Close
Enter your
text here

Spoliation

eDiscovery Case Law: No Sanctions for Scrubbing Computers Assumed to be Imaged
 

When scrubbing data from a computer drive related to litigation, it’s a good idea to make absolutely sure that there is another copy of that data, via backup or forensic image.  Don’t just take someone’s word for it.

In Federal Trade Commission v. First Universal Lending, LLC, No. 09-82322-CIV, (S.D. Fla. Feb. 17, 2011), the FTC investigated the defendants for their mortgage modification practices by alleging that defendants had violated the Federal Trade Commission Act and that defendants had acted in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule. For the duration of the investigation, the court appointed a temporary receiver who took control of defendants’ business premises.

During the discovery stage, the FTC wanted to preserve relevant data that was on defendants’ computers and servers by imaging them. When defendants’ were ask about the locations of all relevant computers and servers, they failed to reveal the location of servers with relevant data. As a result, these servers were not imaged and thus the data was not preserved. Due to misleading testimony by defendants, the receiver believed that all computers and servers had been imaged. Because of the incorrect belief that all of the relevant data had been preserved, the receiver permitted defendants to scrub the computers and sell them. It turned out that some of these were the ones that had not been imaged.

Defendants filed a motion to enjoin the prosecution and/or moved for dismissal of the case due to plaintiff’s spoliation of evidence. Defendants asserted that the FTC had either destroyed or caused to be destroyed computer evidence that would prove all of the defendants’ defenses.

The court found no basis for imposing sanctions against the FTC for the destruction of defendants’ computer system and denied defendants’ motion. The court established that it can impose an adverse inference against a party where the court finds that the party has engaged in spoliation of evidence. For this inference to be applicable there has to be a finding of bad faith. A court can make this finding through direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. If bad faith is based on circumstantial evidence, the following prerequisites must be present: (1) evidence once existed that could fairly be supposed to have been material to the proof or defense of a claim at issue in the case; (2) the spoliating party engaged in an affirmative act causing the evidence to be lost; (3) the spoliating party did so while it knew or should have known of its duty to preserve the evidence; and (4) the affirmative act causing the loss cannot be credibly explained as not involving bad faith by the reason proffered by the spoliator.

The court found that there was no direct evidence of bad faith. Further it pointed out that defendants failed to establish bad faith by circumstantial evidence, since the FTC had not destroyed the computer systems, but rather, the defendants did. The court went on to state, that even assuming, arguendo, that defendants destroyed the hard drives due to the receiver’s agent’s instruction, it did not change the fact that neither the receiver, nor the agent is the FTC.

Furthermore, the court went on that to the extent that defendants’ position could be construed to seek to attribute blame to the FTC for the receiver’s instruction to scrub the computers based on the FTCs misstatement, there was no malicious motive on the FTC’s investigator evident. This was at most negligent, and negligence is not sufficient for an adverse inference instruction as a sanction for spoliation.

Further, the defendants did not demonstrate that the absence of the missing data was fatal to their defense because it was established that alternative sources of information existed.

At last, the court emphasized that the FTC was under no obligation to preserve defendants’ evidence, especially considering the fact that the FTC never had control or dominion over the computers – the receiver did.

So, what do you think?  What are your procedures for ensuring data backup before destruction?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: eLessons Learned Blog.

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

eDiscovery Trends: Tom O’Connor of Gulf Coast Legal Technology Center
 

This is the eighth of the LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and asked each of them the same three questions:

  1. What do you consider to be the current significant trends in eDiscovery on which people in the industry are, or should be, focused?
  2. Which of those trends are evident here at LTNY, which are not being talked about enough, and/or what are your general observations about LTNY this year?
  3. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Tom O’Connor.  Tom is a nationally known consultant, speaker and writer in the area of computerized litigation support systems.  A frequent lecturer on the subject of legal technology, Tom has been on the faculty of numerous national CLE providers and has taught college level courses on legal technology.  Tom's involvement with large cases led him to become familiar with dozens of various software applications for litigation support and he has both designed databases and trained legal staffs in their use on many of the cases mentioned above. This work has involved both public and private law firms of all sizes across the nation.  Tom is the Director of the Gulf Coast Legal Technology Center in New Orleans.

What do you consider to be the current significant trends in eDiscovery on which people in the industry are, or should be, focused?

