Collection Archives

eDiscovery Best Practices: Preparing Your 30(b)(6) Witnesses

February 8, 2012

When it comes to questions and potential issues that the receiving party may have about the discovery process of the producing party, one of the most common and direct methods for conducting “discovery about the discovery” is a deposition under Federal Rule 30(b)(6). This rule enables a party to serve a deposition notice on the entity involved in the litigation rather than an individual. The notice identifies the topics to be covered in the deposition, and the entity being deposed must designate one or more people qualified to answer questions on the identified topics.

While those designated to testify may not necessarily have day-to-day responsibility related to the identified topics, they must be educated enough in those issues to sufficiently address them during the testimony. Serving a deposition notice on the entity under Federal Rule 30(b)(6) saves the deposing party from having to identify specific individual(s) to depose while still enabling the topics to be fully explored in a single deposition.

Topics to be covered in a 30(b)(6) deposition can vary widely, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. However, there are some typical topics that the deponent(s) should be prepared to address.

Legal Hold Process: Perhaps the most common area of focus in a 30(b)(6) deposition is the legal hold process as spoliation of data can occur when the legal hold process is unsound and data spoliation is the most common cause of sanctions resulting from the eDiscovery process. Issues to address include:

General description of the legal hold process including all details of that policy and specific steps that were taken in this case to effectuate a hold.
Timing of issuing the legal hold and to whom it was issued.
Substance of the legal hold communication (if the communication is not considered privileged).
Process for selecting sources for legal hold, identification of sources that were eliminated from legal hold, and a description of the rationale behind those decisions.
Tracking and follow-up with the legal hold sources to ensure understanding and compliance with the hold process.
Whether there are any processes in place in the company to automatically delete data and, if so, what steps were taken to disable them and when were those steps taken?

Collection Process: Logically, the next eDiscovery step discussed in the 30(b)(6) deposition is the process for collecting preserved data:

Method of collecting ESI for review, including whether the method preserved all relevant metadata intact.
Chain of custody tracking from origination to destination.

Searching and Culling: Once the ESI is collected, the methods for conducting searches and culling the collection down for review must be discussed:

Method used to cull the ESI prior to review, including the tools used, the search criteria for inclusion in review and how the search criteria was developed (including potential use of subject matter experts to flush out search terms).
Process for testing and refining search terms used.

Review Process: The 30(b)(6) witness(es) should be prepared to fully describe the review process, including:

Methods to conduct review of the ESI including review application(s) used and workflow associated with the review process.
Use of technology to assist with the review, such as clustering, predictive coding, duplicate and near-duplicate identification.
To the extent the process can be described, methodology for identifying and documenting privileged ESI on the privilege log (this methodology may be important if the producing party may request to “claw back” any inadvertently produced privileged ESI).
Personnel employed to conduct ESI review, including their qualifications, experience, and training.

Production Process: Information regarding the production process, including:

Methodology for organizing and verifying the production, including confirmation of file counts and spot QC checks of produced files for content.
The total volume of ESI collected, reviewed, and produced.

Depending on the specifics of the case and discovery efforts, there may be further topics to be addressed to ensure that the producing party has met its preservation and discovery obligations.

So, what do you think? Have you had to prepare 30(b)(6) witnesses for deposition? 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: Fifth Amendment Doesn’t Extend to Encrypted Hard Drives – Or Does It?

January 27, 2012

In the case U.S. v. Fricosu, Colorado district judge Robert Blackburn has ruled that a woman must produce an unencrypted version of her Toshiba laptop's hard drive to prosecutors in a mortgage fraud case for police inspection. The woman, Ramona Fricosu, had argued that the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination protected her from having to disclose the password to her hard drive, which was encrypted using PGP Desktop and seized when investigators served a search warrant on her home.

The day the search warrant was carried, Fricosu spoke with her imprisoned ex-husband Scott (indicted with Fricosu in the case) by phone. The conversation was recorded, and Fricosu implied that relevant information could be found on the encrypted laptop:

Scott: (SC [simultaneous conversation]) oh yeah that’s right it was on your laptop wasn’t it

Ramona: I think so but I’m not sure

Scott: OK

Ramona: yeah cause they kept asking me for passwords and I said, ya know no I just didn’t answer them

Scott: right (SC). Because when you went there you took your laptop

Ramona: yeah I think so I think I did

Scott: and so (SC) it would been on there

Ramona: yeah

Scott: OK

Ramona: and my lawyer said I’m not obligated by law to give them any passwords or anything they need to figure things out for themselves

Based on this conversation, the government sought a warrant under the “All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, requiring Ms. Fricosu to produce the unencrypted contents of the computer.” Fricosu declined, “asserting her privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment”.

