Close
Enter your
text here

Spoliation

eDiscovery Case Law: Court Allows Third Party Discovery Because Defendant is an “Unreliable Source”
 

Repeatedly referring to the defendant’s unreliability and untrustworthiness in discovery and “desire to suppress the truth,” Nebraska Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart found, in Peter Kiewit Sons’, Inc. v. Wall Street Equity Group, Inc., No. 8:10CV365, (D. Neb. May 18, 2012), that the defendant avoided responding substantively to the plaintiff’s discovery requests through a pattern of destruction and misrepresentation and therefore monetary sanctions and an adverse jury instruction at trial were appropriate. 

In this trademark action, Judge Zwart awarded sanctions of extensive discovery costs against a defendant that destroyed discoverable electronic evidence, failed to search for and locate other electronically stored information (ESI), and made false representations in affidavits and in court regarding its efforts to search for this evidence. In addition, she allowed the plaintiff to conduct discovery by contacting directly the defendant’s current and former clients, despite the court’s acknowledgment that such contact could harm the defendant’s business. Finally, Judge Zwart recommended an adverse jury instruction be given at trial.

Throughout a lengthy and contentious discovery process, the defendant claimed that its failure to produce any electronic documents containing the plaintiff’s mark demonstrated that there simply were no such documents. What the court ultimately discovered, however, was that no documents were produced for very different reasons: (1) the defendant appeared to have a virtually nonexistent records retention policy; (2) the defendant recovered its external hard drives from its landlord just before the landlord received a subpoena for the hard drives, leading the landlord to claim he did not possess the files; (3) to “comply” with discovery requests, the defendant had an employee who is not a computer expert conduct a keyword search consisting of one word (“Kiewit”) of the defendant’s files (from her own workstation) for the name of the plaintiff’s mark and recovered only two nonresponsive documents; and (4) the defendant discarded what it claimed was a non-functioning server the same month that it received notice of the plaintiff’s discovery requests.

The court ordered a forensic examination of the defendants’ computer systems that revealed thousands of documents containing the keyword “Kiewit” on its face as well as in its metadata. It also revealed at least one document that had been previously produced was missing from the electronic files, contributing to the evidence of spoliation. In ruling, the court pointed out that “considering Defendant’s very liberal policy of not keeping documents, consolidating their records in one location, or organizing their files, their efforts to locate relevant electronic files were woefully inadequate.”

As a consequence of the defendants’ “obstreperous” conduct, Judge Zwart found sanctions were appropriate, including monetary awards and an adverse jury instruction. She granted sanctions pursuant to its “authority to sanction the misconduct of parties and their attorneys . . . derived from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the inherent power of the court,” as well as its “power to shape the appropriate remedy including default judgment, striking pleadings, an adverse jury instruction, and an award of attorney’s fees and costs” derived from precedent. Judge Zwart noted, “The most severe sanctions are reserved for those litigants demonstrating ‘blatant disregard of the Court’s orders and discovery rules’ [and] engaging in a pattern of deceit by presenting false and misleading answers and testimony under oath in order to prevent their opponent from fairly presenting its case.’”

Furthermore, Judge Zwart found the defendants’ conduct dictated that the plaintiff should be permitted to conduct third-party discovery. The plaintiff argued that it needed to contact the defendants’ clients in an effort to determine whether and how the defendants used the plaintiff’s trademark, whereas the defendants argued that they would suffer “irreparable harm” should the plaintiff reach out to their current and former clients. Despite courts’ general reluctance to allow direct contact with litigants’ clients in intellectual property cases, Judge Zwart here found that the plaintiff showed the clients’ information was “relevant and necessary”; moreover, because “Defendants are simply not a reliable source of information” and they “continue to attempt to use client confidentiality as a means of preventing Plaintiff from discovering relevant information,” the plaintiff’s contact with the clients would be proper.

So, what do you think?  Did the court’s sanctions go far enough or should they have been even tougher?  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 Case Law: Spoliation of Data Can Lead to Your Case Being Dismissed
 

In 915 Broadway Associates LLC v. Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP, 34 Misc. 3d 1229A (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012), the New York Supreme Court imposed the severest of sanctions against the plaintiffs for spoliation of evidence – dismissal of their $20 million case.