I think that there is still a lack of general baseline understanding of, not just eDiscovery principles, but technology principles.  Attorneys have been coming to LegalTech for over 30 years and have seen people like Michael Arkfeld, Browning Marean and folks like Neil Aresty, who got me started in the business.  The nouns have changed, from DOS to Windows, from paper to images, and now its eDiscovery.  The attorneys just haven’t been paying attention.  Bottom line is: for years and years, they didn’t care about technology.  They didn’t learn it in law school because a) they had no inclination to learn technology and b) they didn’t have any real ability to learn it, myself included.  With the exception of a few people like Craig Ball and George Socha, who are versed in the technical side of things – the average attorney is not versed at all.  So, the technology side of the litigation world consisted of the lit support people, the senior paralegals, the support staff and the IT people (to the minimal extent they assisted in litigation).  That all changed when the Federal Civil Rules changed, and it became a requirement.

So, if I pick up a piece of paper here and ten years ago used this as an exhibit, would the judge say “Hey, counsel, that’s quite a printout you have there, is that a Sans Serif font?  Is that 14 point or 15 point?  Did you print this on an IBM 3436?”  Of course not.  The judge would authenticate it and admit it – or not – and there might be an argument.  Now, when we go to introduce evidence, there are all sorts of questions that are technical in nature – “Where did you get that PST file?  How did that email get generated?  Did you run HASH values on that?”, etc.  And, I’m not just making this up.  If you look at decisions by Judge Grimm or Facciola or Peck or Waxse, they’re asking these questions.  Attorneys, of course, have been caught like the “deer in the headlights” in response to those questions and now they’re trying to pick up that knowledge.  If there’s one real trend I’m seeing this year, it’s that attorneys are finally taking technology seriously and trying to play catch up with their staff on understanding what all of this stuff is about.  Judges are irritated about it.  We have had major sanctions because of it.  And, if they had been paying attention for the last ten years, we wouldn’t be in the mess that we are now.

Of course, some people disagree and think that the sheer volume of data that we have is contributing to that and folks like Ralph Losey, who I respect, think we should tweak the rules to change what’s relevant.  It shouldn’t be anything that reasonably could lead to something of value in the case, we should “ratchet it down” so that the volume is reduced.  My feeling on that is that we’ve got the technology tools to reduce the volume – if they’re used properly.  The tools are better now than they were three years ago, but we had the tools to do that for awhile.  There’s no reason for these whole scale “data dumps” that we see, and I forget if it was either Judge Grimm or Facciola who had a case where in his opinion he said “we’ve got to stop with these boilerplate requests for discovery and responses for requests for discovery and make them specific”.

So, that’s the trend I see, that lawyers are finally trying to take some time to try to get up to speed – whining and screaming pitifully all the way about how it’s not fair, and the sanctions are too high and there’s too much data.  Get a life, get a grip.  Use the tools that are out there that have been given to you for years.  So, if I sound cynical, it’s because I am.

Which of those trends are evident here at LTNY, which are not being talked about enough, and/or what are your general observations about LTNY this year?

{Interviewed on the final afternoon of LTNY}  Well, as always, a good show.  This year, I think it was a great show, which is actually a bit of a surprise to me.  I was worried, not that it would go down from last year, but that we had maybe flattened out because of the economy (and the weather).  But, the turnout was great, the exhibit halls were great, a lot of good information.  I think we’re seeing a couple of trends from vendors in general, especially in the eDiscovery space.  We’re seeing vendors trying to consolidate.  I think attorneys who work in this space are concerned with moving large amounts of data from one stage of the EDRM model to another.  That’s problematic, because of the time and energy involved, the possible hazards involved and even authentication issues involved.  So, the response to that is that some vendors attempt to do “end-to-end” or at least do three out of the six stages and reduce the movement or partner with each other with open APIs and transparent calls, so that process is easier.