In providing his ruling, Judge Blackburn referenced In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Boucher in which child pornography was identified on the defendant's laptop during a border search in Vermont. When the laptop was later seized, it was determined to be password protected. A magistrate judge initially sided with the defendant finding that he could not be compelled to reveal the contents of his mind, which is what the act of producing the password would be. Revising the grand jury’s request to require the defendant to produce, not the password itself, but rather an unencrypted version of the drive, a Vermont District judge granted that request.

With that case as precedent, Judge Blackburn ruled that Fricosu was required to provide the government in this case with an unencrypted copy of the Toshiba laptop computer’s hard drive. However, Judge Blackburn also ruled that the government would be “precluded from using Ms. Fricosu’s act of production of the unencrypted contents of the computer’s hard drive against her in any prosecution”.

Fricosu’s attorney has indicated he plans to appeal the ruling and noted that his client may not even be able to decrypt the hard drive, stating “If that's the case, then we'll report that fact to the court, and the law is fairly clear that people cannot be punished for failure to do things they are unable to do”.

So, what do you think? Should production of the hard drive have been compelled? Does the preclusion from using evidence from the hard drive against her in prosecution address any Fifth Amendment concerns? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Social Tech eDiscovery: Facebook Law Enforcement Policies Revisited

January 25, 2012

One of the very first posts we published on this blog, over 16 months ago, was a post regarding Facebook’s Subpoena Policy, describing and providing a link to Facebook’s Law Enforcement page to request information from Facebook. With numerous cases involving discovery of information on Facebook, (including this one, this one, this one, this one, this one and this one – all just in the past year), it seems appropriate to revisit this page to see if anything has changed.

The first thing that has changed is the link itself. The old link we published 16 months ago no longer takes you to that page – it defaults to the general Facebook help page. So, I had to “go hunting” for the new location for the law enforcement page. It took a few tries, but I did finally find it here. If you prefer your Facebook Law Enforcement information in downloadable document form, the link to the PDF is here.

The page has a lot more information than the old page. Sections include:

US Legal Process Requirements: Notes that Facebook discloses account records solely in accordance with their terms of service and applicable law, including the federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), 18 U.S.C. Sections 2701-2712, which requires a valid subpoena, court order or search warrant to compel disclosure of Facebook content.
International Legal Process Requirements: A Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty request or letter rogatory may be required to compel the disclosure of the contents of an account. More information found here.
Account Preservation: Link to form to request preservation of account records for up to 90 days pending receipt of formal legal requests.
Emergency Requests: Email address for a law enforcement official to obtain an emergency request form in cases “involving imminent harm”.
Child Safety Matters: What to do when requests relate to child exploitation or safety concerns.
Data Retention and Availability: Reiteration that Facebook does “not retain data for law enforcement purposes unless we receive a valid preservation request before a user has deleted that content from our service”, with links to 1) how a Facebook user can request their account to be permanently deleted (with no recovery), 2) Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities and 3) Facebook’s Data Use Policy.
Form of Requests: Information required with requests for information, including 1) name of the issuing authority, badge/ID number of responsible agent, email address from a law-enforcement domain, and direct contact phone number; 2) email address, user ID number or username of the Facebook profile.
User Consent: Instructions for users who have consented to provide their own information to law enforcement officials using Facebook’s Download Your Information feature (previously featured on this blog here).
Notification: What to do if officials believe that notification would jeopardize an investigation.
Testimony: Facebook’s declaration that they do not provide expert testimony support, but if “a special form of certification is required”, the requestor should attach it to the records request.
Cost Reimbursement: Facebook’s statement that they “may seek reimbursement for costs in responding to requests for information as provided by law”, without specifying what those costs might be (which is different than the specific costs stated in the previous page).
Contact Information: To submit records requests via email, snail mail or fax – but only if you’re a law enforcement officer.

So, what do you think? Have you needed to request information from Facebook for litigation purposes? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Our 2012 Predictions

January 12, 2012

Yesterday, we evaluated what others are saying and noted popular eDiscovery prediction trends for the coming year. It’s interesting to identify common trends among the prognosticators and also the unique predictions as well.

