Professional Documents
Culture Documents
E Discovery
E Discovery
KEY PROBLEM AREAS THAT MAKE E-DISCOVERY DISPUTES SUCH A BIG DEAL
PRESERVATION AND SPOILATION SCOPE, FORM AND COST OF PRODUCTION PRIVILEGE
WHY ARE THESE PROBLEM AREAS MORE SIGNIFICANT WITH E-DISCOVERY THAN WITH TRADITIONAL PAPER DISCOVERY?
BECAUSE OF THE ENORMOUS VOLUME AND MANY SOURCES OF E-INFORMATION
80-90% OF DISCOVERABLE INFORMATION IS IN THE FORM OF E-MAIL MUCH OF THIS INFORMATION IS NEVER REDUCED TO HARD COPY FORM
WHAT PROBLEMS DOES THIS CAUSE FOR PRESERVATION, PRODUCTION AND PRIVILEGE?
MORE POSSIBLE PLACES TO LOOK MORE DATA TO SIFT THROUGH MORE DATA THAT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCESS MORE RISK OF PRODUCTION OF PRIVILEGED INFORMATION MORE OPPORUNITIES TO GATHER USEFUL DATA MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO MAKE ERRORS IN PRODUCTION
CONSEQUENCES OF SPOILATION
A spoliation sanction is proper where:
(1) a party has a duty to preserve evidence because it knew, or should have known, that litigation was imminent, and (2) the adverse party was prejudiced by the destruction of the evidence.
Ernest v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59985, at *3 (D. Colo. July 28, 2008)
PRODUCTION PROBLEMS
HOW FAR MUST A PARTY GO IN LOOKING FOR E-INFORMATION? BACK-UP TAPES? DELETED DATA? CAN A PARTY FOCUS THE SEARCH USING PROTOCOLS (SUCH AS KEY WORDS AND DATE PARAMETERS)? IN WHAT FORM MUST E-INFORMATION BE PRODUCED? DOES THE METADATA HAVE TO BE PRODUCED? AT WHAT POINT SHOULD THERE BY COSTSHIFTING?
PRIVILEGED MATERIAL
Sheer volume of electronic discovery may result in inadvertent disclosures inadvertent disclosure of privileged information does not automatically result in waiver of the privilege.
Pinnacle Pizza Co. v. Little Caesars Enter., Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48845 (D. S.D. July 3, 2007)
RULES SHOULD TRY TO FORCE PARTIES TO ADDRESS EDISCOVERY EARLY IN THE CASE, AND TO REACH AS MUCH AGREEMENT AS POSSIBLE ON ISSUES OF PRESERVATION, PRODUCTION AND PRIVILEGE
II.
Document Preservation
Duty to preserve arises when there is a claim. Absent claim, business reasons and compliance laws dictate what is retained. Preservation duty extends to all documents within a parties posession, custody or control. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1).
MEDIA COSTS
$50 per tape x 125 servers x 1 e-mail backup tape = $6,250 per day to preserve daily tapes Weekly backups plus incremental backups during week; recycled every 30-60 days
BUSINESS DISRUPTION
Cant delete e-mail Must segregate e-mail by topic Cant turn on computer
TRANSACTION COSTS
A litigation hold must be disseminated and monitored
A litigation hold is a process which an organization uses to preserve all forms of relevant information when litigation is reasonably anticipated.
Identifying the boundaries of the duty to preserve involves two related inquiries: when does the duty to preserve attach, and what evidence must be preserved?
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (Zubulake IV)
Deleted Files Temporary Files Printer Spools Meta Data Hard Drive
ARE YOU ASKING FOR TROUBLE BY MAKING PARTIES ADDRESS SOMETHING THEY OTHERWISE MIGHT DUCK AND THUS NOT PLAGUE YOU WITH?
THE RULES CHANGES ARE DESIGNED TO PULL LITIGANTS HEADS OUT OF THE SAND SO THEY MAY NOT KEEP DUCKING ANYWAY
AND IT WILL BE EASIER TO CONTROL EDISCOVERY MORE EFFECTIVELY IF POTENTIAL DISPUTES ARE ADDRESSED EARLY, BEFORE THE DISCOVERY HORSE HAS LEFT THE BARN
FORCE REQUESTING PARTIES TO EXPLAIN WITH SPECIFICITY WHAT THEY WANT, AND WHY FORCE RESPONDING PARTIES TO EXPLAIN WITH SPECIFICITY WHY THEY OPPOSE THE REQUEST (e.g., TOO MUCH OF A GOOSE CHASE, DUPLICATIVE, TOO COSTLY AND BURDENSOME) FORCE THE PARTIES TO GIVE YOU GOOD TECHNICAL INFORMATION SO YOU CAN ASSESS CLAIMS OF BURDEN AND COST
8-FACTOR TEST IN ROWE ENTERTAINMENT, INC. v. WILLIAM MORRIS AGENCY, INC., 205 F.R.D. 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (MJ FRANCIS)
(1) THE SPECIFICITY OF THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS; (2) THE LIKELIHOOD OF DISCOVERING CRITICAL INFORMATION; (3) THE AVAILABILITY OF SUCH INFORMATION FROM OTHER SOURCES; (4) THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE RESPONDING PARTY MAINTAINS THE REQUESTED DATA; (5) THE RELATIVE BENEFIT TO THE PARTIES OF OBTAINING THE INFORMATION; (6) THE TOTAL COST ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCTION; (7) THE RELATIVE ABILITY OF EACH PARTY TO CONTROL COSTS AND ITS INCENTIVE TO DO SO; AND (8) THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO EACH PARTY.