At the same time, we’re seeing the process faster and more efficient with increased speed times for ingestion and processing, which is great.  Maybe a bigger trend and one that will play out as the year goes along is a change in the pricing model, clearly getting away from per GB pricing to some other alternative such as, maybe, per case or per matter.  Because of the huge amount of data we have do so.  But also, we’re leaving out an area that Craig Ball addressed last year with his EDna challenge – what about the low end of the spectrum?  This is great if you’re Pillsbury or DLA Piper or Fulbright & Jaworski – they can afford Clearwell or Catalyst or Relativity and can afford to call in KPMG or Deloitte.  But, what about the smaller cases?  They can benefit from technology as well.  Craig addressed it with his EDna challenge for the $1,000 case and asked people to respond within those parameters.  Browning Marean and I were asking “what about the $500,000 case?”  Not that there’s anything bad about low end technology, you can use Adobe and S1 and some simple databases to do a great job.  But, what about in the middle, where I still can’t afford to buy Relativity and I still can’t afford to process with Clearwell?  What am I going to use?  And, that’s where I think new pricing and some of the new products will address that.  I’ve seen some hot new products, especially cloud based products, for small firms.  That’s a big change for this year’s show, which, since it’s in New York, has been geared to big firms and big cases.

What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

I think the things that excite me the most that are going on this year are the educational efforts I’m involved in.  They include Ralph Losey’s online educational series through his blog, eDiscovery Team and Craig Ball through the eDiscovery Training Academy at Georgetown Law School in June.  Both are very exciting.

And, my organization, the Gulf Coast Legal Technology Center continues to do a lot of CLE and pro-bono activities for the Mississippi and Louisiana bar, which are still primarily small firms.  We also continue to assist Gulf Coast firms with technology needs as they continue to rebuild their legal technology infrastructure after Katrina.

Thanks, Tom, for participating in the interview!

And to the readers, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic!

eDiscovery Trends: Sanctions Down in 2010 — at least thru December 1

Recently, this blog cited a Duke Law Journal study that indicated that eDiscovery sanctions were at an all-time high through 2009.  Then, a couple of weeks ago, I saw a story recently from Williams Mullen recapping the 2010 year in eDiscovery.  It provides a very thorough recap including 2010 trends in sanctions (identifying several cases where sanctions were at issue), advances made during the year in cooperation and proportionality, challenges associated with privacy concerns in foreign jurisdictions and trends in litigation dealing with social media.  It’s a very comprehensive summary of the year in eDiscovery.

One noteworthy finding is that, according to the report, sanctions were sought and awarded in fewer cases in 2010.  Some notable stats from the report:

  • There were 208 eDiscovery opinions in 2009 versus 209 through December 1, 2010;
  • Out of 209 cases with eDiscovery opinions in 2010, sanctions were sought in 79 of them (38%) and awarded in 49 (62% of those cases, and 23% of all eDiscovery cases).
  • Compare that with 2009 when sanctions were sought in 42% of eDiscovery cases and were awarded in 70% of the cases in which they were requested (30% of all eDiscovery cases).
  • While overall requests for sanctions decreased, motions to compel more than doubled in 2010, being filed in 43% of all e-discovery cases, compared to 20% in 2009.
  • Costs and fees were by far the most common sanction, being awarded in 60% of the cases involving sanctions.
  • However, there was a decline in each type of sanction as costs and fees (from 33 to 29 total sanctions), adverse inference (13 to 7), terminating (10 to 7), additional discovery (10 to 6) and preclusion (5 to 3) sanctions all declined.

The date of this report was December 17, and the report noted a total of 209 eDiscovery cases as of December 1, 2010.  So, final tallies for the year were not yet tabulated.  It will be interesting to see if the trend in decline of sanctions held true once the entire year is considered.

So, what do you think?  Is this a significant indication that more organizations are getting a handle on their eDiscovery obligations – or just a “blip in the radar”?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Major Tours v. Colorel

Yesterday, we took a look at “Rajala v. McGuire Woods”, Judge David Waxse’s opinion regarding the applicability of Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) and (e) in McGuire Woods’ request for a clawback provision for privileged documents.

The holiday week look back at cases continues with Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel, 2010 WL 2557250 (D.N.J. June 22, 2010), which addresses whether a party may obtain a Protective Order relieving it of the duty to access backup tapes, even when that party’s failure to issue a litigation hold resulted in the data only being available on those backup tapes.

Major Tours appealed a 2009 Magistrate Judge’s order concluding that certain backup tapes were not reasonably accessible under Rule 26(b)(2)(B) and that the plaintiffs had not shown good cause to require their production under the seven factor test set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 26(b)(2)(B). The Magistrate Judge made this determination despite finding that the defendant, Michael Colorel, had not instituted adequate litigation hold notices until several years after the duty to preserve had attached.