But we promised our own predictions for today, so here they are. One of the nice things about writing and editing a daily eDiscovery blog is that it forces you to stay abreast of what’s going on in the industry. Based on the numerous stories we’ve read (many of which we’ve also written about), and in David Letterman “Top 10” fashion, here are our eDiscovery predictions for 2012:

Still More ESI in the Cloud: Frankly, this is like predicting “the Sun will be hot in 2012”. Given the predictions in cloud growth by Forrester and Gartner, it seems inevitable that organizations will continue to migrate more data and applications to “the cloud”. Even if some organizations continue to resist the cloud movement, those organizations still have to address the continued growth in usage of social media sites in business (which, last I checked, are based in the cloud). It’s inevitable.
More eDiscovery Technology in the Cloud As Well: We will continue to see more cloud offerings for eDiscovery technology, ranging from information governance to preservation and collection to review and production. With the need for corporations to share potentially responsive ESI with one or more outside counsel firms, experts and even opposing counsel, cloud based Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) applications are a logical choice for sharing that information effortlessly without having to buy software, hardware and provide infrastructure to do so. Every year at LegalTech, there seems to be a few more eDiscovery cloud providers and this year should be no different.
Self-Service in the Cloud: So, organizations are seeing the benefits of the cloud not only for storing ESI, but also managing it during Discovery. It’s the cost effective alternative. But, organizations are demanding the control of a desktop application within their eDiscovery applications. The ability to load your own data, add your own users and maintain their rights, create your own data fields are just a few of the capabilities that organizations expect to be able to do themselves. And, more providers are responding to those needs. That trend will continue this year.
Technology Assisted Review: This was the most popular prediction among the pundits we reviewed. The amount of data in the world continues to explode, as there were 988 exabytes in the whole world as of 2010 and Cisco predicts that IP traffic over data networks will reach 4.8 zettabytes (each zettabyte is 1,000 exabytes) by 2015. More than five times the data in five years. Even in the smaller cases, there’s simply too much data to not use technology to get through it all. Whether it’s predictive coding, conceptual clustering or some other technology, it’s required to enable attorneys manage the review more effectively and efficiently.
Greater Adoption of eDiscovery Technology for Smaller Cases: As each gigabyte of data is between 50,000 and 100,000 pages, a “small” case of 4 GB (or two max size PST files in Outlook® 2003) can still be 300,000 pages or more. As “small” cases are no longer that small, attorneys are forced to embrace eDiscovery technology for the smaller cases as well. And, eDiscovery providers are taking note.
Continued Focus on International eDiscovery: So, cases are larger and there’s more data in the cloud, which leads to more cases where Discovery of ESI internationally becomes an issue. The Sedona Conference® just issued in December the Public Comment Version of The Sedona Conference® International Principles on Discovery, Disclosure & Data Protection: Best Practices, Recommendations & Principles for Addressing the Preservation & Discovery of Protected Data in U.S. Litigation, illustrating how important an issue this is becoming for eDiscovery.
Prevailing Parties Awarded eDiscovery Costs: Shifting to the courtroom, we have started to see more cases where the prevailing party is awarded their eDiscovery costs as part of their award. As organizations have pushed for more proportionality in the Discovery process, courts have taken it upon themselves to impose that proportionality through taxing the “losers” for reimbursement of costs, causing prevailing defendants to say: “Sue me and lose? Pay my costs!”.
Continued Efforts and Progress on Rules Changes: Speaking of proportionality, there will be continued efforts and progress on changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as organizations push for clarity on preservation and other obligations to attempt to bring spiraling eDiscovery costs under control. It will take time, but progress will be made toward that goal this year.
Greater Price/Cost Control Pressure on eDiscovery Services: In the meantime, while waiting for legislative relief, organizations will expect the cost for eDiscovery services to be more affordable and predictable. In order to accommodate larger amounts of data, eDiscovery providers will need to offer simplified and attractive pricing alternatives.
Big Player Consolidation Continues, But Plenty of Smaller Players Available: In 2011, we saw HP acquire Autonomy and Symantec acquire Clearwell, continuing a trend of acquisitions of the “big players” in the industry. This trend will continue, but there is still plenty of room for the “little guy” as smaller providers have been pooling resources to compete, creating an interesting dichotomy in the industry of few big and many small providers in eDiscovery.

