Close
Enter your
text here

Evidence

eDiscovery Case Law: Produced ESI Doesn’t Need to be Categorized, Even When Voluminous

In United States v. Rubin/Chambers, Dunhill Ins. Servs., No. 09 Cr. 1058, (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2011), defendants’ motion to have the Government in a criminal antitrust conspiracy case organize and format its discovery production to indicate which of four categories of collusion each document or electronic file related to was denied. The Government was “under no general obligation to identify or sort Brady material within even an extremely voluminous disclosure.”

Defendants were charged with conspiring to rig bids and fix prices on municipal derivatives. They asked for an order requiring the Government “to produce discrete collections of documents and electronic files that relate to four categories of transactions, and that such production be organized and formatted so as to indicate to which of those four categories each document or electronic file relates.” Defendants contended that the categories correlated to different aspects of the Government’s theory of collusion and that the categorization of overt acts that the Government was expected to prove at trial “would be useful to impeach the testimony of cooperating witnesses who will testify as to Defendants’ intent in entering into the Featured Transactions.”

The court denied defendants’ motion. Brady materials already produced to defendants in mostly searchable format did not have to be produced again “in categorized batches” relating “to transactions with certain characteristics.” The court stated: “Absent prosecutorial misconduct — bad faith or deliberate efforts to knowingly hide Brady material — the Government’s use of ‘open file’ disclosures, even when the material disclosed is voluminous, does not run afoul of Brady.” While the court acknowledged its discretion regarding defendants’ motion, the Government had provided searchable electronic documents, defendants had corporate assistance and could assist in their own defense since they were not being incarcerated before trial, and each defendant was represented by “prominent, sophisticated counsel.” The collapse of the law firm serving as the technical coordinator for the defendants’ discovery review platform “while unfortunate, does not alter the inescapable conclusion here: Defendants are anything but impoverished and certainly not so incapacitated as to warrant shifting such a substantial portion of the burden of preparing their defense to the Government.”

So, what do you think?  Was that an appropriate ruling, given the volume of ESI?  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: Facebook Content Discoverable Yet Again

It seems most, if not all, of the cases these days where discoverability of social media is at issue are being decided by courts in favor of the parties seeking to discover this information.  Here’s another example.

In Largent v. Reed, 2011 WL 5632688, (Pa. C.P. Franklin Co. Nov. 8, 2011) the court ruled that the plaintiff’s Facebook information was discoverable as being relevant and not privileged and ordered the plaintiff to turn over her Facebook login information to the defendant within 14 days, giving the defendant a 21-day window to inspect the plaintiff’s Facebook profile (after which she was allowed to change her password).

In this case, one of the plaintiffs claimed that a motorcycle accident caused by the defendant left her with chronic physical and mental pain. During a deposition of one of the plaintiffs, the defendant learned that she had a Facebook account and had accessed it as recently as the night before the deposition.  The defendant had reason to believe that the plaintiff had posted pictures of herself on Facebook enjoying life with her family as well as a status update about going to the gym. Accordingly, the defendant filed a Motion to Compel, demanding that the plaintiff provide her Facebook username and password to enable the defendant to demonstrate that the plaintiff’s injuries aren’t as bad as she claimed.

The defendant cited two cases where discovery of social network content was granted: Zimmerman v. Weis Markets, Inc., No. CV-09-1535, 2011 WL 2065410 (Pa. Comm. Pl. May 19, 2011) and McMillen v. Hummingbird Speedway, Inc., No. 113-2010 CD (C.P. Jefferson, Sept. 9, 2010).  The plaintiffs responded with two cases where courts denied discovery of Facebook material: Piccolo v. Paterson, No. 2009-4979 (Pa. C.P. Bucks May 6, 2011) and Kennedy v. Norfolk S. Corp., No. 100201437 (Pa. C.P. Phila. Jan 15, 2011).