Upon appeal to U.S. District Court Judge Jerome Simandle, Major Tours claimed that the Magistrate Judge had not given “appropriate weight to the defendants’ culpability for the emails being inaccessible, given that the reason for the increased cost of recovery was the defendants’ failure to institute a timely and effective litigation hold.” and also argued that a party cannot rely on Rule 26(b)(2)(B) if that party’s negligence caused the inaccessibility of the requested data in the first place.

Judge Simandle first addressed “whether, as a matter of law, a protective order under Rule 26(b)(2)(B) can ever be granted to a party when the evidence is inaccessible because of that party’s failure to institute a litigation hold” and concluded that “no such bright line rule exists.”, finding that Colorel’s culpability in failing to preserve the information did not override application of the multi-factor good cause test under Rule 26(b)(2)(B). Judge Simandle cited the decision in Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington v. Washington Metropolitan Transit, 242 F.R.D. 139 (D.D.C. 2007), in which Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola considered the same issue and “concluded that the proper approach was to balance the defendants’ culpability as one factor in the seven factor analysis.”  Judge Simandle noted that “The Rules compel exactly this discretionary balancing of costs and benefits of discovery, not a bright line requirement of production, no matter how burdensome, how likely to succeed, or how necessary to the litigation, if a party fails to adequately preserve every byte of previously accessible data.”

As to whether the magistrate judge adequately considered defendants’ culpability, Judge Simandle found that he did and affirmed his order, noting that considering the volume of evidence produced by Colorel, the backup tapes were “likely to produce evidence of only marginal, cumulative benefit and at great expense” and that “this outweighed the slim likelihood of the discovery of non-cumulative evidence even if there was some unknown degree of negligent spoliation.”

So, what do you think?  Is this the most significant eDiscovery case of 2010?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Pension Committee

This holiday week, we’re taking a look back at some of the cases which have had the most significance (from an eDiscovery standpoint) of the year.  The first case we will look at is The Pension Committee of the Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities, LLC, 29010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4546 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010) (as amended May 28, 2010), commonly referred to as “Pension Committee”.

In “Pension Committee”, New York District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin defined negligence, gross negligence, and willfulness from an eDiscovery standpoint and cementing her status as the most famous “Judge Scheindlin” in New York (as opposed to “Judge Judy” Sheindlin, who spells her last name without a “c”).  Judge Scheindlin titled her 85-page opinion “Zubulake Revisited: Six Years Later”.  The

This case addresses preservation and spoliation requirements of the plaintiff and information which should have been preserved by the plaintiffs after the lawsuit was filed. Judge Scheindlin addresses in considerable detail, defining the levels of culpability — negligence, gross negligence, and willfulness in the electronic discovery context.

Issues that constituted negligence according to Judge Scheindlin’s opinion included:

  • Failure to obtain records from all employees (some of whom may have had only a passing encounter with the issues in the litigation), as opposed to key players;
  • Failure to take all appropriate measures to preserve ESI;
  • Failure to assess the accuracy and validity of selected search terms.

Issues that constituted gross negligence or willfulness according to Judge Scheindlin’s opinion included:

  • Failure to issue a written litigation hold;
  • Failure to collect information from key players;
  • Destruction of email or backup tapes after the duty to preserve has attached;
  • Failure to collect information from the files of former employees that remain in a party’s possession, custody, or control after the duty to preserve has attached.

The opinion also addresses 1) responsibility to establish the relevance of evidence that is lost as well as responsibility to prove that the absence of the missing material has caused prejudice to the innocent party, 2) a novel burden-shifting test in addressing burden of proof and severity of the sanction requested and 3) guidance on the important issue of preservation of backup tapes.

The result: spoliation sanctions against 13 plaintiffs based on their alleged failure to timely issue written litigation holds and to preserve certain evidence before the filing of the complaint.

Scheindlin based sanctions on the conduct and culpability of the spoliating party, regardless of the relevance of the documents destroyed, which has caused some to label the opinion as “draconian”.  In at least one case, Orbit One Communications Inc. v. Numerex Corp., 2010 WL 4615547 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2010)., Magistrate Judge James C. Francis concluded that sanctions for spoliation must be based on the loss of at least some information relevant to the dispute.  It will be interesting to see how other cases refer to the Pension Committee case down the road.