So, what do you think? Care to offer your own predictions? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: 2012 Predictions – By The Numbers

January 11, 2012

With a nod to Nick Bakay, “It’s all so simple when you break things down scientifically.”

The late December/early January time frame is always when various people in eDiscovery make their annual predictions as to what trends to expect in the coming year. I know what you’re thinking – “oh no, not another set of eDiscovery predictions!” However, at eDiscovery Daily, we do things a little bit differently. We like to take a look at other predictions and see if we can spot some common trends among those before offering some of our own (consider it the ultimate “cheat sheet”). So, as I did last year, I went “googling” for 2012 eDiscovery predictions, and organized the predictions into common themes. I found eDiscovery predictions here, here, here, here, here, here and Applied Discovery. Oh, and also here, here and here. Ten sets of predictions in all! Whew!

A couple of quick comments: 1) Not all of these are from the original sources, but the links above attribute the original sources when they are re-prints. If I have failed to accurately attribute the original source for a set of predictions, please feel free to comment. 2) This is probably not an exhaustive list of predictions (I have other duties in my “day job”, so I couldn’t search forever), so I apologize if I’ve left anybody’s published predictions out. Again, feel free to comment if you’re aware of other predictions.

Here are some of the common themes:

Technology Assisted Review: Nine out of ten “prognosticators” (up from 2 out of 7 last year) predicted a greater emphasis/adoption of technological approaches. While some equate technology assisted review with predictive coding, other technology approaches such as conceptual clustering are also increasing in popularity. Clearly, as the amount of data associated with the typical litigation rises dramatically, technology is playing a greater role to enable attorneys manage the review more effectively and efficiently.
eDiscovery Best Practices Combining People and Technology: Seven out of ten “augurs” also had predictions related to various themes associated with eDiscovery best practices, especially processes that combine people and technology. Some have categorized it as a “maturation” of the eDiscovery process, with corporations becoming smarter about eDiscovery and integrating it into core business practices. We’ve had numerous posts regarding to eDiscovery best practices in the past year, click here for a selection of them.
Social Media Discovery: Six “pundits” forecasted a continued growth in sources and issues related to social media discovery. Bet you didn’t see that one coming! For a look back at cases from 2011 dealing with social media issues, click here.
Information Governance: Five “soothsayers” presaged various themes related to the promotion of information governance practices and programs, ranging from a simple “no more data hoarding” to an “emergence of Information Management platforms”. For our posts related to Information Governance and management issues, click here.
Cloud Computing: Five “mediums” (but are they happy mediums?) predict that ESI and eDiscovery will continue to move to the cloud. Frankly, given the predictions in cloud growth by Forrester and Gartner, I’m surprised that there were only five predictions. Perhaps predicting growth of the cloud has become “old hat”.
Focus on eDiscovery Rules / Court Guidance: Four “prophets” (yes, I still have my thesaurus!) expect courts to provide greater guidance on eDiscovery best practices in the coming year via a combination of case law and pilot programs/model orders to establish expectations up front.
Complex Data Collection: Four “psychics” also predicted that data collection will continue to become more complex as data sources abound, the custodian-based collection model comes under stress and self-collection gives way to more automated techniques.

The “others receiving votes” category (three predicting each of these) included cost shifting and increased awards of eDiscovery costs to the prevailing party in litigation, flexible eDiscovery pricing and predictable or reduced costs, continued focus on international discovery and continued debate on potential new eDiscovery rules. Two each predicted continued consolidation of eDiscovery providers, de-emphasis on use of backup tapes, de-emphasis on use of eMail, multi-matter eDiscovery management (to leverage knowledge gained in previous cases), risk assessment /statistical analysis and more single platform solutions. And, one predicted more action on eDiscovery certifications.

Some interesting predictions. Tune in tomorrow for ours!

So, what do you think? Care to offer your own “hunches” from your crystal ball? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Year in Review: eDiscovery Case Law, Part 4

January 6, 2012

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: Plaintiff Not Required to Review Millions of Pages of Unallocated Space

December 28, 2011

While plaintiff “should have known better than to agree to search terms” that arguably resulted in recovery from unallocated space files of 65 million pages of documents for plaintiff to review for privilege, a magistrate judge in I-Med Pharma, Inc. v. Biomatrix, Inc., No. 03-3677 (DRD), (D.N.J. Dec. 9, 2011) properly excused plaintiff from its stipulation to produce such documents after reviewing them for privilege.