7-FACTOR TEST FROM ZUBULAKE v. UBS WARBURG LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) AND 216 F.R.D. 280 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (DJ SCHEINDLIN)
1. THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE REQUEST IS SPECIFICALLY TAILORED TO DISCOVER RELEVANT INFORMATION; 2. THE AVAILABILITY OF SUCH INFORMATION FROM OTHER SOURCES; 3. THE TOTAL COST OF PRODUCTION, COMPARED TO THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY; 4. THE TOTAL COST OF PRODUCTION, COMPARED TO THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO EACH PARTY; 5. THE RELATIVE ABILITY OF EACH PARTY TO CONTROL COSTS AND ITS INCENTIVE TO DO SO; 6. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUES AT STAKE IN THE LITIGATION; AND 7. THE RELATIVE BENEFITS TO THE PARTIES OF OBTAINING THE INFORMATION. UNDER THIS TEST,AFTER REVIEWING SAMPLE OF E-MAILS FOR 5 DATES, ASSESSED PLAINTIFF 25% OF COST OF RESTORING 77 BACKUP TAPES; BUT MADE DEFENDANT PAY FULL COST OF RESTORING OTHER BACKUPS ON SEARCHABLE OPTICAL MEDIA.
BUT SINCE THEN, JUDGE SCHEINDLIN HAS SAID THAT SHE DID NOT MEAN THAT ACCESSIBLE DATA IS AUTOMATICALLY OUTSIDE THE PROPORTIONALITY ANALYSIS ALTHOUGH SHE SAID IT WOULD NOT ORDINARILY LEAD TO COST SHIFTING
IF YOU ARE PERSUADED THAT THE REQUESTING PARTY SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET DISCOVERY BUT ARE ALSO PERSUADED THAT THE PARTICULAR REQUEST IMPOSES TOO MUCH COST AND BURDEN, WHAT ARE SOME APPROACHES YOU CAN TAKE TO ACCOMMODATE BOTH INTERESTS?
ROWE (ALLOWED PLAINTIFFS TO OBTAIN, AT THEIR EXPENSE, RESTORATION AND PRODUCTION OF E-MAILS DELETED FROM ACTIVE SYSTEM BUT STILL ON BACKUP)
IN DECIDING WHETHER COST SHIFTING IS APPROPRIATE, YOU CAN CONSIDER WHETHER IMPORTANT INFORMATION WAS DELETED AFTER A LITIGATION HOLD SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED
BUT CASES GENERALLY SHIFT ONLY THE COST OF RETRIEVAL, AND NOT COST OF REVIEW (see e.g., ZUBULAKE, ROWE). ONE COURT HAS IMPLIED THAT SOME COST SHIFTING FOR PRIVILEGE REVIEW MAY BE APPROPRIATE, CHIMIE V. PPG INDUS. INC., 218 F.R.D. 416 (D. DEL. 2003), BUT NONE HAVE ORDERED IT IN REPORTED CASES
REMEMBER THAT COST-SHIFTING DOES NOT HAVE TO BE AN ALL-ORNOTHING PROPOSITION SEE, E.G., ZUBULAKE (25% OF COST SHIFTED TO PLAINTFF); WIGINTON (75% OF COST SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFFS); MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK, INC. (40% OF COST SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFF)
COSTS OF REVIEW
Hopson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 232 F.R.D. 228 (D. Md. 2005) In re Baycol Products Litigation, 2003 WL 22023393 (D. Minn.) (costs of imaging, coding, and privilege review estimated to be greater than $1 million)
RISK OF WAIVER
Actual waiver
Wide dissemination of e-documents
Inadvertent waiver
Inadequate labeling and segregation Volume of e-documents
3 APPROACHES TO WAIVER
Strict liability
Bowles v. Natl Assn of Home Builders, 224 F.R.D. 246 (D.D.C. 2004)
To err is human
Premier Digital Access v. Central Telephone Co., 360 F. Supp. 2d (D. Nev. 2005)
Balancing
Ferko v. Natl Assn for Stock Car Auto Racing, 218 F.R.D. 125, 135 (E.D. Tex. 2003)
BALANCING FACTORS
Reasonableness of precautions Time taken to rectify error Scope of discovery Magnitude of disclosure Overarching issues of fairness
Emphasis on volume of electronic documents Emphasis on relative, not merely absolute, number of documents disclosed
Most cloud service providers are covered Covered providers may not release communications even when served with a subpoena May only do so with lawful consent of subscriber Proper course is to direct subpoena / document request to subscriber
Lost Data
No cases yet Test will likely turn on whether the litigant and/or the Cloud provider took reasonable steps to prevent spoliation. Proof of diligence at time of decision to move to the Cloud will be important.
Recapping E-Discovery
E-Discovery by its nature, lends itself to many issues
Cost Privilege (Waiver) Preservation/Spoilation Authenticity Etc.
Recapping E-Discovery
Before Litigation is Commenced
Work with the client to develop a comprehensive document retention policy Once litigation is reasonably anticipated, send a litigation hold letter to personnel who may have relevant documents err on the side of caution Formulate a method of ensuring compliance
Recapping E-Discovery
Work With Opposing Counsel
Discuss the possibility of a clawback agreement (return inadvertently disclosed info) Work together on compiling a list of relevant custodians and keyword searches create a written record Discuss a presumption of authenticity for documents produced by the other party
Recapping E-Discovery
Cooperation with opposing counsel may SHOULD be mandated by the federal rules Damages sought may drive scope of discovery
Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Services Co., 253 F.R.D. 354 (D. Md. 2008)
Thank you!