The court considered the following factors in ruling for the defendant:

  • Relevancy: Since the plaintiff claimed that “she suffers from, among other things, chronic physical and mental pain” and that the defendant claimed that the plaintiff’s “formerly public Facebook account included status updates about exercising at a gym and photographs depicting her with her family that undermine her claim for damages” the court ruled that the information sought by the defendant is “clearly relevant”.
  • Privilege and Privacy: The court noted that there “is no confidential social networking privilege under existing Pennsylvania law” and that there is “no reasonable expectation of privacy in material posted on Facebook”.
  • Stored Communications Act of 1986 (SCA): While the SCA places limits on the government’s ability to compel Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to disclose information about their users, only one court has addressed whether Facebook is an entity covered by the SCA: Crispin v. Christian Audigier Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 52832 (C.D. Calif. May 26, 2010).  In that case, it was ruled that the information being sought directly from Facebook (and other social networking sites) was protected under the SCA, but this court ruled that the SCA does not apply in this case because the plaintiff “is not an entity regulated by the SCA.”
  • Breadth of Discovery Request: The court noted that the plaintiff’s contention that the defendant’s motion is “akin to asking her to turn over all of her private photo albums and requesting to view her personal mail” is “mistaken” as content posted on Facebook is not private.  So, such a request would not “cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense” as the cost to investigate the plaintiff’s Facebook information would be borne by the defendant.

As a result, the court ruled in favor of the defendant and ordered the plaintiff to turn over her Facebook login information to the defendant within 14 days.  Hopefully, the plaintiff doesn’t resort to tampering with the content on their Facebook page.

So, what do you think?  Assuming relevance, should all parties be required to produce social media information? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Happy Thanksgiving from all of us at eDiscovery Daily and CloudNine Discovery!

eDiscovery Trends: Potential ESI Sources Abound in Penn State Case
 

Whether you’re a college football fan or not, chances are you’ve heard about the scandal associated with the allegations of serial child abuse by former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky.  There seems to be new developments almost daily and the scandal has already cost the jobs of the university president, vice president, athletic director and the head football coach, Joe Paterno, who had been head coach since 1965 and on the coaching staff since 1950 (most of us weren’t even born yet!).  Numerous lawsuits seem highly likely to arise as a result of the alleged abuse against a variety of defendants, including the university, individuals alleged to be involved in the abuse and cover-up and also the Second Mile Foundation founded by Sandusky.

Seth Row, an attorney with Parsons Farnell & Grein LLP in Portland (OR), has written an article published in the Association of Certified eDiscovery Specialists (ACEDS) web site providing a detailing of potential sources of ESI that may be relevant in the case.  The article illustrates the wide variety of sources that might be responsive to the litigation.  Here are some of the sources cited by Row:

  • Videotape of entry and exit from the athletic facilities at Penn State, to which Paterno gave Sandusky access after the latter resigned in 1999;
  • Entry/exit logs, which are likely housed in a database if keycards were used, for the Lasch Football Building, where abuse was allegedly witnessed
  • Phone records of incoming and outgoing calls;
  • Electronic rosters of football players, coaches, staff, student interns, and volunteers affiliated with the Penn State football program over time;
  • The personal records of these individuals, including telephone logs, internet search histories, email accounts, medical and financial records, and related information created over time;
  • University listservs;
  • Internet forums – a New York Times article reported last week that a critical break in the investigation came via a posting on the Internet, mentioning that a Penn State football coach might have seen something ugly, but kept silent;
  • Maintenance logs maintained by the two custodial employees who allegedly witnessed abuse;
  • Identities of all media beat reporters who covered the Penn State football team;
  • Passenger and crew manifests for all chartered flights of the Penn State football team in which Sandusky was a passenger;
  • Sandusky's credit card records to document meals and outings where he may have been accompanied by victims, and records of gifts he purchased for them;
  • All records of the Second Mile Foundation identifying boys who participated in its programs, as well as the names of donors and officers, directors and staff;
  • Paper record equivalents of this ESI that were produced in the 1990s before electronic recordkeeping became prevalent;
  • All electronic storage and computing devices owned or maintained by Sandusky, Paterno and other central figures in the scandal, including cell phones, personal computers, tablet computers, flash drives, and related hardware.

With such a wide variation of potential custodians and time frames, it will be difficult to quickly narrow down the potential ESI sources.  As the author points out, it seems likely that Penn State has already locked down its records retention policies throughout the university.  They certainly would seem to have a reasonable expectation of litigation.  Investigators and attorneys will likely be racing against time to identify as many other parties as possible with potentially responsive ESI.

So, what do you think?  Have you been involved in litigation with such a wide distribution of potentially responsive ESI?  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 Best Practices: Could This Be the Most Expensive eDiscovery Mistake Ever?
 

Many of you have Android phones.  I do, as well.  As you may know, Android is Google’s operating system for phones and Android phones have become extraordinarily popular.