Plaintiff alleged that defendants breached a distribution agreement relating to eye-drops after one of the defendants was acquired by another defendant. A stipulation among the parties provided for a keyword search by defendants’ expert of plaintiff’s computer network, servers, and related storage devices using English and French terms, including “claim”, “revenue*”, and “profit*”. The search resulted in over 64 million hits just in unallocated space of plaintiff’s computer systems.

District Judge Dickinson Debevoise affirmed a magistrate judge’s order excusing plaintiff from a privilege review of the estimated equivalent of 65 million documents in the unallocated space that contained an agreed search term. Judge Debevoise stated its concern over the cost of such a review:

“A privilege review of 65 million documents is no small undertaking. Even if junior attorneys are engaged, heavily discounted rates are negotiated, and all parties work diligently and efficiently, even a cursory review of that many documents will consume large amounts of attorney time and cost millions of dollars.”

Judge Debevoise rejected defendant’s suggestion that plaintiff could simply review documents with the word “privileged” and produce everything else:

“Even when dealing with intact files, potentially privileged information may often be found in emails, memoranda, presentations, or other documents that are not explicitly flagged as privileged or confidential. And since the data searched here is likely to contain fragmented or otherwise incomplete documents, it is entirely possible for privileged material to be found without its original identifying information.”

Defendants had not shown that relevant, non-duplicate information likely would be found in the unallocated space, according to the court. Thus, plaintiff should have known better than to agree on the search terms, but requiring a privilege review of the results would not be fair or just. Judge Debevoise added a list of factors that parties should consider in evaluating reasonableness of search terms:

“In evaluating whether a set of search terms are reasonable, a party should consider a variety of factors, including: (1) the scope of documents searched and whether the search is restricted to specific computers, file systems, or document custodians; (2) any date restrictions imposed on the search; (3) whether the search terms contain proper names, uncommon abbreviations, or other terms unlikely to occur in irrelevant documents; (4) whether operators such as "and", "not", or "near" are used to restrict the universe of possible results; (5) whether the number of results obtained could be practically reviewed given the economics of the case and the amount of money at issue.”

So, what do you think? Did common sense prevail or should the plaintiff have been held to the agreement? 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 Trends: Sharon Nelson

December 21, 2011

This is the sixth and final installment of our Holiday Thought Leader Interview series. I interviewed several thought leaders to get their perspectives on various eDiscovery topics.

Today’s thought leader is Sharon Nelson. Sharon is the President of Sensei Enterprises, where she has worked on the front lines of computer forensics and eDiscovery topics that are also discusses on her blog Ride the Lightning. She is a graduate of the Georgetown University Law Center and is the president elect of the Virginia Bar Association.

Last week, I interviewed Sharon’s husband, John Simek, who is vice president of Sensei. John is a technical computer forensics expert, while Sharon provides the legal perspective on eDiscovery issues. Together, they are frequent speakers and authors on computer forensic issues.

As a lawyer, how did you get into the world of computer forensics? What is the role of an attorney within a computer forensics firm?

I stumbled into computer forensics along with my partner John Simek. Peter Greenspun, one of the leading criminal attorneys in Virginia, had a case in 1999 involving electronic evidence and he asked if we could help as experts. That case is still taught by the FBI. It got me thinking that Sensei should expand from information technology to computer forensics – and I knew it was a field that only a true scientist could excel in, so the wannabes of the world would not be able to truly compete. The role of an attorney is to stay up with the law and the cases and render expert advice to both clients and employees – and act as corporate counsel of course.

How has your blogging at Ride the Lightning influenced your legal career?

Within the context of Sensei, I operate as an expert, not as a lawyer, although I retain a separate law office. Certainly Ride the Lightning has helped Sensei’s marketing enormously, which ultimately helps to attract clients. I was honored when RTL was named to the American Bar Association’s Blawg 100 for the second year in a row and also when the Library of Congress asked my permission to archive it and to make it available to scholars and researchers. And it is just plain fun writing it!

Have lawyers begun to grapple with social media issues or are many still in denial?

There are still some lawyers in denial but their numbers are declining. In fact, I organize a lot of CLEs and many of the social media sessions are standing room only. Many lawyers want to learn how to use social media and how to avoid the ethical pitfalls. Things simply go viral in this new e-world. It is amazing how far social media (which includes blogs) extends your reach. Blogs, in particular, tend to attract reporters, which can be really helpful to marketing a law practice.