In this case, the plaintiffs, 915 Broadway, sued its former counsel, Paul Hastings LLP, for legal malpractice. The plaintiffs were initially a party to a separate action involving a failed real estate deal, as a result of which a litigation hold letter was issued in April 2008.  When that action was settled, the plaintiffs brought this malpractice suit against its former attorneys in August of 2008, alleging that the defendants failed to adequately instruct them during contract negotiations with a third party to draw on a $20 million line of credit before it expired.

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 served without preserving any of the relevant ESI.

Citing Zubulake, the court held that “once a party reasonably anticipates litigation, it must suspend its routine document retention/destruction policy and put in place a litigation hold” as the standard for adequate preservation. To implement a sufficient legal hold, a party must also ensure that affirmative steps are taken identify and preserve potentially relevant ESI and oversee organizational compliance with the legal hold.

To establish sanctions, the court noted: “[T]he party seeking sanctions must establish that (1) the party with control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve it at the time it was destroyed; (2) the records were destroyed with a "culpable state of mind"; and (3) the destroyed evidence was "relevant" to the moving party's claim or defense”.

In this case, the court found that:

  1. Joel Poretsky (the principal Australian representative of TRAK Associates, LLC (TRAK), an entity that owns more than 31% of 915 Broadway), “actively” deleted electronic documents related to the transaction “by his own admission”;
  2. The documents were destroyed with a "culpable state of mind" because “they were deleted intentionally and then permanently destroyed beyond any possible recovery either intentionally, or as the result of gross negligence”; and
  3. The evidence destroyed by Poretsky was “likely relevant to Paul Hastings' claims that (1) 915 Broadway and its managing members bore some, if not all, of the responsibility for monitoring the Letter of Credit's expiration date…and (2) 915 Broadway failed to mitigate its damages and voluntarily broke the chain of causation by settling with Normandy for nothing without any investigation”.

As a result, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case and also awarded reimbursement of its attorney's fees and costs incurred in filing the motion.

So, what do you think?  Was case dismissal appropriate or was it too harsh a sanction?  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 Case Law: Better Late Than Never? Not With Discovery.
 

In Techsavies, LLC v. WFDA Mktg., Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152833 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2012), Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman of the United States District Court for the District of Northern California sanctioned the defendant for repeated failures to produce responsive documents in a timely manner because of their failure to identify relevant data sources in preparing its initial disclosures.

The defendant produced approximately 32,000 documents in response to production requests on August 20, 2010. Five days later, the defendant sent plaintiffs a supplemental production of 1,100 documents, and notified them by letter that its document production was complete.  Over the next three months, the plaintiffs informed the defendant multiple times that there were omissions in their production, including following up with another production request on November 1.  On November 29, two days before the close of discovery, defendants produced roughly an additional 87,000 documents, yet the plaintiff still noticed that some documents were missing and notified the defendants.

Following the second incomplete production, defendants investigated and discovered that several data backup files were never provided to the eDiscovery vendor.  They also discovered a 4 to 6 inch stack of relevant documents in the basement of a former office building that had been forgotten.  Those additional documents were produced approximately ten days after the close of discovery.  The plaintiffs sought sanctions for the late production including “establishing that the minimum gross revenues attributable to Project632 are twice the credit card transactions through the site since its inception, given WDFA's failure to produce complete information regarding the co-payments received from MetroPCS”, as well as barring them “from offering any evidence of deduction or offset from that figure” and precluding their experts from using the late produced documents.

With regard to the late production, Judge Zimmerman noted:

“Pretrial Scheduling Order (Docket No. 20) also requires that ‘[t]hirty days prior to the close of non-expert discovery, lead counsel for each party shall serve and file a certification that all supplementation has been completed.’ WDFA did not file such a certification. Instead, WDFA improperly produced its late documents as well as its interrogatory response after fact discovery closed and without obtaining leave from the Court…[I]t appears to be an issue of first impression whether a party can correct its discovery responses after the close of discovery without seeking leave of Court. In my opinion, absent an approved stipulation, allowing one party to correct prior discovery responses without seeking leave of Court undermines the Court's ability to control the timely production of documents and assure that discovery issues are resolved in a timely fashion so as not to interfere with the impending trial.”

