TAR and the judge in the first ever TAR case refusing to order a party to use TAR among the cases.  Here are five cases related to TAR:

Predictive Coding is Officially Approved in First English Case: Last month, in Pyrrho Investments Ltd v MWB Property Ltd, citing the landmark DaSilva Moore case (among other authorities), Master Matthews approved the use of predictive coding, due to the “enormous” expense of manually searching through the three million electronic documents associated with the case.  This is the believed to be the first time an English court has approved the use of predictive coding.

Cooperation in Predictive Coding Exercise Fails to Avoid Disputed Production: In Dynamo Holdings v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Texas Tax Court Judge Ronald Buch ruled denied the respondent’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents Containing Certain Terms, finding that there is “no question that petitioners satisfied our Rules when they responded using predictive coding”.

Judge Peck Refuses to Order Defendant to Use Technology Assisted Review: In Hyles v. New York City, New York Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck, indicating that the key issue before the court in the discovery dispute between parties was whether (at the plaintiff’s request) the defendants can be forced to use technology assisted review, refused to force the defendant to do so, stating “The short answer is a decisive ‘NO.’”

English Court Rules that Respondents Can Use Predictive Coding in Contested Case: In Brown v BCA Trading, et. al., Mr. Registrar Jones ruled that, with “nothing, as yet, to suggest that predictive coding will not be able to identify the documents which would otherwise be identified through, for example, keyword search”, “predictive coding must be the way forward” in this dispute between parties as to whether the Respondents could use predictive coding to respond to eDisclosure requests.

Defendant Not Required to Use Predictive Coding by Court: In the case In re Viagra Products Liability Litigation, California Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim, noting that other courts had declined to force a party to use predictive coding, denied the plaintiff’s motion to force the defendant to use predictive coding instead of its preferred approach using search terms.

SPOLIATION / SANCTIONS

Of course, once again, the topic with the largest number of case law decisions related to eDiscovery are those related to sanctions and spoliation issues (24 out of 62 total cases for 38.7% of all cases covered).  Are there really more of these cases or do I just find them more interesting?  You decide.  Anyway, here are the first eight cases, including one where the sanction was reversed after the adoption of Rule 37(e):

Court Orders Sanctions Against Defendant for Spoliation of Emails and Other Documents: In Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, the Court, determining that the defendant had spoliated data, found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated sufficient facts to warrant striking the defendant’s affirmative defenses, but opted to order an adverse inference instruction and also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs in preparing the instant motion for sanctions.

Court Gives Plaintiff 21.5 Million Reasons for Not Spoliating Emails: In Hausman v. Holland America Line-U.S.A., et al., Washington District Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein vacated a $21.5 million verdict awarded to a man injured by a closing cruise-ship door in 2011 and ordered a new trial, after the plaintiff’s former assistant alleged that he deleted emails that could hurt his case.

Appeals Court Upholds Terminating Sanctions For Wipe of Cell Phone: In Woodell v. Bernstein, et. al., the California Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court, which imposed terminating sanctions against the plaintiff for spoliation of evidence and dismissed his lawsuit with prejudice after the plaintiff had wiped his cell phone, which was key to the case.

Changes in Federal Rules Result in Reversal of Adverse Inference Sanction: In Nuvasive, Inc. v. Madsen Med. Inc., California Chief District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz, considering new standards imposed under recently amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e), granted the plaintiff’s motion for an order vacating the Court’s previous order granting (in part) the defendants’ Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence.

Alteration of Domain in Produced Emails Leads to Sanctions for Plaintiffs: In CAT3, LLC v. Black Lineage, Inc., New York Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, ruling that emails produced by the plaintiffs were “intentionally altered”, ordered that the plaintiffs would be precluded from relying on their version of those emails to demonstrate their case and that the plaintiffs would bear the “costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred by the defendants in establishing the plaintiffs’ misconduct and in securing relief.”

Our Nation’s Largest City is Not Immune to eDiscovery Sanctions: In Stinson v. City of New York, New York District Judge Robert W. Sweet granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion seeking sanctions for spoliation of evidence against the defendants for failure to issue a litigation hold, opting for a permissive inference rather than a mandatory adverse inference sanction against the defendants.

Court Rules Plaintiff’s Duty to Preserve Did Not Extend to Employee’s Internet History: In Marten Transport, Ltd. V. Plattform Advertising, Inc., Kansas Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James denied the defendant’s Motion for Spoliation Sanctions, ruling that, although the plaintiff had a duty to preserve relevant ESI as of Fall 2013, that duty to preserve did not extend to the internet history of one of its employees until June 2015, and by then the internet history was lost.

Defendants Claim of Lightning Strike and Power Surge Doesn’t Save Them from Sanctions: In InternMatch, Inc. v. Nxtbigthing, LLC, et. al., California District Judge Jon S. Tigar, finding that the defendants “consciously disregarded their obligations to preserve relevant evidence” when they discarded various electronic devices after experiencing an alleged power surge without checking to see if they could recover any files from them, granting an adverse inference instruction sanction and plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees.

Tomorrow, we will cover the remaining cases related to sanctions and spoliation.  Stay tuned!

Want to take a look at cases we covered the previous five years?  Here they are:

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. 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.