I believe you are involved in a lot of family law cases and disputes involving individuals. How has social media changed these cases?

It’s a veritable gold mine. People are unbelievably foolish in what they put online. We had a case where the husband was discussing his latest hookup with his lover on his Facebook page. He knew his wife was not his “friend”, but he had forgotten that a mutual acquaintance was his friend and she simply printed out all his postings. It’s not just family law though – social media is particularly helpful in personal injury cases where the Plaintiff who is “wholly disabled” is using a chain saw and dancing a jig (and yes, that’s from a real case). I almost can’t think of an area of law where social media isn’t a treasure trove – law enforcement has wholly embraced it as evidence against criminals who post astonishing admissions online.

As people increasingly live their lives online, do digital records ever really go away? Are we going to be followed around by our digital selves forever?

Some digital records will certainly go away – the problem is that you’ll never know which ones. People forward your communications or preserve them for their own reasons. Your business competitor may be archiving your website and anything that is open on your social media sites. Social media sites let you deactivate your account or delete posts, but that doesn’t help if someone else already has the information. And, indeed, it does not appear that social media sites truly delete your information since law enforcement has been known to get data that was supposedly no longer online. Trusting social media sites to respect your privacy is foolhardy. The only privacy we have is in the sheer volume of data out there – but once someone lasers in on you, your privacy is gone.

On Ride the Lightning, you discuss sanctions and electronic evidence blunders. Is there a common reason why lawyers make mistakes with digital evidence? What are the keys to making the profession smarter about handling computer records?

Education is the key, and we’re slowly getting there, but it is very slow. Most lawyers are technophobic and find it difficult to understand electronic evidence. They really need to call in well-qualified experts early on – that saves the most money because good experts won’t let you spend your money foolishly. As an example, an order to “preserve everything” is nonsensical, but we hear it all the time. If the attorneys on both sides are reasonable and they have good experts, it’s amazing how fast they can come to a strategy that saves everyone time and money. And for heaven’s sake, why not go after the low-hanging fruit first? That might cause the case to settle early before vast sums of money have been expended. You can always go back and do more digging if necessary.

How have you and husband John Simek managed to make a career out of computer forensics and eDiscovery? You seem to be busy with speaking and professional engagements- how do you make it work?

That’s the new world – our offices are in our laptops, so we carry our offices with us as we travel. There is very little that we cannot do remotely. We have fine-tuned the art of entering a hotel room and bringing up the laptops while unpacking our suitcases. People ask us all the time how a husband and wife can run a business and not make each other crazy. We really have a bright line – John makes the technical decisions and I make the legal, business and marketing decisions. We talk across that line, but we respect the line. It works for us – that and being in love of course. We always say that we get paid to play – we don’t know anyone who enjoys coming to work as much as we do. The word retirement is anathema to both of us!

Thanks, Sharon, for participating in the interview!

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

eDiscovery Case Law: Lilly Fails to Meet its eDiscovery Burden, Sanctions Ordered

December 20, 2011

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).

eDiscovery Trends: Joshua Poje

December 19, 2011

This is the fourth of our Holiday Thought Leader Interview series. I interviewed several thought leaders to get their perspectives on various eDiscovery topics.

Today’s thought leader is Joshua Poje. Joshua is a Research Specialist with the American Bar Association’s Legal Technology Resource Center, which publishes the Annual Legal Technology Survey. He is a graduate of DePaul University College of Law and Augustana College.

Why does the American Bar Association produce an annual legal technology survey? Why does legal technology demand special attention?

Technology is inescapable for lawyers today. It's integrated into most aspects of the profession, whether that's communicating with clients, interacting with the courts, or marketing a practice. At this point, if you want to understand how lawyers are practicing, you really have to understand how they're using technology.

That's what we're trying to measure with our survey and that's also the reason we direct our survey questionnaires to practicing attorneys rather than to IT staff or vendors. We aren't just interested in learning what tools are on the market or what technology firms are purchasing; we want to know what they're actually using.

How long have you been involved with the ABA Legal Technology Survey, and how has it changed in that time?