Judge Zimmerman also noted, however, that sanctions sought by the plaintiffs were “too broad” and “would be tantamount to giving Techsavies a directed verdict on many if not all of the damages issues”.  The court did grant the following sanctions against the defendant:

“1. WDFA is barred from introducing, either in defense of plaintiff's claims or in support of its counterclaims, any document which it should have produced in response to plaintiff's first set of document requests and which was not produced until after plaintiff filed its second set of document requests.”

“2. WDFA's expert witnesses cannot rely on any document, or information contained in any document, that is precluded by this Order unless WDFA can show that the information on which the witness relied was provided timely to Techsavies in some other form of discovery.”

So, what do you think?  Should the judge have allowed the late production?  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 Trends: Rules Changes for Spoliation Could Come as Soon as 2013
 

With cases related to preservation and spoliation issues continuing to be prevalent, as well as continued greater emphasis on proportionality in eDiscovery, the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has requested comments on possible changes to the federal rules relating to preservation and spoliation of evidence.  Much of the framework for the proposed rules was derived from Judge Shira Scheindlin's opinions on eDiscovery, particularly those in the Zubulake case.  These changes could be finalized as soon as December 2013.

As there are currently no rules governing preservation, courts have set their own guidelines – not always consistently from court to court. The hope is that establishment of rules regulating preservation and spoliation will clarify expectations and standardize practices.  Invited by the advisory committee to provide suggestions, the special committee has proposed new Rule 26(h), which specifies that the duty to preserve ESI arises when a subpoena is received by a non-party, or when a person becomes aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to expect to become a party to an action. That duty remains in effect for all existing and subsequently created documents or ESI until the termination of the involvement of the party or non-party, or until a person becomes aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that he or she will not become a party to an action.

A person whose duty to preserve has been triggered must take steps to preserve discoverable documents and ESI, and must consider several factors, including:

  • Importance of the information;
  • Amount in controversy; and
  • Burden and expense to preserve in a form as close to (if not identical to) their original condition as possible.

In addition, new Rule 37(g) has been proposed which identifies a variety of penalties to be imposed, depending on the level of culpability of the spoliating party and the remedial requirements necessary to the case, taking into account the importance of the information lost to the party seeking its discovery.

While the advisory committee decided not to pursue any rule change dealing with preservation back in November, they have continued to pursue those dealing with penalties for spoliation.  However, during the discussion process for preservation rules, standard expectations for preservation of evidence included the issuance of a written litigation hold to key players in an organization most likely to possess documents or ESI that will be important in a case, with the hold to be periodically reviewed and renewed.  Eventual rules for preservation would be expected to include such provisions.

As for spoliation, the advisory committee considered the proposed new rule regarding penalties for spoliation at its meeting on March 22.

The advisory committee has also drafted proposed amendments to Rule 45 concerning serving of subpoenas. Proposed changes include abolishing the requirement that a discovery subpoena be issued in the same court where compliance of the subpoena is expected. Instead, nationwide service of process will be implemented, so, for example a discovery subpoena for a case pending in the Eastern District of Texas would be valid in the Southern District of New York. The subpoenaed party can choose the subpoena to be enforced in the district where compliance is to be made or in the trial court.  Out-of-state parties (or an officer of those parties) can be compelled to travel more than 100 miles to testify at trial if good cause is shown for them to do so. Changes are also proposed requiring that all parties receive notice on the service of a subpoena to a non-party.

The advisory committee decided on revisions to Rule 45 back on March 22. By May 1, the advisory committee will submit its recommendations regarding spoliation and Rule 45 to the federal Standing Committee. The federal Standing Committee is expected to approve the recommendations in June and submit them to the federal Judicial Conference. Assuming the Judicial Conference approves the proposal at its September 2012 meeting, they will transmit it to the US Supreme Court, which will have until May 1 of next year to transmit the proposal to Congress. If Congress does not act, the proposal would become rule on December 1, 2013.

