Close
Enter your
text here

Spoliation

Defendant Ordered to Retain Outside Vendor, Monetary Sanction Awarded – eDiscovery Case Law

In Carrillo v. Schneider Logistics, Inc. (C.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2012), California Magistrate Judge David Bristow ordered the defendant to “retain, at its expense, an outside vendor, to be jointly selected by the parties, to collect electronically stored information and email correspondence”.  The defendant was ordered to produce all surveillance videotapes responsive to plaintiffs’ discovery requests and monetary sanctions were awarded for plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs incurred as a result of the defendant’s discovery violations.

Sequence of Events of Defendant’s Discovery Failures

In this class action wage and hour case against the defendants (a Wal-Mart provider), the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel responses to the first set of requests for production of documents.  Here’s a sequence of events that led to the filing of the motion (all dates in 2012):

  • On February 1, plaintiffs propounded their First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to the defendant;
  • The defendant provided its initial responses on March 12 and supplemental responses on April 4;
  • The plaintiffs, believing that the defendant’s document production was incomplete, began a series of meet and confers with the defendant, and expressed concern that the defendant had not produced all responsive non-privileged documents;
  • On May 31, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel regarding the defendant’s failure to produce documents relating to Wal-Mart and their alleged failure to conduct a proper search and produce responsive documents;
  • After the Court ordered the parties to further meet and confer, the parties resolved their dispute and submitted a proposed order, which resulted in the Court ordering the defendant to supplement its responses to the requests for production of documents and produce responsive documents, including those relating to Wal-Mart. The defendant was also ordered to produce a custodian of records and person most knowledgeable regarding Schneider’s document retention policies;
  • Following the Court’s Order, the defendant produced an additional 23,000 documents, many of which related to categories of documents the defendant previously claimed did not exist;
  • The defendant also designated two employees to address the defendant’s retention policies and its efforts to search for responsive documents. When these witnesses appeared for their depositions, however, they were unable to answer many basic questions regarding the defendant’s document retention policies and the defendant’s search for responsive documents;
  • On July 10, the plaintiffs deposed an area manager for the defendant who testified that she had deleted various emails, including reports, continued to delete documents up to the date of her deposition, and that she had never received an instruction advising her not to delete such emails;

This led the plaintiffs to file their Motion to Compel on August 23, as they identified a “substantial number of emails and surveillance videotapes which had not been produced”.

Judge Bristow’s Ruling

Noting that the “record reflects – at best – a haphazard search for records”, Judge Bristow stated that the defendant had “disregarded its obligation to conduct a reasonably diligent search for responsive documents, including, as explained below, electronically stored information.”  Noting that at least 20 employees of the defendant regularly used “@wal-mart.com” email accounts for conducting business, the judge also noted that the defendant had still not produced any emails from those accounts and discounted the defendant’s contention that it had “no control” over those documents since the defendant’s employees used the Wal-Mart email address as their primary work email account.  The judge also ruled that the defendant had withheld surveillance videotapes and that it had not taken adequate steps to preserve documents.

As a result, the defendant was ordered to retain an outside vendor to collect ESI and email correspondence within 45 days and produce all responsive videotapes within 10 days.  The plaintiff was given 11 days to file a brief detailing their claim for attorneys’ fees and costs, with the defendant having two weeks to respond regarding the reasonableness of the stated costs.  Judge Bristow did deny the plaintiff’s request for other sanctions without prejudice as “premature”.

So, what do you think?  Have you seen other cases where parties were ordered to retain an outside vendor?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Does This Scare You? – eDiscovery Horrors!

Today is Halloween.  While we could try to “scare” you with the traditional “frights”, we’re an eDiscovery blog, so every year we try to “scare” you in a different way instead.  Does this scare you?

The defendant had been previously sanctioned $500,000 ($475,000 to the plaintiff and $25,000 to the court) and held in contempt of court by the magistrate judge for spoliation, who also recommended an adverse inference instruction be issued at trial.  The defendant appealed to the district court, where Minnesota District Judge John Tunheim increased the award to the plaintiff to $600,000.  Oops!

What about this?

