Close
Enter your
text here

Spoliation

eDiscovery Case Law: Burn Your Computer and the Court Will Burn You
 

In Evans v. Mobile Cnty. Health Dept., No. CA 10-0600-WS-C, (S.D. Ala. Jan. 24, 2012), Alabama Magistrate Judge William Cassady granted a motion for sanctions, including an adverse inference instruction, where the plaintiff had burned and destroyed her computer that she used during the time she claimed she was harassed.

Evans sued the Mobile County Health Department alleging reverse discrimination. The court entered a scheduling order that instructed Evans to preserve all relevant information. In discovery, the health department asked Evans for all documents, including electronically stored information (ESI), related to her claims.

Initially, Evans did not produce any documents in response to the defendant's request, but at her deposition, she produced a small number of documents and admitted that she had others, including e-mails. After her deposition, the defendant renewed its request for Evans to produce all ESI in her possession and asked to inspect her personal computer. When the plaintiff did not comply, the defendant filed a motion to compel.

After the motion was filed, Evans' counsel told the defendant that Evans had destroyed her computer. Evans explained that her computer crashed about eight months after her complaint was filed. When she sought help from computer experts, who told her to buy another computer, she burned her computer to destroy the personal information it contained due to the "threat of identity theft." She then bought a new computer. The defendant filed a motion for sanctions and sought dismissal of the case.

Judge Cassady granted the defendant's motion to compel, finding that the plaintiff's claims that she had produced all relevant ESI difficult to believe in light of her deposition testimony and her other discovery violations. Accordingly, Judge Cassady required Evans to produce e-mails from her gmail account and a notebook she referenced in her deposition that contained relevant evidence. The plaintiff also had to produce her new computer for inspection and pay for the defendant's fees and costs in bringing the motion.

Judge Cassady also granted defendant's request for sanctions. In determining the appropriate punishment, he looked first to Eleventh Circuit law, but the court had not set forth specific guidelines for the imposition of sanctions. Therefore, Judge Cassady applied Alabama state law, since it was consistent with general federal spoliation standards. Alabama law requires courts to consider five factors in analyzing a request for sanctions: "(1) the importance of the evidence destroyed; (2) the culpability of the offending party; (3) fundamental fairness; (4) alternative sources of the information obtainable from the evidence destroyed; and (5) the possible effectiveness of other sanctions less severe than dismissal."

Judge Cassady found that Evans had destroyed the evidence in bad faith: her culpability was "excessively high." However, the judge stopped short of dismissing the case. Since the defendant could still defend itself against Evans' allegations, the magistrate judge decided that the court would give the jury an adverse inference instruction at trial. It also awarded defendant its attorneys' fees and costs for the motion.

So, what do you think?  Should the case have been dismissed or were the sanctions sufficient?  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).

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: Appeals Court Decides Spoliation Finding For Not Producing Originals is Bull
 

Including yesterday’s post, this seems to be the week for Third Circuit appeal cases…

In Bull v. UPS Inc., No. 10-4339 (3d Cir. Jan. 4, 2012), the Third Circuit court conceded that “producing copies in instances where the originals have been requested may constitute spoliation if it would prevent discovering critical information”.  However, it found that in this case, the District Court erred in finding that spoliation had occurred and in imposing a sanction of dismissal with prejudice.

During a jury trial of a claim of disability discrimination under New Jersey law, the plaintiff (a former UPS employee) testified about two notes that she received from her doctor and faxed to UPS, regarding her neck and shoulder injury. When UPS challenged the authenticity of those notes and sought to block the admission of the faxed copies, the employee's attorney indicating that the original notes no longer existed.  However, the plaintiff testified during examination that she actually still had originals at home.  As a result, the District Court declared a mistrial and encouraged the defendant to file a motion for sanctions.  The plaintiff produced the original doctor’s notes to the court and after considering defendant’s motion for sanctions, the District Court invoked its authority and ordered the case dismissed with prejudice.  Plaintiff appealed.