So, what do you think?  Will these rules changes benefit the eDiscovery process?  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 Best Practices: Issuing the Hold is Just the Beginning

Yesterday, we discussed identifying custodians, preparing a written litigation hold, issuing the hold and tracking responses.  Today, we’ll discuss interviewing hold notice recipients, follow up on notices, releasing holds when the obligation to preserve is removed and tracking all holds within an organization.  Here are the rest of the best practices for implementing a litigation hold.

Interviewing Hold Notice Recipients: Depending on the case, follow-up interviews (with at least the key custodians) are generally accepted as a best practice and may be necessary to ensure defensibility of the notice.  The point of these interviews is to repeat the duty to preserve, provide a detailed explanation of the requirements of the hold, answer the recipient’s questions (if any), and confirm that the recipient understands and agrees to adhere to the notice. You should keep written records of each of these interviews and document the reasoning for determining which individuals to interview.

Follow-Up on Hold Notices: For a litigation hold plan to be successful and defensible, it needs to include periodic follow-up reminders to recipients of the notices to inform them that the data in question remains under hold until the case concludes. Follow-up reminders could simply be a retransmission of the original notice or they could be a summary of all of the notices the individual has received, if there are multiple cases with holds for that individual. There is no specific requirement on how often the reminders should be sent, but it’s best to send them at least quarterly.  For some cases, it may be necessary to send them monthly.

Release the Hold: Not to be confused with “release the hounds”, it is just as important to inform people when the duty to preserve the data expires (typically, when the case is completed) as it is to notify them when the duty to preserve begins.  Releasing the hold is key to ensure that information doesn’t continue to be preserved outside of the organization’s document retention policies – if it is, it may then become subject to litigation holds in other litigations unnecessarily.  Releasing the hold also helps keep custodians from being overwhelmed with multiple retention notices, which could cause them to take the notices less seriously.  However, the release notification should be clear with regard to the fact that data subject to hold in another matter should continue to be preserved to meet discovery obligations in that matter.

Hold Tracking System: It’s important to have a reliable “system” for tracking litigation holds across all matters within the organization. Depending on your needs, that could be a customized application or a simple database or spreadsheet to track the information.  You should keep historical tracking data even for completed matters as that information can be useful in guiding hold issuance on new matters (by helping to identify the correct custodians for new matters that are factually similar or related to current closed or open matters).  At a minimum, a tracking system should:

  • Track responses from individual custodians and identify those who have not yet responded,
  • Track periodic reminder notices and release notices,
  • Provide ability to report a list of people with a duty to preserve for a specific matter as well as all matters for which a person is under retention.

So, what do you think?  Do you have a solid “hold” on your hold process?  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 Best Practices: Hold It Right There!
 

When we reviewed key case decisions from last year related to eDiscovery, the most case law decisions were those related to sanctions and spoliation issues.  Most of the spoliation sanctions were due to untimely or inadequate preservation of the data for litigation.  As noted in Zubulake, Judge Shira Sheindlin ruled that parties in litigation have an obligation to preserve potentially relevant data as soon as there is a reasonable expectation that data may be relevant to future litigation.  However, even if the party reacts in a timely manner to take steps to preserve data through a litigation hold, but executes those steps poorly, data can be lost and sanctions can occur.  Here are some best practices for implementing a litigation hold.

The most effective litigation hold plans are created before actual litigation arises and applied consistently across all matters. While cases and jurisdictions vary and there are not many hard and fast rules on implementing litigation holds, there are generally accepted best practices for implementing holds.  Implementation of a litigation hold generally includes each of the steps identified below:

Identify Custodians: As we learned in Voom HD Holdings v. EchoStar Satellite LLC, 600292/08, It’s important to completely identify all potential custodians and suspend any automatic deletion policies that might result in deletion of data subject to litigation.  In this case, EchoStar put a litigation hold in place, instructing employees to save anything that they deemed potentially relevant to the litigation, but did not extend this hold to stopping automatic deletion of eMails from EchoStar's computers until four months later in June 2008.  As a result of their untimely and incomplete hold, EchoStar was given an adverse inference sanction (their second one!).