Even though the litigation hold letter from April 2008 was sent to the primary custodians, at least one principal was determined to have actively deleted relevant emails. Additionally, the plaintiffs made no effort to suspend the automatic destruction policy of emails, so emails that were deleted could not be recovered.  Ultimately, the court found that 9 of 14 key custodians had deleted relevant documents. After the defendants raised its spoliation concerns with the court, the plaintiffs continued to delete relevant information, including decommissioning and discarding an email server without preserving any of the relevant ESI.  As a result, the New York Supreme Court imposed the severest of sanctions against the plaintiffs for spoliation of evidence – dismissal of their $20 million case.

Or this?

For most organizations, information volume doubles every 18-24 months and 90% of the data in the world has been created in the last two years. In a typical company in 2011, storing that data consumed about 10% of the IT budget. At a growth rate of 40% (even as storage unit costs decline), storing this data will consume over 20% of the typical IT budget by 2014.

How about this?

There “was stunned silence by all attorneys in the court room after that order. It looks like neither side saw it coming.”

Or maybe this?

If you have deleted any of your photos from Facebook in the past three years, you may be surprised to find that they are probably still on the company’s servers.

Scary, huh?  If the possibility of sanctions, exponential data growth and judges ordering parties to perform predictive coding keep you awake at night, then the folks at eDiscovery Daily will do our best to provide useful information and best practices to enable you to relax and sleep soundly, even on Halloween!

Then again, if the expense, difficulty and risk of processing and loading up to 100 GB of data into an eDiscovery review application that you’ve never used before terrifies you, maybe you should check this out.

Of course, if you seriously want to get into the spirit of Halloween, click here.  This will really terrify you!

Those of you who are really mortified that the next post in Jane Gennarelli’s “Litigation 101” series won’t run this week, fear not – it will run tomorrow.

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

Happy Halloween!

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

Russell Taber: eDiscovery in Tennessee – eDiscovery Trends

We spend a lot of time discussing and referencing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, especially the changes adopted in 2006 to address handling of electronically stored information (ESI).  But, not all cases are Federal jurisdiction cases.  Many are state cases and each state (well, most of them anyway) have their own rules regarding eDiscovery.  One of those states is Tennessee.  Now, for those who practice law in Tennessee and need to address eDiscovery issues, there is a new book available to provide guidance in addressing those issues.

Electronic Discovery in Tennessee: Rules, Case Law and Distinctions was written by W. Russell Taber III.  Russell is an attorney with Riley Warnock & Jacobson, PLC, in Nashville, Tennessee.  His practice focuses on business litigation.  He is a member of The Sedona Conference® Working Group 1 and is a founding member of The Prometheus Project (The Nashville Chapter of Friends of EDiscovery).  Russell has a J.D. from Vanderbilt Law School and a B.A. from Georgetown University.  I recently interviewed Russell regarding the book and asked him several questions about the book and about eDiscovery in Tennessee in general.

Why did you decide to write the book and what are you hoping for readers to learn from reading it?

First of all, thank you for the eDiscovery Daily Blog.  I’ve been a subscriber for some time and have benefitted from its insights.  Thank you also for taking the time for this interview.

I wrote the book as a resource for Tennessee attorneys and legal professionals to use in confronting eDiscovery issues.  It begins with the premise: “The era of paper discovery in Tennessee is over.”  Though perhaps an unimaginative allusion to a famous political line during an election year, I believe the statement is true.   Virtually all information is created electronically.  EDiscovery simply cannot be ignored in Tennessee state or Federal cases, large or small.  Even so, eDiscovery can be very challenging, and the stakes can be high.  Since the most widely discussed cases in the field and at CLE’s often stem from large metropolitan centers in other states, it has been an open question whether that law does or should apply in Tennessee.   Before my book, there was no comprehensive resource that sought to address this issue, which I think is an important consideration in much Tennessee litigation.

As I understand it, the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure were amended to address discovery of ESI in 2009?  How do the Tennessee rules compare and contrast to the Federal Rules adopted in 2006?

That’s right.   The 2009 amendments to the Tennessee Rules were patterned largely after the “new” 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules but differ in some respects.   For instance, unlike the Federal Rules, the Tennessee Rules do not have a “meet and confer” requirement but do encourage parties to meet and confer if ESI is likely to be at issue.  The verdict is still out on what impact this distinction has in practice and on how parties cooperate on eDiscovery.