So, what do you think?  Is this the most significant eDiscovery case of 2010?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Law: Spoliate Evidence and Go to Jail–OR NOT?!?

As previously referenced in eDiscovery Daily, defendant Mark Pappas, President of Creative Pipe, Inc., was ordered by Judge Paul W. Grimm to  “be imprisoned for a period not to exceed two years, unless and until he pays to Plaintiff the attorney’s fees and costs that will be awarded to Plaintiff as the prevailing party pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C).”.

Judge Grimm found that “Defendants…deleted, destroyed, and otherwise failed to preserve evidence; and repeatedly misrepresented the completeness of their discovery production to opposing counsel and the Court.”  As a result, he ordered “that Pappas’s pervasive and willful violation of serial Court orders to preserve and produce ESI evidence be treated as contempt of court”, resulting in the severe sanction.

Pursuant to Magistrate Judge Grimm’s September 9 decision and order and the relevant local rule, however, defendants were allowed to object to the same order. In that briefing, Mr. Pappas’ counsel argued that “[t]his Court’s power to impose a coercive civil contempt sanction … is limited by a party’s ability to comply with the order,” and further that, “[i]f the fee awarded is so large that Mr. Pappas is unable to pay it, the ordered confinement would not be coercive, but punitive, and could not be imposed without criminal due process protections.” Defendants thus requested that Magistrate Judge Grimm’s order be modified such that, following the quantification of the fee award, Mr. Pappas be permitted to demonstrate his inability to pay it, and further to provide that Mr. Pappas would only be confined if he is able to pay but refuses to do so. The District Court agreed with Mr. Pappas’ counsel and, on November 1, 2010, issued a Memorandum and Order holding as follows: “[T]he Court does not find it appropriate to Order Defendant Pappas incarcerated for a future possible failure to comply with his obligation to make payment of an amount to be determined in the course of further proceedings. Certainly, if Defendant Pappas should fail to comply with a specific payment order, the Court may issue an order requiring him to show cause why he should not be held in civil contempt for failure to comply with that payment order. Also, under appropriate circumstances, criminal contempt proceedings might be considered.”

That same day, the Court further ordered that defendants must pay plaintiff the amount of $337,796.37 by November 5 and, if such payment is not made, defendants must appear on November 8 for a civil contempt hearing. Moreover, if defendants failed to pay and Mr. Pappas failed to appear at the civil contempt hearing, “a warrant may be issued for his arrest so that he shall be brought before the Court as soon as may be practicable.” From the docket it appears that ultimately the parties resolved the issue between them without the need for a further contempt proceeding.

So, what do you think?  What will happen next?  Please share any comments you might have (including examples of other cases where sanctions included jail time) or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: E-Discovery Law Alert, by Gibbons P.C.

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

eDiscovery Trends: Sanctions at an All-Time High

eDiscovery sanctions are at an all-time high, according to a Duke Law Journal law review article.  The article summarizes a study of 401 cases involving motions for sanctions related to discovery of electronically stored information (ESI) in federal courts through 2009, with a total of 230 sanction awards in those cases.  A link to the article can be found here.

In an increasing number of cases, more attention is focused on eDiscovery than on the merits, with a motion for sanctions becoming very common.  The sanctions imposed against parties in many of these cases have been severe, including adverse jury instructions, significant monetary awards and even dismissals. These sanctions have occurred despite the safe harbor provisions of Rule 37(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which have provided little protection to parties or counsel.

The study also found that defendants are sanctioned almost three times as often as the plaintiffs in a lawsuit (175 to 53). The most common type of misconduct to receive a sanction was failing to preserve relevant information (sanctions were granted in 90 cases). Often, multiple types of misconduct led to the sanctions. Other types of misconduct included a failure to produce information and delays in producing the information.