Custodians can be individuals or non-custodial (i.e., not held by a specific individual) sources such as IT and records management departments.  To determine a complete list of custodians, it’s generally best to conduct interviews of people identified as key players for the case, asking them to identify other individuals who are likely to have potentially relevant data in their possession.

Prepare Written Hold Notice: Hold notices should be in writing, and should typically be written in a standard format.  They should identify all types of data to be preserved and for what relevant period.  Sometimes, hold notices are customized depending on the types of custodians receiving them (e.g., IT department may receive a specific notice to suspend tape destruction or disable auto-deletion of emails).

Distribute Hold Notice: It is important to distribute the notice using a communication mechanism that is reliable and verifiable. Typically, this is via email. It’s rare to use paper notices anymore as they are more difficult to track. Distribution should occur only to the selected and specific individuals likely to have potentially relevant information, usually not company-wide, as not everyone will understand the parameters of the hold.  Notices with overly broad distributions have, in some cases, been deemed inadequate by courts.

Track Responses: It is advisable to require recipients of the litigation hold notice to confirm their receipt and understanding of the notice via a method that can be tracked.  Receipt and read notifications or voting buttons in emails could be used for this purpose, but they may not always be acceptable, since there is no guarantee that the recipient actually read or understood the notice.  Perhaps a better approach is to send each recipient an attached form that enables them to acknowledge each instruction within the hold notice to confirm a more complete understanding – these forms can even be set up as enterable PDF forms that even enable digital signatures so that no printing is required.

Tomorrow, we’ll discuss follow up on notices, releasing holds when the obligation to preserve is removed and tracking all holds within an organization.  Hasta la vista, baby!

So, what do you think?  Do you have a solid “hold” on your hold process?  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 Eighteen! (Months Old, That Is)
 

Eighteen months ago yesterday, eDiscovery Daily was launched.  A lot has happened in the industry in eighteen months.  We thought we might be crazy to commit to a daily blog each business day.  We may be crazy indeed, but we still haven’t missed a business day yet.

The eDiscovery industry has grown quite a bit over the past eighteen months and is expected to continue to do so.   So, there has not been a shortage of topics to address; instead, the challenge has been selecting which topics to address.

Thanks for noticing us!  We’ve more than doubled our readership since the first six month period, had two of our biggest “hit count” days in the last month and have more than quintupled our subscriber base since those first six months!  We 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.  And, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic!

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, Atkinson-Baker (depo.com), Litigation Support Technology & News, Next Generation eDiscovery Law & Tech Blog, InfoGovernance Engagement Area, Justia Blawg Search, Learn About E-Discovery, Ride the Lightning, Litigation Support Blog.com, ABA Journal, Law.com 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!

As we’ve done in the past, 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!

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

eDiscovery Trends: Sedona Conference Provides Guidance for Judges

eDiscovery Trends: Economy Woes Not Slowing eDiscovery Industry Growth

eDiscovery Law: Model Order Proposes to Limit eDiscovery in Patent Cases

eDiscovery Case Law: Court Rules 'Circumstantial Evidence' Must Support Authorship of Text Messages for Admissibility

eDiscovery Best Practices: Cluster Documents for More Effective Review

eDiscovery Best Practices: Could This Be the Most Expensive eDiscovery Mistake Ever?

eDiscovery 101: Simply Deleting a File Doesn’t Mean It’s Gone

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

eDiscovery Best Practices: Production is the “Ringo” of the eDiscovery Phases

eDiscovery Case Law: Court Grants Adverse Inference Sanctions Against BOTH Sides

eDiscovery Trends: ARMA International and EDRM Jointly Release Information Governance White Paper

eDiscovery Trends: The Sedona Conference International Principles

eDiscovery Trends: Sampling within eDiscovery Software

eDiscovery Trends: Small Cases Need Love Too!

eDiscovery Case Law: Court Rules Exact Search Terms Are Limited

eDiscovery Trends: DOJ Criminal Attorneys Now Have Their Own eDiscovery Protocols

eDiscovery Best Practices: Perspective on the Amount of Data Contained in 1 Gigabyte

eDiscovery Case Law: Computer Assisted Review Approved by Judge Peck in New York Case

eDiscovery Case Law: Not So Fast on Computer Assisted Review

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 History: A Look Back at Zubulake
 

Yesterday, we discussed a couple of cases within a month’s time where the New York Appellate Division has embraced the federal standards of Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 FRD 212.  Those of us who have been involved in litigation support and discovery management for years are fully aware of the significance of the Zubulake case and its huge impact on discovery of electronic data.  Even if you haven’t been in the industry for several years, you’ve probably heard of the case and understand that it’s a significant case.  But, do you understand just how many groundbreaking opinions resulted from that case?  For those who aren’t aware, let’s take a look back.