Another distinction is a rule that compliments the Tennessee state equivalent of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) and perhaps places additional emphasis on proportionality in Tennessee state court.  Under the Tennessee rule, a judge first determines whether the ESI is subject to production.  If so, the judge then weighs the benefits to the requesting party against the burden and expense of the discovery for the responding party, considering thirteen non-exclusive factors.

Are there a couple of notable Tennessee cases that you can mention that were impacted by the Tennessee rules or by eDiscovery in general?

Yes.  While the degree of culpability that should be required to impose spoliation sanctions has been debated nationally, Tennessee state courts generally have not awarded spoliation sanctions absent destruction of evidence for an improper purpose.  In Bellsouth Advertising & Publishing Corp. v. Abebe, the Tennessee Court of Appeals applied this general rule in declining to impose sanctions for a party’s destruction of original documentation pursuant to its document retention practices.

Another notable case is CNX Gas Co., LLC v. Miller Petroleum, Inc.  The Tennessee Court of Appeals shifted all the costs (including attorneys’ fees) of collecting, reviewing and producing certain ESI to the requesting party.  The court reasoned that the requests for production, which sought ESI “with metadata,” posed an “undue burden and hardship” on the responding party.

Are there any plans to amend Tennessee rules for eDiscovery in the near future?  What do you expect to see in the eDiscovery landscape within the state over the next few years?

I’m not aware of any plans to amend the Tennessee rules for eDiscovery.  A practitioner in Tennessee can be subject to four different sets of eDiscovery rules depending on whether the case is pending in Tennessee state court or in one of the three Federal judicial districts (two of which have somewhat differing local default eDiscovery rules).  I think there is a need for more uniformity in the eDiscovery rules in Tennessee.

We recently started a local eDiscovery group in Nashville (called The Prometheus Project) that is affiliated with Friends of eDiscovery.  Our initial meeting last month generated quite a bit of enthusiasm and attracted over 40 attendees.  These local groups seem to be emerging throughout the country, and I’m hopeful this trend will spread to other cities in Tennessee.

For more information about the book, including the link on Amazon.com to purchase it, click here.

Thanks, Russell, 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!

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.

Government Document Productions Can Be Like Water Torture – eDiscovery Case Law

In Botell v. United States, 2012 U.S. Dist. (E.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2012), Magistrate Judge Gregory Hollows noted that the US Government’s “document production performance in these proceedings has been akin to a drop-by-drop water torture” and ordered a preclusion order prohibiting the US Government “from presenting evidence in its case that had been requested by plaintiffs in the Requests for Production, but which has not been produced” as of the date of the order.  The US was also still required to produce the documents, whether they planned to use them or not.  Judge Hollows also noted that the “Plaintiff has not waived any motion to seek further sanctions regarding non-production of documents, or spoliation of documents.”

In this wrongful death and personal injury action at Lassen Volcanic National Park when a mortared rock wall gave way killing one child and injuring another, the US Government produced over 7,000 pages of documents, yet, it was noted that “there is a glaring lack of production of emails from defendant’s agents and employees” with emails having only been produced from one custodian.  As five other custodians were referenced in the produced emails, the plaintiffs contended that emails should have been produced from them as well.  With regard to the back up of emails, one of the defendant declarations described the backup policy as follows: “[b]ack-up emails are retained for 30 days only, unless they are subject to a litigation hold notice or pertain to the BP Gulf Oil spill.”

Judge Hollows ordered the defendants to provide a declaration describing “searches conducted to locate physical and electronic copies of emails” responsive to production requests, noting the declaration “shall state the steps taken to locate these emails, whether any such emails exist, and if not, a definitive statement that they no longer exist. If further responsive documents are located, they shall be produced at the time declarations are filed.”

Summarizing the production issue in his order, Judge Hollows noted as follows:

“At this juncture, the United States has purportedly been looking for documents for months, yet the undersigned, to the date of the hearing, does not have confidence that an organized, thorough search has been performed. Rather, defendant’s document production performance in these proceedings has been akin to a drop-by-drop water torture. At some point, plaintiff must be protected from the United States’ further belated production of pertinent documents.”