Other key notable stats:

  • 354 of the 401 cases where sanctions were requested and 198 of the 230 sanction awards have occurred since 2004;
  • The most common types of cases with sanctions are employment (17 percent), contract (16 percent), intellectual property (15.5 percent) and tort cases (11 percent);
  • 183 district court judges and 111 magistrate judges from 75 federal districts in 44 states, the Virgin Islands, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, have issued written opinions regarding e-discovery sanctions;
  • Cases involving e-discovery sanctions and sanction awards more than tripled between 2003 and 2004, from 9 to 29 sanction cases, and from 6 to 21 sanction awards;
  • There were more e-discovery sanction cases (97) and more e-discovery sanction awards (46) in 2009 than in any prior year – more than in all years prior to 2005 combined!!

The study also has a year-to-year breakdown of sanctions from 1981 through 2009, with a bar chart that illustrates the tremendous growth in sanction cases and awards in the last six years.  A partner and senior attorneys at King & Spaulding’s Discovery Center assisted the students in analyzing the cases and identifying the trends in sanctions.

So, what do you think?  Have you been involved in any cases where sanctions have been requested or awarded?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Searching: Types of Exception Files

Friday, we talked about how to address the handling of exception files through agreement with opposing counsel (typically, via the meet and confer) to manage costs and avoid the potential for spoliation claims.  There are different types of exception files that might be encountered in a typical ESI collection and it’s important to know how those files can be recovered.

Types of Exception Files

It’s important to note that efforts to “fix” these files will often also change the files (and the metadata associated with them), so it’s important to establish with opposing counsel what measures to address the exceptions are acceptable.  Some files may not be recoverable and you need to agree up front how far to go to attempt to recover them.

  • Corrupted Files: Files can become corrupted for a variety of reasons, from application failures to system crashes to computer viruses.  I recently had a case where 40% of the collection was contained in 2 corrupt Outlook PST files – fortunately, we were able to repair those files and recover the messages.  If you have readily accessible backups of the files, try to restore them from backup.  If not, you will need to try using a repair utility.  Outlook comes with a utility called SCANPST.EXE that scans and repairs PST and OST files, and there are utilities (including freeware utilities) available via the web for most file types.  If all else fails, you can hire a data recovery expert, but that can get very expensive.
  • Password Protected Files: Most collections usually contain at least some password protected files.  Files can require a password to enable them to be edited, or even just to view them.  As the most popular publication format, PDF files are often password protected from editing, but they can still be viewed to support review (though some search engines may fail to index them).  If a file is password protected, you can try to obtain the password from the custodian providing the file – if the custodian is unavailable or unable to remember the password, you can try a password cracking application, which will run through a series of character combinations to attempt to find the password.  Be patient, it takes time, and doesn’t always succeed.
  • Unsupported File Types: In most collections, there are some unusual file types that aren’t supported by the review application, such as files for legacy or specialized applications (e.g., AutoCad for engineering drawings).  You may not even initially know what type of files they are; if not, you can find out based on file extension by looking the file extension up in FILExt.  If your review application can’t read the files, it also can’t index the files for searching or display them for review.  If those files may be responsive to discovery requests, review them with the native application to determine their relevancy.
  • No-Text Files: Files with no searchable text aren’t really exceptions – they have to be accounted for, but they won’t be retrieved in searches, so it’s important to make sure they don’t “slip through the cracks”.  It’s common to perform Optical Character Recognition (OCR) on TIFF files and image-only PDF files, because they are common document formats.  Other types of no-text files, such as pictures in JPEG or PNG format, are usually not OCRed, unless there is an expectation that they will have significant text.

It’s important for review applications to be able to identify exception files, so that you know they won’t be retrieved in searches without additional processing.  FirstPass™, powered by Venio FPR™, is one example of an application that will flag those files during processing and enable you to search for those exceptions, so you can determine how to handle them.

So, what do you think?  Have you encountered other types of exceptions?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Searching: Exceptions are the Rule
 

Virtually every collection of electronically stored information (ESI) has at least some files that cannot be effectively searched.  Corrupt files, password protected files and other types of exception files are frequent components of your ESI collection and it can become very expensive to make these files searchable or reviewable.  Being without an effective plan for addressing these files could lead to problems – even spoliation claims – in your case.