After carefully examining the record and determining that there was insufficient evidence that the employee intentionally withheld the original notes, the Third Circuit reversed the sanctions, finding doubt whether or not UPS ever properly requested the original documents; and if so, whether plaintiff's counsel ever communicated those requests.

However, the Third Circuit court recognized, in footnote, a “growing concern not implicated in this case”:

“This highlights a growing concern for us that is not directly implicated in this case.  As electronic document technology progresses, the concept of an “original” document is becoming more abstract.  Moving from the more easily distinguishable photocopy or facsimile to documents created, transmitted and stored in an electronic form means that it will be increasingly difficult to ascertain where the boundary of an objectively reasonable duty to preserve such documents lies.  There are—and increasingly will be—circumstances in which the foreseeability of a duty to preserve the information contained in a particular document is distinguishable—under an objective analysis—from the need to preserve that information in its “original” form or format.  Indeed, arriving at a common understanding of what an “original” is in this context is challenging enough.  Although it does, and always will rest with the courts to preserve the distinction between an objectively foreseeable duty and actual knowledge of such a duty, there is a concomitant obligation that counsel must assume to clearly and precisely articulate the need for parties to search for, maintain, and—where necessary—produce “original” or source documents.  This case gives us one more opportunity to highlight our position that clarity in communications from counsel that establish a record of a party's actual knowledge of this duty will ensure that this technology-driven issue does not consume an unduly large portion of the court's attention in future litigation.”

So, what do you think?  Should the sanctions have been reversed?  Or should the producing party be required to produce originals whether they were clearly requested or not?  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 Year in Review: eDiscovery Case Law, Part 4
 

As we noted the past three days, eDiscovery Daily has published 65 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 50 unique cases!  Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to discovery of social media.  One final set of cases to review.

We grouped those cases into common subject themes and have been reviewing them over the next few posts.  Perhaps you missed some of these?  Now is your chance to catch up!

SANCTIONS / SPOLIATION

Behold the king!  I’ll bet that you won’t be surprised that the topic with the largest number of case law decisions (by far!) related to eDiscovery are those related to sanctions and spoliation issues.  Late in 2010, eDiscovery Daily reported on a Duke Law Journal article that indicated back then that sanctions were at an all-time high and the number of cases with sanction awards remains high.

Of the 50 cases we covered this past year, over a third of them (17 total cases) related to sanctions and spoliation issues.  Here they are.  And, as you’ll see by the first case (and a few others), sanctions requested are not always granted.  Then again, sometimes both sides get sanctioned!

No Sanctions for Scrubbing Computers Assumed to be Imaged.  In this case, data relevant to the case was lost when computers were scrubbed and sold by the defendants with the permission of the court-appointed Receiver, based on the Receiver’s mistaken belief that all relevant computers had been imaged and instruction to the defendants to scrub all computers before selling.  Because of the loss of this data, defendants filed a motion for spoliation sanctions for what they described as “the FTC’s bad-faith destruction of Defendants’ computer systems.”  Was the motion granted?

Spoliate Evidence, Don’t Go to Jail, but Pay a Million Dollars.  Defendant Mark Pappas, President of Creative Pipe, Inc., was ordered by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm to "be imprisoned for a period not to exceed two years, unless and until he pays to Plaintiff the attorney's fees and costs". However, ruling on the defendants’ appeal, District Court Judge Marvin J. Garbis declined to adopt the order regarding incarceration, stating it was not "appropriate to Order Defendant Pappas incarcerated for future possible failure to comply with his obligation to make payment…". So, how much was he ordered to pay?  Now we know.  That decision was affirmed here.