As a result, Judge Hollows issued the preclusion order, with the possibility of more sanctions to come.

So, what do you think?  Was the ruling harsh enough?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Defendant Appeals Sanctions, Only to See Sanction Amount Raised on Appeal – eDiscovery Case Law
 

In Multifeeder Tech. Inc. v. British Confectionery Co. Ltd., No. 09-1090 (JRT/TNL), (D. Minn. Sept. 18, 2012), the defendant had been previously sanctioned $500,000 ($475,000 to the plaintiff and $25,000 to the court) and held in contempt of court by the magistrate judge for spoliation, who also recommended an adverse inference instruction be issued at trial.  The defendant appealed to the district court, where Minnesota District Judge John Tunheim increased the award to the plaintiff to $600,000.  Oops!

Background

In this breach of contract case, the magistrate court granted the plaintiff’s motion in 2010 to compel discovery of several specific document requests after the defendants failed to comply with those requests.  After the defendant had still failed to comply six months later, the plaintiff motioned the court for sanctions due to the defendant’s failure to comply with the court’s previous 2010 order. While granting the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, the magistrate judge also ordered that the parties try to cooperate to agree on the handling of eDiscovery in the case. Failing an agreement, each side would then be permitted to submit a proposal for the court to use to establish an eDiscovery protocol.

Forensic Examination of Defendant’s Computers

When the parties could not come to an agreement, they did so, and the court chose the plaintiff’s proposal, appointing a computer forensic expert to image and examine the defendant’s computers, allocating the forensic discovery costs between the parties.  The forensic examination identified several occurrences of spoliation by the defendant, including commercial wiping software found on one custodian’s computer with “six deletions occurring after both the commencement of the lawsuit and issuance of the ESI Protocol Order” and concealment of an encrypted volume and deletion of a PST file by a vice president of the company.

Sanctions Ordered by Magistrate Court

After reviewing the facts and sanctions at the Court's disposal, the Magistrate Judge recommended that:

(1)   An adverse inference instruction be given with regard to the defendant’s destruction of evidence;

(2)   The defendant be held in civil contempt, and ordered to pay $25,000 to the Court and $475,000 to the plaintiff.  With regard to the $475,000, the Court found that amount to constitute reasonable expenses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) because "it encompasses much of CFS's current unpaid invoices, some past paid amounts by Multifeeder to CFS, and reasonable legal fees and costs for litigating this discovery debacle."

Both Parties Object to Sanction Amount

The defendant objected with regard to the finding of spoliation by the two individuals, objected that the $475,000 sanction was too high because the plaintiff was partly responsible for the “massive” costs for the forensic examination and appealed to the district court.  In turn, the plaintiff also objected to the sanction amount, indicating that the “award fails to adequately cover the reasonable expenses it incurred as a result of [the defendant’s] conduct” and asked that the total amount be raised to over $692,000.

Sanction Amount is Increased, not Decreased

Judge Tunheim upheld the finding of spoliation against the two individuals.  With regard to the sanction amount, Judge Tunheim noted that “the recommended $475,000 sanction is insufficient” and found as follows:

“The Court has also considered that this is not the first sanctions order in this case; British's repeated violations of the Court's discovery orders warrant significant sanctions to deter British from further misconduct. Therefore, the Court finds that a sanction of $600,000 represents reasonable expenses and attorneys' fees because it encompasses much of CFS's current unpaid invoices, at least some past paid amounts by Multifeeder to CFS, and reasonable legal fees and expenses in litigating this discovery dispute.” [emphasis added]

Judge Tunheim also ordered the defendant to pay “half of the sanctions award, $300,000, within 90 days of the date of this Order. The second half of the sanctions award will be payable no later than 120 days of the date of this Order.”

So, what do you think?  Should the defendant appeal again or quit before they get further behind?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

eDiscovery Sanctions Can Happen in Police Brutality Cases Too – eDiscovery Case Law
 

As reported in the Seattle Times, Pierce County (Washington) Superior Court Judge Stephanie Arend issued a $300,000 sanction against King County for failure to produce key documents illustrating the previous troubling behavior of a sheriff deputy who tackled Christopher Sean Harris and left him permanently brain-damaged.  Judge Arend also indicated that the county would be liable for attorneys' fees and possibly compensatory damages for the Harris family.  This after King County had settled with the Harris family for $10 million in January 2011 during a civil trial in King County Superior Court.