The plaintiff, Laura Zubulake, filed suit against her former employer UBS Warburg, alleging gender discrimination, failure to promote, and retaliation. Southern District of New York Judge Shira Sheindlin's rulings in this case are the most often cited in the area of electronic discovery, and were issued prior to the 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That’s somewhat like establishing laws before the Ten Commandments!  The important opinions related to eDiscovery are commonly known as Zubulake I, Zubulake III, Zubulake IV and Zubulake V.  Here is a summary of each of those opinions:

Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, 217 F.R.D. 309 (Zubulake I) and Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, 216 F.R.D. 280 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (Zubulake III)

The plaintiff argued that key evidence was located in various emails exchanged among employees of UBS, the defendant. Initially, the defendant produced about 350 pages of documents, including approximately 100 pages of email, but the plaintiff produced approximately 450 pages of email correspondence on her own. To address the discrepancy, the plaintiff requested for UBS to locate the documents that existed in backup tapes and other archiving media.

The defendant, arguing undue burden and expense, requested the court to shift the cost of production to the plaintiff, citing Rowe Entertainment v. The William Morris Agency, 205 F.R.D. 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). In May 2003, the court ruled stating that whether the production of documents is unduly burdensome or expensive "turns primarily on whether it is kept in an accessible or inaccessible format". The court determined that the issue of accessibility depends on the media on which data are stored. It described five categories of electronic media, as follows:

  1. Online data, including hard disks;
  2. Near-line data, including optical disks;
  3. Offline storage, such as magnetic tapes;
  4. Backup tapes;
  5. Fragmented, erased and damaged data.

The last two categories were considered inaccessible as they were not readily available and thus subject to cost-shifting. Discussing the Rowe decision, the court concluded that it needed modification and created a new seven factor balance test for cost-shifting:

  1. The extent to which the request is specifically tailored to discover relevant information;
  2. The availability of such information from other sources;
  3. The total cost of production, compared to the amount in controversy;
  4. The total cost of production, compared to the resources available to each party;
  5. The relative ability of each party to control costs and its incentive to do so;
  6. The importance of the issues at stake in the litigation; and
  7. The relative benefits to the parties of obtaining the information.

The defendant was ordered to produce, at its own expense, all responsive email existing on its servers, optical disks, and five backup tapes as selected by the plaintiff. The court would only conduct a cost-shifting analysis after the review of the contents of the backup tapes.

In July 2003, Zubulake III applied the cost-shifting test outlined in Zubulake I based on the sample recovery of data from five backup tapes.  After the results of the sample restoration, both parties wanted the other to fully pay for the remaining backup email. The sample cost the defendant about $19,003 for restoration but the estimated costs for production was $273,649, including attorney and paralegal review costs. After applying the seven factor test, it determined that the defendant should account for 75 percent of the restoration and searching costs, excluding attorney review costs.

Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (Zubulake IV)

During the restoration effort, the parties discovered that some backup tapes were no longer available. The parties also concluded that relevant emails created after the initial proceedings had been deleted from UBS's email system and were only accessible on backup tapes. The plaintiff then sought an order requiring UBS to pay for the total costs of restoring the remaining backup tapes and also sought an adverse inference instruction against UBS and the costs for re-deposing some individuals required because of the destruction of evidence.

In October 2003, Judge Scheindlin found that the defendant had a duty to preserve evidence since it should have known that it would be relevant for future litigation. However, at the time, she concluded that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the lost evidence supported the adverse inference instruction claim. But, she did order the defendant to cover the costs as claimed by the plaintiff.

Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, 2004 WL 1620866 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2004) (Zubulake V)

In July 2004, Judge Scheindlin ruled that UBS had failed to take all necessary steps to guarantee that relevant data was both preserved and produced, and granted the plaintiff's motion for adverse inference instruction sanctions, sought in Zubulake IV, due to the deleted evidence (emails and tapes) and inability to recover key documents during the course of the case.

The court also indicated that defense counsel was partly to blame for the document destruction because it had failed in its duty to locate and preserve relevant information. In addressing the role of counsel in litigation, the court stated that "[c]ounsel must take affirmative steps to monitor compliance so that all sources of discoverable information are identified and searched" by ensuring all relevant documents are discovered, retained, and produced and that litigators must guarantee that relevant documents are preserved by instituting a litigation hold on key data, and safeguarding archival media.

In the final instructions to the jury Judge Scheindlin instructed in part, "[i]f you find that UBS could have produced this evidence, the evidence was within its control, and the evidence would have been material in deciding facts in dispute in this case, you are permitted, but not required, to infer that the evidence would have been unfavorable to UBS." In addition, monetary sanctions were awarded to the plaintiff for reimbursement of costs of additional re-depositions and of the motion leading to this opinion, including attorney fees. The jury found in the plaintiff’s favor on both claims awarding compensatory and punitive awards totaling $29.2 million.

Judge Scheindlin’s opinions in Zubulake, including definitions of accessible and inaccessible data, the seven factor balance test for cost shifting and definition of counsel’s obligation for preserving data, have been referenced in numerous cases since and have provided guidance to organizations preparing for litigation.  For any of you who may not have fully understood the significance of the case, I hope this look back was helpful.

So, what do you think?  Did you learn something new about Zubulake?  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 Case Law: The Zubulake Rules of Civil Procedure
 

As noted in Law Technology News (N.Y. Appellate Division Continues to Press 'Zubulake' EDD Standard) recently, the New York Appellate Division has embraced the federal standards of Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 FRD 212 in two case rulings within a month’s time.

In Voom HD Holdings v. EchoStar Satellite LLC, 600292/08, the decision, written by Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, was the first by a New York state appellate court to apply the standard for spoliation of electronic evidence applied by Judge Shira Scheindlin in Zubulake in 2003.  As defined by Judge Scheindlin, the Zubulake standard asserts that "once a party reasonably anticipates litigation, it must suspend its routine document retention/destruction policy and put in place a 'litigation hold' to ensure the preservation of relevant documents."

The case relates to a 2005 contract dispute between EchoStar and Cablevision subsidiary Voom HD Holdings, within which Voom agreed to provide EchoStar rights to broadcast Voom's programming.  Once the case was filed by Voom in February 2008, EchoStar put a litigation hold in place, instructing employees to save anything that they deemed potentially relevant to the litigation, but did not extend this hold to stopping automatic deletion of eMails from EchoStar's computers until four months later in June 2008.

Voom moved for spoliation sanctions against EchoStar for failing to preserve its eMails and Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Richard Lowe granted the motion, citing Zubulake, finding that EchoStar should have put in place a litigation hold (including a stop to automatic deletion of e-mails) in June 2007, when its corporate counsel sent Voom a letter containing a notice of breach, a demand and an explicit reservation of rights (i.e., reasonably anticipated litigation).  Therefore, EchoStar was given an adverse inference sanction (they had also received a similar sanction in 2005 in Broccoli v. EchoStar Communications Corp., 229 FRD 506).

EchoStar appealed and requested the appellate court to adopt a rule that a company must preserve documents when litigation is pending or when it has "notice of a specific claim."  However, that argument was rejected by The First Department, which ruled that “EchoStar and amicus's approach would encourage parties who actually anticipate litigation, but do not yet have notice of a 'specific claim' to destroy their documents with impunity” and upheld the sanction.

In U.S. Bank National Association v. GreenPoint Mortgage Funding Inc., 600352/09, the First Department held that the producing party should bear the initial costs of "searching for, retrieving and producing discovery," but that lower courts may permit cost shifting based on the factors set forth in Zubulake.  The case was filed by U.S. Bank, NA (indenture trustee for the insurers and holders of the mortgage-backed notes issued by GreenPoint Mortgage Funding Inc., a now defunct mortgage lender specializing in "no-doc" and "low-doc" loans) against GreenPoint.