The 2011 ABA Legal Technology Survey Report is the fifth edition I've worked on personally, but the survey has been running in various forms for more than 15 years. Aside from moving to electronic publishing via PDF in 2008, the biggest change we've made in the time I've been here was adding a sixth volume–Technology Basics. That volume allowed us to take a deeper dive into basic questions about budgeting, training, and security.

Aside from that, most of the changes in the survey are evolutionary. We sit down every Fall and evaluate the questionnaire, sometimes adding a few questions about new technology and sometimes dropping questions about technology that's fallen out of use. We try to maintain a high level of consistency from year-to-year so that we can take a meaningful look at trends.

Lawyers have a reputation for being late adopters of technology and even technophobic in many respects. Is this an accurate assessment? Has that changed, or is there still an element of truth to the stereotype?

Lawyers are in a difficult position when it comes to new technology. Normal businesses and organizations have to deal with issues like cost, training, and implementation obstacles when they adopt new technology, and the biggest risk is usually just losing money. Lawyers share those challenges and risks, but also have to consider their obligations under their states' rules of professional conduct. A misstep under the rules can have serious and long-lasting professional consequences. So I think it's understandable that some lawyers take a cautious approach to new technology.

That said, lawyers have certainly become more comfortable with new technology over the last few years. Take Twitter, for example. A recent Pew study found that 13 percent of online adults use Twitter. That's right in line with our 2011 survey, where 14 percent of our lawyer respondents reported using Twitter for personal, non-professional purposes. Around 6 percent even use it for professional activities.

In some cases, lawyers actually seem to be leading on technology. A Nielsen study from May 2011 found that just 5 percent of US consumers own a tablet device like the iPad. In our survey, 20 percent of our respondents reported having tablets available at their firms with 12 percent reporting that they personally use the devices.

There seems to be a new trend or buzzword ever few years that dominates the legal technology conversation. At one point it was all about knowledge management and now it seems to be cloud computing, and then whatever comes next. Do you get the sense legal technologists are prone to getting taken in by hype? Or are they generally practical consumers of technology?

The endless hype cycle is just a reality of the technology sector, legal or otherwise. I think our challenge as legal technology professionals is to navigate the hype to identify the useful, practical tools and strategies that lawyers and other legal professionals can put to good use. We also have to be on alert for the technology that might be problematic for lawyers, given the rules of professional conduct.

There are certainly times when the technology we love doesn't catch on with practicing attorneys. Technology experts have been pushing RSS for years, and yet in 2011 we still had 64 percent of our respondents report that they never use it. But on the other hand, "paperless" was the hot buzzword five or six years ago, and now it's a standard strategy at many law firms of all sizes.

Have the demands of eDiscovery forced the profession to come to grips with their own technology use? Are lawyers more savvy about managing their data?

EDiscovery has certainly been influential for some attorneys, but it's worth noting that 42 percent of our respondents in 2011 reported that they never receive eDiscovery requests on behalf of their clients, and 49 percent reported that they never make eDiscovery requests. Those numbers have barely moved over the last few years.

As you might expect, electronically stored information (ESI) has generally been a bigger concern at the large law firms. In 2011, 77 percent of respondents at firms with 500+ attorneys reported that their firm had been involved in a case requiring processing/review of ESI, compared to just 19 percent of solo practitioners. Those large firms, however, outsource a significant amount of their eDiscovery processing. In 2011, 62 percent reported outsourcing eDiscovery processing to eDiscovery consultants, 50 percent outsourced to computer forensics specialists, and 35 percent outsourced to other lawyers in the U.S.

What trends and technologies are you most interested in following in the next survey?

Cloud computing is definitely a topic to keep an eye on. In 2011, 76 percent of our respondents reported that they had never used a cloud-based tool for legal tasks. Of those, 63 percent cited unfamiliarity with the technology as a reason. A lot of attention has been focused on the cloud this year, though, particularly after Apple's iCloud announcement. It'll be interesting to see how those numbers move in 2012.

Mobile technology should be another interesting area. BlackBerry held onto the overall lead for smartphones in 2011, but iOS and Android made substantial gains. Among our solo and small firm respondents, the iPhone actually led the BlackBerry. Will that carry over to the larger firms in 2012? And on the tablet front, it should be interesting to see how the market shifts. In 2011, 96 percent of the respondents who reported having a tablet available specified the iPad. Apple now has competition from Motorola, Samsung, RIM, HP and others, so it's possible we could see movement in the numbers.

Thanks, Joshua, for participating in the interview!