Deliberately Produce Wrong Cell Phone, Get Sanctioned.  In this case, the plaintiff originally resisted production of a laptop and a cell phone for examination, but ultimately produced a laptop and cell phone. The problem with that production? After examination, it was determined that neither device was in use during the relevant time period and the actual devices used during that time frame were no longer in plaintiff’s possession. When requested to explain as to why this was not disclosed initially, the plaintiff’s attorney explained that he was torn between his “competing duties” of protecting his client and candor to the court.  Really?

Destroy Data, Pay $1 Million, Lose Case.  A federal judge in Chicago has levied sanctions against Rosenthal Collins Group LLC and granted a default judgment to the defendant for misconduct in a patent infringement case, also ordering the Chicago-based futures broker's counsel to pay "the costs and attorneys fees incurred in litigating this motion" where plaintiff’s agent modified metadata related to relevant source code and wiped several relevant disks and devices prior to their production and where the court found counsel participated in "presenting misleading, false information, materially altered evidence and willful non-compliance with the Court’s orders."

Conclusion of Case Does Not Preclude Later Sanctions.  In this products liability case that had been settled a year earlier, the plaintiff sought to re-open the case and requested sanctions alleging the defendant systematically destroyed evidence, failed to produce relevant documents and committed other discovery violations in bad faith. As Yogi Berra would say, “It ain’t over ‘til it’s over”.

Written Litigation Hold Notice Not Required.  The Pension Committee case was one of the most important cases of 2010 (or any year, for that matter). So, perhaps it’s not surprising that it is starting to become frequently cited by those looking for sanction for failure to issue a written litigation hold. In this case, the defendant cited Pension Committee, arguing that plaintiff’s failure to issue a written litigation hold and subsequent failure to produce three allegedly relevant emails allowed for a presumption that relevant evidence was lost, thereby warranting spoliation sanctions.  Was the court’s ruling consistent with Pension Committee?

No Sanctions Ordered for Failure to Preserve Backups.  A sanctions motion has been dismissed by the U.S. District Court of Texas in a recent case involving electronic backups and email records, on the grounds that there was no duty to preserve backup tapes and no bad faith in overwriting records.

Discovery Violations Result in Sanctions Against Plaintiff and Counsel.  Both the plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel have been ordered to pay sanctions for discovery abuses in a lawsuit in Washington court that was dismissed with prejudice on June 8, 2011.

Meet and Confer is Too Late for Preservation Hold.  A US District court in Indiana ruled on June 28 in favor of a motion for an Order to Secure Evidence in an employment discrimination lawsuit. The defendant had given the plaintiff reason to believe that emails and other relevant documents might be destroyed prior to Rule 26(f) meeting between the parties or Rule 16(b) discovery conference with the court. As a result, the plaintiff formally requested a litigation hold on all potentially relevant documents, which was approved by US Magistrate Judge Andrew Rodovich.

Court Orders Sanctions in Response to "Callous and Careless Attitude" of Defendant in Discovery.  A Special Master determined that multiple discovery failures on the part of the defendant in an indemnity action were due to discovery procedures "wholly devoid of competence, yet only once motivated by guile". Accordingly, the court ordered sanctions against the defendant and also ordered the defendant to pay all costs associated with its discovery failures, including plaintiff's attorney fees and costs.

Court Upholds Sanctions for Intentional Spoliation of Unallocated Space Data.  The Supreme Court of Delaware recently upheld the sanctions against the defendant for wiping the unallocated space on his company’s computer system, despite a court order prohibiting such destruction. In this case, Arie Genger, CEO of Trans-Resources, Inc., argued that sanctions against him were unreasonable and made a motion for the court to overturn its previous decision regarding spoliation of discovery materials. Instead, after due process, the court upheld its earlier decision.

Sanctions for Spoliation, Even When Much of the Data Was Restored.  A Virginia court recently ordered sanctions against the defendant in a case of deliberate spoliation of electronic discovery documents. In this case, the defendant was found to have committed spoliation "in bad faith" in a manner that constituted a "violation of duty… to the Court and the judicial process."