However, as noted in this Computerworld UK article, it may be a failure in searching that ironically may cost Google big time in its litigation with Oracle over the Android operating system.

Google is currently involved in a lawsuit with Oracle over license fees associated with Java.  Oracle acquired Java when it purchased Sun Microsystems and many companies license Java.  Java forms a critical part of Google’s Android operating system and Google has leveraged free Android to drive mobile phone users to their ecosystem and extremely profitable searches and advertising.  Android has been so successful for Google that a loss to Oracle could result in billions of dollars in damages.

To cull down a typically large ESI population, Google turned to search technology to help identify potentially responsive and potentially privileged files.  Unfortunately for Google, a key email was produced that could prove damaging to their case.  The email was written by Google engineer Tim Lindholm a few weeks before Oracle filed suit against Google. With Oracle having threatened to sue Google for billions of dollars, Lindholm was instructed by Google executives to identify alternatives to Java for use in Android, presumably to strengthen their negotiating position.

"What we've actually been asked to do (by Larry and Sergey) is to investigate what technical alternatives exist to Java for Android and Chrome," the email reads in part, referring to Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin. "We've been over a bunch of these, and think they all suck. We conclude that we need to negotiate a license for Java under the terms we need."

Lindholm added the words “Attorney Work Product” and sent the email to Andy Rubin (Google’s top Android executive) and Google in-house attorney Ben Lee.  Unfortunately, Lindholm’s computer saved nine drafts of the email while he was writing it – before he added the words and addressed the email to Lee.  Because Lee's name and the words "attorney work product" weren't on the earlier drafts, they weren't picked up by the eDiscovery software as privileged documents, and they were sent off to Oracle's lawyers.

Oracle's lawyers read from the email at two hearings over the summer and Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court in Oakland, California, indicated to Google's lawyers that it might suggest willful infringement of Oracle's patents.  Google filed a motion to "clawback" the email on the grounds it was "unintentionally produced privileged material." Naturally, Oracle objected, and after a three-month legal battle, Alsup refused last month to exclude the document at trial.

How did Google let such a crucial email slip through production?  It’s difficult to say without fully knowing their methodology.  Did they rely too much on technology to identify files for production without providing a full manual review of all files being produced?  Or, did manual review (which can be far from perfect) let the email slip through as well?  Conceivably, organizing the documents into clusters, based on similar content, might have grouped the unsent drafts with the identified “attorney work product” final version and helped to ensure that the drafts were classified as intended.

So, what do you think?  Could this mistake cost Google billions?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

 

eDiscovery Trends: Madoff Ponzi Scheme Case Documents May Be Turned Over to eData Rooms and Special Masters
 

The trustee responsible for coordinating the recovery of assets and data involved in Bernard L. (“Bernie”) Madoff's $65 billion Ponzi fraud investigation is presently seeking to secure special masters and create an "eData room" to ensure that the enormous volume of data accumulated during this worldwide investigation is collected and retained.  For more on the increasing use of special masters to facilitate eDiscovery cases, click here).

Almost three years after Madoff's arrest in December 2008, the massive fraud investigation has now spawned roughly 900 lawsuits worldwide involving 16,000 parties in 30 countries. The number of files and documents related to Madoff's Ponzi scheme is equally astronomical – and as perhaps the most significant fraud case of the decade – or even the century – these documents and lawsuits contain information vital as precedent for future criminal cases.

As a result, trustee Irving Picard has determined to collect all of the ESI related to these cases in a single eData room with the help of special masters that would be appointed by US bankruptcy Judge Burton Lifland.  eData rooms are web-based review platforms that can support centralized access of the ESI in question for all approved parties.

As the use of technology becomes more of a key issue in fraud cases, discovery of ESI associated with that technology is becoming ever more important in the practice of law, making a historic case like Madoff's vital as precedent. In November 2010, Picard created the first "e-discovery room", but the new "eData room" would be a much bigger project, containing all the ESI related in any way to Madoff's Ponzi scheme and making it available through a web-based platform for access and review. This new eData room, proposed in January 2011, would be limited to roughly 100,000 potentially responsive documents from 77 parties associated with a related case in which the defendant (J. Ezra Merkin) demanded production of every subpoenaed document in the initial bankruptcy proceeding as well as depositions in other proceedings.