U.S. Bank served its first document production request on GreenPoint along with its original complaint; however, GreenPoint did not produce the requested documents.  Instead, they moved for a protective order arguing that U.S. Bank should pay the costs associated with its document requests including the cost of attorney review time for confidentiality and privilege assertions.  The court upheld GreenPoint's argument that the "party seeking discovery bears the costs incurred in its production" but rejected GreenPoint's request for U.S. Bank to also bear the attorney costs for privilege and confidentiality determinations.

Upon appeal, the First Department reversed the lower court's conclusion that the requesting party bear the cost of production, finding that, per the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Zubulake, the producing party should “bear the cost of the searching for, retrieving, and producing documents, including electronically stored information.”  In the February 28 ruling, Justice Rolando Acosta wrote that the court was “persuaded that Zubulake should be the rule in this Department.”  However, the court also ruled that the lower court could order cost shifting under CPLR Article 31 between the parties by considering the seven factors set forth in Zubulake.

What are those seven factors?  Tune in tomorrow, when we will provide a refresher to the Zubulake case and its various opinions!

So, what do you think?  Is the Zubulake standard appropriate for these two cases?  Is it appropriate for cases in general?  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 Case Law: eDiscovery Violations Leave Delta Holding the Bag
 

In the case In re Delta/AirTran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litig., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13462, 41-43 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 3, 2012), U.S. District Judge Timothy Batten ordered Delta to pay plaintiff attorney’s fees and costs for eDiscovery issues in consolidated antitrust cases claiming Delta and AirTran Holdings, Inc. conspired to charge customers $15 to check their first bag. Noting that there was a “huge hole” in Delta’s eDiscovery process, Judge Batten reopened discovery based on defendants’ untimely production of records and indications that there was overwriting of backup tapes, inconsistencies in deposition testimony and documents, and neglect in searching and producing documents from hard drives.

Plaintiffs asserted that Delta did not conduct a reasonable inquiry to confirm its implicit representations that (1) all of the relevant hard drives had been processed, and (2) there were no missing back-up tapes. Arguing that Delta should have ensured that all sources of discoverable information were identified and searched and searched in the evidence locker, Plaintiffs contended that Delta falsely certified that its discovery responses were correct and complete. As a result, Plaintiffs contended that the case had been “unnecessarily delayed and its costs unnecessarily increased, and the fact that Delta is now producing these documents is immaterial”.

The Court agreed, noting:

“The Court finds that Delta did not conduct a reasonable inquiry. With respect to the collected but unsearched hard drives, Delta has not substantially justified its failure to ensure the drives were run through Clearwell and searched back in 2009. While its counsel did email {Delta’s IT Group} CSIRT a list of custodians whose hard drives should have been loaded onto Clearwell, CSIRT did not respond with confirmation that each listed person’s drive was on the system; CSIRT only stated that files were identified by “user employee id, not by name.” Delta has not shown that it ever confirmed with CSIRT that each hard drive that was supposed to be run through Clearwell actually had been. This oversight is a huge hole in Delta’s electronic discovery process, and Delta has not adequately explained why it did not ensure in 2009 that every collected hard drive was actually processed through Clearwell and searched.”

Judge Batten determined that Delta had violated FRCP 26(g) early disclosure requirements and failed to supplement discovery, justifying sanctions under FRCP 37(c)(1). Ruling that Delta needed to pay plaintiffs’ fees and costs in bringing the discovery motions and for extended discovery activities, Judge Batten strongly suggested that both sides meet and confer to attempt to agree to those fees and costs.  However, Judge Batten found that Delta would not be sanctioned with the exclusion of the late production, because Delta: 1) Informed the Court and Plaintiffs after they discovered the issue; 2) Requested the Court suspend the case schedule; and 3) There was no evidence the Defendants willfully withheld the discovery.

So, what do you think?  Were the sanctions justified?  Or should more sanctions have been applied?  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.