After being wrongly identified as a suspect in an earlier bar fight, Harris was tackled and pushed into a wall by Deputy Matthew Paul in Seattle's Belltown neighborhood in May 2009 and left brain-damaged, paralyzed and unable to speak. After reaching a settlement during the civil trial, Harris' attorneys claimed the Sheriff's Office and county withheld emails and other documents that outlined internal concerns about unnecessary or excessive force used by Paul in other incidents. They filed a motion at the end of last year asking Arend to sanction the county and order it to pay an additional $3.3 million.

Documents alleged by Harris’ attorneys to have been intentionally withheld by the King County Sheriff’s office include:

  • A thread of emails to Paul's supervisor about his behavior at the Basic Law Enforcement Academy, where concerns were raised about Paul having "exhibited behaviors that were a concern" and had used force that was "far above the norm" when working with a smaller female trainee.  While the county indicated that a search failed to locate these emails, Judge Arend, in the ruling, noted that "any competent electronic discovery effort would have located this email."
  • There was also a citizen complaint against Paul in May 2010 after a Seattle resident stopped to videotape Paul and other deputies deal with an intoxicated person and the resident was tackled by Paul and suffered a broken nose.  The resident has filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit against Paul and the county.
  • There were also documents about another use-of-force incident that was not put into Paul’s personnel file until the Harris’ case was settled.

"This reckless indifference in its failure to produce these three documents — documents that were indisputably relevant — is the functional equivalent of intentional misconduct," Judge Arend noted, calling the county’s failure to produce these documents as “reprehensible”.

Because the family would have filed a civil-rights lawsuit if they had known about these other instances, Judge Arend said she will decide about further damages after a hearing for Harris' attorneys to attempt to show that they would have prevailed in a civil-rights case with the additional documents.

Amazingly, Paul remains on the force.

So, what do you think?  Was the sanction severe enough?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

When is a Billion Dollars Not Enough? – eDiscovery Case Law
 

When it’s Apple v. Samsung, of course!

According to the Huffington Post, Apple Inc. requested a court order for a permanent U.S. sales ban on Samsung Electronics products found to have violated its patents along with additional damages of $707 million on top of the $1.05 billion dollar verdict won by Apple last month, already one of the largest intellectual-property awards on record.

Back in August, a jury of nine found that Samsung infringed all but one of the seven patents at issue and found all seven of Apple's patents valid – despite Samsung's attempts to have them thrown out. They also determined that Apple didn't violate any of the five patents Samsung asserted in the case.  Apple had been requesting $2.5 billion in damages.  Trial Judge Lucy Koh could still also triple the damage award because the jury determined Samsung had acted willfully.

Interviewed after the trial, some of the jurors cited video testimony from Samsung executives and internal emails as key to the verdict, which was returned after just 22 hours of deliberation, despite the fact that the verdict form contained as many as 700 points the jury (including charges brought against different subsidiaries of the two companies addressing multiple patents and numerous products).

Role of Adverse Inference Sanction

As noted on this blog last month, Samsung received an adverse inference instruction from California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal just prior to the start of trial as failure to turn “off” the auto-delete function in Samsung’s proprietary “mySingle” email system resulted in spoliation of evidence as potentially responsive emails were deleted after the duty to preserve began.  As a result, Judge Grewal ordered instructions to the jury to indicate that Samsung had failed to preserve evidence and that evidence could be presumed relevant and favorable to Apple.  However, Judge Lucy Koh decided to modify the “adverse inference” verdict issued for the jury to include instructions that Apple had also failed to preserve evidence.  Therefore, it appears as though the adverse inference instruction was neutralized and did not have a significant impact in the verdict; evidently, enough damning evidence was discovered that doomed Samsung in this case.