The prospect of this eData room necessitates a complex series of discovery requests and confidentiality agreements, but Irving has already secured the tacit approval of all but 15 of the 16,000 parties, (large financial institutions, including UBS, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch International, Bank of New York Mellon and Sterling Equities, the investment group chaired by New York Mets owner Fred Wilpon) who objected to the prospect of pooling confidential documents where they could be accessed by thousands of parties including their business competitors. To address those concerns, Picard submitted a revised proposed order in September to exclude certain types of documents as confidential and give producing parties 60 days to object to the inclusion of “highly sensitive commercial information” in the eData room.  It will be interesting to see if the revisions pave the way for full acceptance to implement the eData room.

So, what do you think? Are eData rooms going to become commonplace in complex cases involving eDiscovery? 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.

eDiscovery Horrors! Does This Scare You?
 

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

Although the court declined to re-open the case, it found that defendant had committed discovery abuses, including failing to disclose relevant evidence and failing to issue a litigation hold; therefore, the court ordered the defendant to pay plaintiff an additional $250,000 over the previously agreed settlement amount.  The court further ordered that defendant had thirty days to furnish a copy of the court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order “to every Plaintiff in every lawsuit it has had proceeding against it, or is currently proceeding against it, for the past two years” and issued an additional $500,000 sanction to be “extinguished” upon a showing of compliance.

What about this?

Even though many (but not all) of the documents were recovered (most from backup tape), the court rejected the defendant’s argument that “there can be no spoliation finding because many documents were recovered” and eventually produced, stating: "The fact that technology permits the undoing of spoliation does not change at all the fact that spoliation has occurred."

Or this?

Then, in January of this year, Judge Grimm entered an order awarding a total of $1,049,850.04 in “attorney’s fees and costs associated with all discovery that would not have been un[der]taken but for Defendants' spoliation, as well as the briefings and hearings regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions.”

How about this?

The court concluded based on case history that “emails and text messages are documents and subject to the same requirements for authenticity as non-electronic documents generally” and found that the evidence that the defendant had authored these text messages was absent.

Scary, huh?  If the possibility of sanctions and changing court requirements keep you awake at night, then the folks at eDiscovery Daily will do our best to provide useful information and best practices to enable you to relax and sleep soundly, even on Halloween!

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

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

Happy Halloween!

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

When are text messages admissible in court? Which text messages qualify as evidence, and what does it take to prove authorship of a text message?

A recent opinion from the Pennsylvania Superior Court, Commonwealth v. Koch, No. 1669-MDA-2010, 2011 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2716 (Sept. 16, 2011), addresses these very issues in an old yet new way, perhaps setting the precedent for future cases and opening what seems to be a potential Pandora’s Box of obstacles to the use of text messages as legal evidence.

  • In Commonwealth v. Koch, a transcript of thirteen SMS text messages were submitted by the prosecution and admitted into evidence. Although these text messages had been sent from a cell phone owned by the defendant, defense objected to their admission on the grounds that no evidence substantiated the defendant’s authorship of the text messages in question.
  • In fact, witnesses had testified that other people had been seen using the cell phone. Several of the thirteen text messages referred to the defendant in the third person, which substantiated the defendant’s claim that she had not written or sent the text messages.
  • The court concluded based on case history that “emails and text messages are documents and subject to the same requirements for authenticity as non-electronic documents generally” and found that the evidence that the defendant had authored these text messages was absent.
  • Ruling that the defendant’s ownership of the cell phone was not enough to prove that she had sent the messages in question, the court declared that parties seeking to introduce electronic materials, such as cell phone text messages and email, must be prepared to substantiate their claim of authorship with “circumstantial evidence” that corroborates the sender’s identity. That evidence may come in the form of testimony from the sender or recipient, testimony of witnesses to the creation of the correspondence, or even “contextual clues” in the message itself.

Where written correspondence may be subjected to questioning (e.g., signatures can be forged or letterhead copied), eDiscovery materials that clearly come from a given email account or cell phone source have been historically less open to scrutiny.  However, since cell phones and even email accounts may be shared (or hacked), this could leave room for argument, as in this case, that the correspondence in question did not originate with the party who appears to have sent it.

In one respect, applying the old standard of evidence to new ESI materials, such as text messages might make sense. On the other hand, doing so also opens the door for defense attorneys to use the same tactic to remove text messages and email correspondence from evidence – whether or not they are legitimately relevant in court – based on the extreme challenge of proving the issue of authorship.

So, what do you think? Was the court right in ruling against the admission of these text messages as evidence? Does this decision create more eDiscovery problems than it solves? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.