"Untimely" Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation Denied.  A recent ruling by the US District Court of Tennessee has denied a motion for sanctions for spoliation on the grounds that the motion was "untimely." In this case, the plaintiff argued that the defendants' admitted failure to preserve evidence "warrants a harsh penalty," but the court found in favor of the defense that the motion was untimely.

Defendant Sanctioned for Abandonment and Sale of Server; Defendants' Counsel Unaware of Spoliation.  An Illinois District Court ordered heavy sanctions against the defense for spoliation "willfully and in bad faith" of documents stored on a server, in a case revolving around damages sought for breach of loan agreements.

Facebook Spoliation Significantly Mitigates Plaintiff’s Win.  In this case with both social media and spoliation issues, monetary sanctions were ordered against the plaintiff and his counsel for significant discovery violations. Those violations included intentional deletion of pictures on the plaintiff’s Facebook page as instructed by his Counsel as well as subsequent efforts to cover those instructions up, among others.

Lilly Fails to Meet its eDiscovery Burden, Sanctions Ordered.  In this case, a Tennessee District court found that “Lilly failed to take reasonable steps to preserve, search for, and collect potentially relevant information, particularly electronic data, after its duty to preserve evidence was triggered by being served with the complaint.” As a result, the court ordered sanctions against Lilly. How far did the court go with those sanctions?

Court Grants Adverse Inference Sanctions Against BOTH Sides.  Have you ever seen the video where two boxers knock each other out at the same time? That’s similar to what happened in this case. In this case, the court addressed the parties’ cross motions for sanctions, ordering an adverse inference for the defendants’ failure to preserve relevant video surveillance footage, as well as an adverse inference for the plaintiff’s failure to preserve relevant witness statements. The court also awarded defendants attorneys’ fees and costs and ordered re-deposition of several witnesses at the plaintiff’s expense due to other plaintiff spoliation findings.

Next week, we will begin looking ahead at 2012 and expected eDiscovery trends for the coming year.

So, what do you think?  Of all of the cases that we have recapped over the past four days, which case do you think was the most significant?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Have you ever seen the video where two boxers knock each other out at the same time?  That’s similar to what happened in this case.

In Patel v. Havana Bar, Restaurant & Catering, No. 10-1383, (E.D. Pa. Dec. 5, 2011), a case of dueling claims of spoliation, the court imposed sanctions against both parties for failing uphold their duty to preserve relevant evidence.

The plaintiff was attending an engagement party when he fell from a second floor loft overlooking the dance floor. Whether the plaintiff fell due to intoxication or whether he intentionally jumped was a matter in dispute. During discovery, the parties filed cross-motions seeking sanctions for discovery violations.

The bar's video system recorded the evening's events, but the bar owner failed to preserve the recording. He attempted to copy the video before the system's automatic overwriting erased it, but he did not have the right equipment to make a copy. In addition, the system allowed him to print images from the recording, but he failed to take advantage of this feature. Thus, the court found that spoliation had occurred: even though the defendant took some steps to preserve evidence, his steps were inadequate. Thus, the court imposed an adverse inference sanction against the bar.

Additionally, the defendant sought spoliation sanctions against the plaintiff for failing to preserve statements of witnesses who attended the party. In 2008, the plaintiff's sister-in-law sent a message over Facebook asking attendees to write statements supporting the plaintiff's case that he was not intoxicated and that he was merely jovial. However, in 2010, the sister-in-law again asked attendees for statements via Facebook, this time requesting confirmation that the bar recklessly served the plaintiff alcohol and explaining that she would not use statements that the plaintiff jumped from the second floor. The plaintiff did not share any of the statements with the defendant until defense counsel discovered their existence during a deposition. Then, the plaintiff's counsel turned the 2010 statements over one by one as depositions occurred. The plaintiff never produced any of the 2008 statements, and family members offered conflicting stories as to their whereabouts.