How to Address Exception Files

The best way to develop a plan for addressing these files that is reasonable and cost-effective is to come to agreement with opposing counsel on how to handle them.  The prime opportunity to obtain this agreement is during the meet and confer with opposing counsel.  The meet and confer gives you the opportunity to agree on how to address the following:

  • Efforts Required to Make Unusable Files Usable: Corrupted and password protected files may be fairly easily addressed in some cases, whereas in others, it takes extreme (i.e., costly) efforts to fix those files (if they can be fixed at all).  Up-front agreement with the opposition helps you determine how far to go in your recovery efforts to keep those recovery costs manageable.
  • Exception Reporting: Because there will usually be some files for which recovery is unsuccessful (or not attempted, if agreed upon with the opposition), you need to agree on how those files will be reported, so that they are accounted for in the production.  The information on exception reports will vary depending on agreed upon format between parties, but should typically include: file name and path, source custodian and reason for the exception (e.g., the file was corrupt).

If your case is in a jurisdiction where a meet and confer is not required (such as state cases where the state has no rules for eDiscovery), it is still best to reach out to opposing counsel to agree on the handling of exception files to control costs for addressing those files and avoid potential spoliation claims.

On Monday, we will talk about the types of exception files and the options for addressing them.  Oh, the suspense!  Hang in there!

So, what do you think?  Have you been involved in any cases where the handling of exception files was disputed?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Adverse Interference Sanction for Lost Text Messages

As the sources of electronic files continue to become more diverse, case law associated with those different sources has become more commonplace.  One ruling in a case last month resulted in an adverse instruction against the US Government for failing to preserve text messages.

In United States v. Suarez, (D.N.J. Oct. 21, 2010), United States District Judge Jose L. Linares considered adverse inference sanctions related to the Government’s failure to preserve text messages.  In this case, the F.B.I. should have retained text messages between a cooperating witness and F.B.I. agents because it was reasonably foreseeable that the text messages would be discoverable by defendants in later criminal proceedings. However, given the lack of evidence of Government bad faith in failing to impose a litigation hold on the text messages until seven months after its investigation ended, the court imposed the “least harsh” spoliation adverse inference instruction that would allow but not require the jury to infer that missing text messages were favorable to defendants.

A cooperating witness posed as a developer and, as instructed by Federal Bureau of Investigation agents, offered payments to local public officials in exchange for expediting his projects and other assistance. During the F.B.I. investigation, the witness exchanged Short Message Service electronic communications (text messages) with F.B.I. agents. In later criminal proceedings, the government notified the court that it had incorrectly stated that no text messages were missing. The court held a hearing at which F.B.I. agents and information technology specialists described F.B.I. procedures to preserve and retrieve data generated by handheld devices. Despite an F.B.I. Corporate Policy Directive on data retention and litigation hold policies, no litigation hold was in place when the cooperating witness was “texting” with agents.

In a “not-for-publication” decision, the court pointed out that the Government’s obligation under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 to disclose information was more limited than its obligation under civil discovery rules. However, the text messages with the witness were “statements” under the Jencks Act that should have been preserved by the Government. The F.B.I. was “well-equipped” to preserve documents, and the U.S. Attorney “was aware of the importance of preserving documents relevant to the litigation and could have requested a litigation hold on the text messages from the inception of the investigation.” The request for a litigation hold was not made until seven months after the investigation ended and three months after the F.B.I. began searching its servers for missing text messages.

In determining sanctions, the court considered precedents in the civil cases of MOSAID Techs. Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 348 F. Supp. 2d 332 (D.N.J. 2004), and Pension Comm. of the Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, 685 F. Supp. 2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). The court concluded there was “little evidence” of Government bad faith leading to loss of the text messages. On the other hand, evidence indicated the defense was prejudiced by the loss of text messages with the cooperating witness, whose credibility was “of paramount importance.” The court thus denied defendants’ request for the “relatively severe” sanction of suppression of the witness’s testimony and all tape recordings in which he was a party. However, an adverse inference instruction was appropriate under MOSAID criteria. The text messages had been within the Government’s control and were intentionally deleted by F.B.I. agents, and the U.S. Attorneys’ Office failed to take steps to preserve the messages. The messages were relevant to claims or defenses, and it was reasonably foreseeable by the Government that the messages would later be discoverable. The court concluded that the “least harsh” spoliation adverse inference jury instruction described in Pension Committee would be issued because Government bad faith had not been shown. Such an instruction would allow but not require the jury to infer that missing text messages were favorable to defendants.

So, what do you think?  Have you encountered a case where preservation of text messages was a critical component?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).  For eDiscovery news and best practices, check out the Applied Discovery Blog here.

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