Friday's Filings

In a motion filed on Friday, Apple sought approximately $400 million additional in damages for design infringement by Samsung; approximately $135 million for willful infringement of its utility patents; approximately $121 million in supplemental damages based on Samsung's product sales not covered in the jury's deliberation; and approximately $50 million of prejudgment interest on damages through December 31 – total of $707 million requested.  Apple also requested an injunction to cover "any of the infringing products or any other product with a feature or features not more than colorably different from any of the infringing feature or features in any of the Infringing Products."

Not surprisingly, Samsung submitted a filing on Friday, requesting a new trial “enabling adequate time and even-handed treatment of the parties”, stating “The Court's constraints on trial time, witnesses and exhibits were unprecedented for a patent case of this complexity and magnitude, and prevented Samsung from presenting a full and fair case in response to Apple's many claims.”

So, what do you think?  Will Apple get more money?  Will Samsung get a new trial?  If so, will there be more discovery sanctions?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

eDiscovery Daily is Two Years Old Today!
 

It’s hard to believe that it has been two years ago today since we launched the eDiscoveryDaily blog.  Now that we’ve hit the “terrible twos”, is the blog going to start going off on rants about various eDiscovery topics, like Will McAvoy in The Newsroom?   Maybe.  Or maybe not.  Wouldn’t that be fun!

As we noted when recently acknowledging our 500th post, we have seen traffic on our site (from our first three months of existence to our most recent three months) grow an amazing 442%!  Our subscriber base has nearly doubled in the last year alone!  We now have nearly seven times the visitors to the site as we did when we first started.  We continue to appreciate the interest you’ve shown in the topics and will do our best to continue to provide interesting and useful eDiscovery news and analysis.  That’s what this blog is all about.  And, in each post, we like to ask for you to “please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic”, so we encourage you to do so to make this blog even more useful.

We also want to thank the blogs and publications that have linked to our posts and raised our public awareness, including Pinhawk, The Electronic Discovery Reading Room, Unfiltered Orange, Litigation Support Blog.com, Litigation Support Technology & News, Ride the Lightning, InfoGovernance Engagement Area, Learn About E-Discovery, Alltop, Law.com, Justia Blawg Search, Atkinson-Baker (depo.com), ABA Journal, Complex Discovery, Next Generation eDiscovery Law & Tech Blog and any other publication that has picked up at least one of our posts for reference (sorry if I missed any!).  We really appreciate it!

We like to take a look back every six months at some of the important stories and topics during that time.  So, here are some posts over the last six months you may have missed.  Enjoy!

We talked about best practices for issuing litigation holds and how issuing the litigation hold is just the beginning.

By the way, did you know that if you deleted a photo on Facebook three years ago, it may still be online?

We discussed states (Delaware, Pennsylvania and Florida) that have implemented new rules for eDiscovery in the past few months.

We talked about how to achieve success as a non-attorney in a law firm, providing quality eDiscovery services to your internal “clients” and how to be an eDiscovery consultant, and not just an order taker, for your clients.

We warned you that stop words can stop your searches from being effective, talked about how important it is to test your searches before the meet and confer and discussed the importance of the first 7 to 10 days once litigation hits in addressing eDiscovery issues.

We told you that, sometimes, you may need to collect from custodians that aren’t there, differentiated between quality assurance and quality control and discussed the importance of making sure that file counts add up to what was collected (with an example, no less).

By the way, did you know the number of pages in a gigabyte can vary widely and the same exact content in different file formats can vary by as much as 16 to 20 times in size?

We provided a book review on Zubulake’s e-Discovery and then interviewed the author, Laura Zubulake, as well.

BTW, eDiscovery Daily has had 150 posts related to eDiscovery Case Law since the blog began.  Fifty of them have been in the last six months.

P.S. – We still haven't missed a business day yet without a post.  Yes, we are crazy.

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 Case Law: No Sanctions For Spoliation With No Bad Faith
 

In Sherman v. Rinchem Co., No. 11-2932, 2012 U.S. App. (8th Cir. Aug. 6, 2012), the plaintiff in a defamation case against his former employer appealed the district court’s denial of both his summary judgment motion and request for an adverse inference jury instruction. The district court had decided the case under Minnesota law, which “provides that ‘even when a breach of the duty to preserve evidence is not done in bad faith, the district court must attempt to remedy any prejudice that occurs as a result of the destruction of the evidence.’” In contrast, as the Eighth Circuit pointed out, in this case where the parties had diversity, and a question remained as to whether state or federal spoliation laws were applicable, federal law requires “a finding of intentional destruction indicating a desire to suppress the truth” in order to impose sanctions.