The court imposed a number of sanctions on the plaintiff, finding that his behavior "ran completely afoul of the goals of discovery." The sanctions included an adverse inference sanction for failing to provide the statements. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay for the costs of redeposing several witnesses. Finally, the court awarded the defendants fees and costs "for the time and effort they expended in attempting to obtain discovery that they were entitled to receive."

So, what do you think?  Did they both deserve what they got?  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).

eDiscovery Daily will take a break for the New Years holiday and will return next Tuesday, January 3.  Happy New Year from all of us at Cloudnine Discovery and eDiscovery Daily!

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: Lilly Fails to Meet its eDiscovery Burden, Sanctions Ordered

In Nacco Materials Handling Group, Inc. v. Lilly Co., No. 11-2415 AV, (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 16, 2011), the court required the defendant to bear the costs of discovery where its preservation and collection efforts were “woefully inadequate.” Parties must cooperate and voluntarily preserve, search for, and collect ESI to avoid the imposition of sanctions.

In this case, Nacco, a manufacturer and seller of lift trucks and aftermarket parts, accused Lilly, a former Nacco dealer, of illegally accessing its proprietary, password-secured website on over 40,000 occasions. Nacco asserted a host of claims, including violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, computer trespass, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference with contract and business relations, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.

Nacco filed a motion seeking expedited discovery so that its forensic expert could search Lilly’s computers and determine which computers accessed Nacco’s proprietary information. The expert turned up evidence of inappropriate access on 17 of the 35 computers he examined.

As discovery continued, Nacco also requested the deposition of a 30(b)(6) witness. However, the witness Lilly offered was unprepared to answer questions on the topics outlined in the deposition notice. Based on the witness’s statements in the deposition and evidence found during the forensic examination, Nacco filed a motion to prevent the further spoliation of evidence and sought sanctions.

The court decided that Lilly’s attempts to preserve evidence were “woefully inadequate.” The company “failed to take reasonable steps to preserve, search for, and collect potentially relevant information, particularly electronic data, after its duty to preserve evidence was triggered by being served with the complaint.” Specifically, U.S. Magistrate Judge Diane Vescovo found that the company “failed to timely issue an effective written litigation hold, to take appropriate steps to preserve any existing electronic records, to suspend or alter automatic delete features and routine overwriting features, and to timely and effectively collect ESI.”

The court explained that Lilly sent the litigation hold to seven of its 160 employees without adequate instructions—and the seven did not include the “key players” to the litigation. The company made no further efforts to prevent the deletion of e-mail, data, or backup tapes. Finally, the company apparently “left collection efforts to its employees to search their own computers with no supervision or oversight from management. Lilly did not follow up with its employees to determine what efforts were taken to preserve and collect relevant evidence, and Lilly failed to document any of its search and collection efforts.” Therefore, the court found that Lilly breached its duty to preserve relevant evidence.

After finding the company negligent, the court imposed sanctions against Lilly that included the expense of additional discovery, including the cost of a second 30(b)(6) deposition, the forensic examinations and imaging already complete, the costs of additional analysis of computers of the nine employees who accessed Nacco’s website, and the costs of imaging the computers in its service department. In addition, the court ordered Lilly to pay monetary sanctions equal to plaintiff’s reasonable costs, including attorney’s fees, in bringing the motion.

Finally, the court ordered Lilly to provide an affidavit describing its preservation and collection efforts and certifying that it had suspended its automatic delete functions and preserved backup tapes.

So, what do you think?  Were the sanctions justified? If so, did the court go far enough?  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).

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: Production is the “Ringo” of the eDiscovery Phases
 

Since eDiscovery Daily debuted over 14 months ago, we’ve covered a lot of case law decisions related to eDiscovery.  65 posts related to case law to date, in fact.  We’ve covered cases associated with sanctions related to failure to preserve data, issues associated with incomplete collections, inadequate searching methodologies, and inadvertent disclosures of privileged documents, among other things.  We’ve noted that 80% of the costs associated with eDiscovery are in the Review phase and that volume of data and sources from which to retrieve it (including social media and “cloud” repositories) are growing exponentially.  Most of the “press” associated with eDiscovery ranges from the “left side of the EDRM model” (i.e., Information Management, Identification, Preservation, Collection) through the stages to prepare materials for production (i.e., Processing, Review and Analysis).

All of those phases lead to one inevitable stage in eDiscovery: Production.  Yet, few people talk about the actual production step.  If Preservation, Collection and Review are the “John”, “Paul” and “George” of the eDiscovery process, Production is “Ringo”.

It’s the final crucial step in the process, and if it’s not handled correctly, all of the due diligence spent in the earlier phases could mean nothing.  So, it’s important to plan for production up front and to apply a number of quality control (QC) checks to the actual production set to ensure that the production process goes as smooth as possible.

Planning for Production Up Front

When discussing the production requirements with opposing counsel, it’s important to ensure that those requirements make sense, not only from a legal standpoint, but a technical standpoint as well.  Involve support and IT personnel in the process of deciding those parameters as they will be the people who have to meet them.  Issues to be addressed include, but not limited to:

  • Format of production (e.g., paper, images or native files);
  • Organization of files (e.g., organized by custodian, legal issue, etc.);
  • Numbering scheme (e.g., Bates labels for images, sequential file names for native files);
  • Handling of confidential and privileged documents, including log requirements and stamps to be applied;
  • Handling of redactions;
  • Format and content of production log;
  • Production media (e.g., CD, DVD, portable hard drive, FTP, etc.).

I was involved in a case recently where opposing counsel was requesting an unusual production format where the names of the files would be the subject line of the emails being produced (for example, “Re: Completed Contract, dated 12/01/2011”).  Two issues with that approach: 1) The proposed format only addressed emails, and 2) Windows file names don’t support certain characters, such as colons (:) or slashes (/).  I provided that feedback to the attorneys so that they could address with opposing counsel and hopefully agree on a revised format that made more sense.  So, let the tech folks confirm the feasibility of the production parameters.

The workflow throughout the eDiscovery process should also keep in mind the end goal of meeting the agreed upon production requirements.  For example, if you’re producing native files with metadata, you may need to take appropriate steps to keep the metadata intact during the collection and review process so that the metadata is not inadvertently changed. For some file types, metadata is changed merely by opening the file, so it may be necessary to collect the files in a forensically sound manner and conduct review using copies of the files to keep the originals intact.

Tomorrow, we will talk about preparing the production set and performing QC checks to ensure that the ESI being produced to the requesting party is complete and accurate.

So, what do you think?  Have you had issues with production planning in your cases?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Congress Tackles Costs and Burdens of Discovery
 

Sometimes, it does take an “act of Congress” to get things done.

On December 13, a key subcommittee of the House of Representatives will conduct hearings regarding “The Costs and Burdens of Civil Discovery”.  The 10-member House Constitution Subcommittee led by Chairman Trent Franks (R. AZ) will hear from various witnesses regarding these issues — the first such hearing since the rules were last updated in December 2006.

Since the new rules took effect five years ago, sanctions for discovery violations have increased exponentially. A 2010 study published in the Duke Law Journal (and reported in this blog one year ago today) found that there were more eDiscovery sanction cases (97) and more eDiscovery sanction awards (46) in 2009 than in any prior year – more than in all years prior to 2005 combined!!

The hearings were originally scheduled for earlier this month, on November 16.  According to the Lawyers for Civil Justice web site (which has not yet been updated to reflect the new hearings date), the hearings are expected to cover:

  • Scope and dimensions of the problems with the federal litigation system;
  • Costs and burdens faced by litigants particularly in the areas of preservation and discovery of information;
  • The impact of those costs and burdens on the American economy and the competitiveness of American companies;
  • The magnitude of the cost savings that would better be spent on improving products and services and creating jobs; and
  • Expressions of support for the Judicial Conference Committee on Practice and Procedure’s primary responsibility to develop rule based solutions that would help relieve some of those costs and burdens, increase efficiency, and improve access to the federal court system (more on their recent efforts and meeting here).