The plaintiff was fired from his employer after he allegedly lied during the employer’s investigation of complaints about his behavior. As part of the investigation, the plaintiff was interviewed by the employer’s human resources director, where the director took notes. The plaintiff argued that he requested the employer provide him with the notes because he believed they were critical to his case. However, the human resources director claimed she lost the notes, but she did not destroy them.

Arguing that the employer’s loss of the notes amounted to spoliation of evidence, the plaintiff “contended that the district court should grant his motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, give an adverse-inference instruction to the jury for spoliation of evidence.” The court, however, found that at most the employer’s actions were negligent, not in bad faith, and therefore would not support the sanctions sought by the plaintiff. In the course of speaking to the plaintiff and his counsel on the record, the plaintiff’s counsel conceded that it did appear the employer’s actions were non-intentional and amounted only to negligence. The district court ultimately denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice, offering that he could return and seek another remedy short of summary judgment or an adverse inference instruction.

First, the Eighth Circuit found that in diversity actions, “federal law applies to the imposition of sanctions for the spoliation of evidence” in this case because “a direct conflict exists between federal law and Minnesota law.” Therefore, for spoliation sanctions to be applicable, the court had to find bad faith. Furthermore, the record reflected—and the plaintiff conceded—there had been no bad faith on the part of the employer.

Therefore, the court upheld the denial of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and request for an adverse inference instruction.

So, what do you think?  Should either court have allowed the sanctions?  Or should lesser sanctions be allowed?  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.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Repairing a Corrupted Outlook PST File
 

We like to believe that there will never be any problems with the data that we preserve, collect and process for eDiscovery purposes.  Sometimes, however, critical data may be difficult or impossible to use.  Perhaps key files are password protected from being opened and the only way to open them is to “crack” the password.  Or, perhaps a key file may be corrupted.  If that file is an Outlook Personal Storage Table (PST) file, that file corruption could literally make tens of thousands of documents unavailable for discovery unless the file can be repaired.

I recently had a case where 40% of the collection was contained in 2 corrupt Outlook PST files.  Had we not been able to repair those files, we would have been unable to access nearly half of the collection that needed to be reviewed for responsiveness in the case.

Fortunately, there is a repair tool for Outlook designed to repair corrupted PST files.  It’s called SCANPST.EXE.  It’s an official repair tool that is included in Office 2010 (as well as Office 2007 before it).  As a very useful utility, you might think that SCANPST would be located in the Microsoft Office 2010 Tools folder within the Microsoft Office folder in Program files.  But, you’d be wrong.  Instead, you’ll have to open Windows Explorer and navigate to the C:Program FilesMicrosoft OfficeOffice14 folder (for Office 2010, at least) to find the SCANPST.EXE utility.

Double-click this file to open Microsoft Outlook Inbox Repair Tool.  The utility will prompt for the path and name of the PST file (with a Browse button to browse to the corrupted PST file).  There is also an Options button to enable you to log activity to a new log file, append to an existing log file or choose not to write to a log file.  Before you start, you’ll need to close Outlook and all mail-enabled applications. 

Once ready, press the Start button and the application will begin checking for errors. When the process is complete, it should indicate that it found errors on the corrupted PST file, along with a count of folders and items found in the file.  The utility will also provide a check box to make a backup of the scanned file before repairing.  ALWAYS make a backup – you never know what might happen during the repair process.  Click the Repair button when ready and the utility will hopefully repair the corrupted PST file.

If SCANPST.EXE fails to repair the file, then there are some third party utilities available that may succeed where SCANPST failed.  If all else fails, you can hire a data recovery expert, but that can get very expensive.  Hopefully, you don’t have to resort to that.

By repairing the PST file, you are technically changing the file, so if the PST file is discoverable, it will probably be necessary to disclose the corruption to opposing counsel and the intent to attempt to repair the file to avoid potential spoliation claims.

So, what do you think?  Have you encountered corrupted PST files in discovery?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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