Scheduled witnesses include:

  • Rebecca Love Kourlis, former Colorado Supreme Court Justice, now Director of the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System;
  • William H.J. Hubbard, Assistant Professor of Law. University of Chicago Law School;
  • Thomas H. Hill, Senior Executive Counsel, Environmental Litigation & Legal Policy, General Electric Company; and
  • William P. Butterfield, Hausfeld LLP, plaintiff class action counsel.

According to the International Data Corporation (IDC), the amount of digital information created, captured and replicated in the world as of 2002 was 5 exabytes (5 billion gigabytes), rising to 988 exabytes by 2010 (nearly a 20,000% increase)!  As a result, expenses associated with storing, collecting, searching and producing ESI in discovery have skyrocketed and many say that changes to the Federal Rules are inevitable (though some say it is too soon to fully grasp the impact of the 2006 Federal Rules changes).  It will be interesting to see what comes out of the hearings next month.

So, what do you think?  Do you expect major changes to the rules regarding eDiscovery, and if so, what would you like to see changed, and why?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

“Spoliation of evidence” refers to the deliberate destruction of evidence prior to a trial.  It is a rare event in civil litgation.  But, spoliation of evidence was found in a case involving a personal injury lawyer in Virginia.  Lawyer Matthew Murray was ordered to pay $522,000 for instructing his client to remove photos from his Facebook age.  His client was ordered to pay $180,000 for obeying his instructions.  A state district judge issued these sanctions in the case of Lester v. Allied Concrete Co., Nos. CL08-150, CL09-223 (Va. Cir. Ct. Oct. 21, 2011).

Murray was found to have told his client to remove pictures, such as the one of him holding a beer and wearing a t-shirt that said “I ♥ hot moms.”  The client was a recent widower suing about the death of his wife.

In this case, the defendant was able to show via expert testimony that the widower deleted 15 photos from his Facebook account and perhaps a 16th.  The photos were provided to the defendant later, before the trial.  The jury found in favor of Mr. Lester and awarded $10 million.  Subsequent to the trial, the judge ordered that Plaintiff’s counsel provide copies of emails between the lawyer and his client to the court for in camera inspection (i.e., for the judge’s eyes only).  When the district judge ordered production of these emails, he ruled that emails related to Defendant’s request for production were not attorney-client privileged.

This all started when one of the defense lawyers apparently “hacked” into Mr. Lester’s Facebook page via a mutual friend and observed the photos showing Mr. Lester as apparently non too distraught over his wife’s death.

The court found that the plaintiff, Isaiah Lester, lied about his depression and treatment.  The court found that Murray told Lester via email “to clean up” his Facebook page and told the client that “blow-ups” of pictures like the “I [heart] hot moms” photo would cause problems at trial.  Lester deactivated his Facebook page.  A few days later, in responding to discovery requests, the plaintiff said he did not have a Facebook account.  The defendants complained – at this point they knew Lester had or should have a Facebook account.  Murray then asked Lester to reactivate his account.  The plaintiff’s lawyer also provided hard copies of the 16 photos to the defense.

At his subsequent deposition, Mr. Lester lied about what he had done and denied he had deactivated his Facebook account.

Defendants then issued a subpoena duces tecum for emails between Lester and his lawyer for the time period when the request for production was issued.  Plaintiff resisted.  The defense then filed a motion to compel.  The court required a privilege log of the disputed emails.  The judge found the initial privilege log deficient.  When Murray finally produced the incriminating email, he claimed its prior omission was error and blamed the omission on a paralegal, ultimately leading to the sanctions.

So, what do you think?  Were those sanctions fair or were they excessive? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: San Antonio Employment Law Blog.

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

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

This subject came up recently in discussion with one of my clients and since he was confused as to what happens when a file is deleted, I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss the topic on the blog.

Disk drives use an index or table to keep track of where each file begins and ends on the disk.  You may have heard terms such as “FAT” (file allocation table) or NTFS ({Windows} NT File System) – these filing systems enable the file to be retrieved quickly on the drive.  They’re like a “directory” of all of the active files on the disk.  When a file is “deleted” (i.e., actually deleted, not just moved to the Recycle Bin), the data for that file isn’t actually removed from the disk (in most cases).  Instead, the entry pertaining to it is removed from the filing system.  As a result, the area on the disk where the actual data is located becomes unallocated space.

Unallocated space, also known as inactive data or drive free space, is the area of the drive not allocated to active data. On a Windows machine, deleted data is not actually destroyed, but the space on the drive that can be reused to store new information. Until the unallocated space is overwritten with new data, the old data remains.  This data can be retrieved (in most cases) using forensic techniques. On MAC O/S 10.5 and higher, there is an application that overwrites sectors when a file is deleted. This process more securely destroys data, but even then it may be possible to recover data out of unallocated space.

Because the unallocated space on a hard drive or server is that portion of the storage space to which data may be saved, it is also where many applications “temporarily” store files when they are in use. For instance, temporary Internet files are created when a user visits a web page, and these pages may be “cached” or temporarily stored in the unallocated space.  Rebooting a workstation or server can also clear some data from the unallocated space on its drive.

Since computers are dynamic and any computer operation may write data to the drive, it is nearly impossible to preserve data in the unallocated space on the hard drive and that data is not accessible without special software tools. To preserve data from the unallocated space of a hard drive, the data must be forensically collected, which basically copies the entire drive’s contents, including every sector (whether those sectors contain active data or not). Even then, data in the unallocated space may not be complete. Because the unallocated space is used to store new data, writing a new file may overwrite part of a deleted file, leaving only part of that file in the unallocated space.

Nonetheless, “deleted” files have been recovered, collected and produced in numerous lawsuits, despite efforts of some producing parties to destroy that evidence.

So, what do you think?  Have you ever recovered deleted data that was relevant to litigation?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: SEC Orders Its Staff to Cease Document Destruction Pending Policy Review
 

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") recently ordered all of its enforcement staff attorneys to cease the destruction of documents from investigative files after criticism that the SEC wrongfully destroyed thousands of documents associated with high profile enforcement matters, including investigations into Wall Street banks.  The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and the SEC's inspector general are currently examining whether the organization's document destruction policy requires revision. This cease order comes in the wake of information provided by a SEC whistleblower, indicating that the SEC wrongfully destroyed thousands of documents from preliminary investigations referred to as “MUIs” (Matters Under Inquiry).

  • In the past, the SEC would destroy documents pertaining to “MUIs” that had been closed, including cases that never developed into formal investigations as well as those that had been decided.
  • Some of these destroyed documents pertained, either directly or peripherally, to what would later become high profile cases. Among them were documents relevant to the Madoff Ponzi scheme and several Wall Street bank fraud investigations.
  • Although private companies routinely destroy documents and files that are closed or no longer in use, the SEC is subject to federal laws and regulations that require federal agencies to retain more records than a private firm. The SEC has been criticized by members of Congress of violating these laws and avoiding its legal compliance burden, especially where destroyed documents could have proven crucial in later legal cases.
  • As a result, the present controversy has forced the SEC to work with NARA to reconsider its document retention policies and to suspend, for now, destruction of files and documents. Parties are still arguing whether a requirement to retain all documentation distracts resources from the SEC's main objective of preventing, discovering and penalizing those involved in securities fraud.

So, what do you think? Has the SEC failed in a serious way to meet compliance standards, or is this controversy placing undue emphasis on documents that are unlikely to ever be needed? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.