FEED Validator

for Atom and RSS and KML

Congratulations!

This is a valid RSS feed.

Recommendations

This feed is valid, but interoperability with the widest range of feed readers could be improved by implementing the following recommendations.

line 100, column 0: style attribute contains potentially dangerous content: line-height: 13.5pt; widows: 2; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; outline-style: none; outline-color: invert; outline-width: 0px; orphans: 2; background: white; vertical-align: baseline; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px (82 occurrences) [help]
```
<p style="line-height: 13.5pt; widows: 2; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; outline-style ...
```
line 714, column 3: Missing atom:link with rel="self" [help]
```
   </channel>
   ^
```

Source: http://feeds.lexblog.com/E-discoveryLawReview

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>E-Discovery Law Review</title>
<link>http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/</link>
<description>Electronic Discovery Lawyers & Attorneys : Cozen O'Connor Law Firm : Data Preservation & E-Discovery Disputes</description>
<language>en</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2013</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:35:22 -0800</lastBuildDate>
<pubDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:35:22 -0800</pubDate>
<generator>http://www.movabletype.org</generator>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
<item>
<title>Connecticut Appellate Court Dismisses Appeal of Discovery Order Finding that the Order Did Not Constitute a Final Judgment</title>
<description><![CDATA[ <img alt="" align="left" width="75" height="101" src="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/uploads/image/Hard drive stethoscope.jpg" />
In Radzick v. Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, No. 34952, 2013 Conn. App. LEXIS 454 (Conn. App. Ct. Sept. 17, 2013) the Connecticut Appellate Court dismissed defendant Connecticut Children’s Medical Center’s (“CCMC”) appeal of a trial court discovery order. Francisco A. Sylvester, an employee of CCMC, treated Jonathan Radzick, a minor, for Chron’s disease. Sylvester prescribed Remicade as part of his treatment of Jonathan and Jonathan died from T-cell lymphoma. Paul Radzick, plaintiff and administrator of Jonathan Radzick’s estate, brought suit, alleging that Sylvester knew that Remicade’s manufacturer had circulated warnings about fatal T-cell lymphoma and that Sylvester failed to obtain parental permission to prescribe Remicade for Jonathan.
In discovery, plaintiff sought to determine what Sylvester knew about Remicade and when. Specifically, plaintiff wanted to search three computers Sylvester had access to during the time he treated Jonathan. The discovery dispute centered around electronically stored information (“ESI”) on those three computers. On July 19, 2012, the trial court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel and ordered plaintiff be permitted to image the hard drives of the three personal computers Sylvester had used, and that their contents be forensically examined. The court addressed defendant’s concern that the computers contained confidential patient information and private information from use by Sylvester’s family members by requiring that anyone involved with imaging or investigating the computers sign a protective order. The court also required that the forensic investigation of the computers be conducted by an independent forensic consultant who would be hired and supervised by a discovery master. Sylvester appealed.
The appellate court looked to the two prong test in State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 463 A.2d 566 (1983) to determine if the July 19, 2012 discovery order was an appealable final judgment. Under Curcio, in order to be appealable, the order must satisfy at least one of these two prongs: (1) the ruling must terminate “a separate and distinct proceeding,” or (2) the ruling must so conclude “the rights of the parties that further proceedings cannot affect them.”
The Court of Appeals rejected Sylvester’s argument that the July 19, 2012 order was akin to other discovery orders that met the first prong in which discovery orders directed at nonparties authorized public disclosure of confidential information. However, the July 19, 2012 order was directed at Sylvester, a party, and protected confidential information of nonparties that may be on his computers by appointing a discovery master and including an in camera review before any information was to be disseminated.
The appellate court held that the July 19, 2012 order also did not meet the second prong, reasoning that the rights of the defendants are not “irretrievably lost” because of the order. In fact, the rights of the defendants may never even be compromised because of the safeguards in the order. The court dismissed the appeal.
This case serves as a reminder of the potential importance ESI can play in the outcome of a case and of the importance of maintaining proper ESI retention and production protocols.]]></description>
<link>http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2013/09/articles/connecticut-appellate-court-dismisses-appeal-of-discovery-order-finding-that-the-order-did-not-constitute-a-final-judgment/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2013/09/articles/connecticut-appellate-court-dismisses-appeal-of-discovery-order-finding-that-the-order-did-not-constitute-a-final-judgment/</guid>
<category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/">Articles</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2013 01:25:38 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Thomas M. Jones</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>How Will Proposed Changes to Federal e-Discover Rules Affect Your Practice?</title>
<description><![CDATA[The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules) may change the case management, scope, and sanctions related to e-discovery in federal courts, starting in late 2015. Proposed changes seek to encourage early and active case management, ensure proportionality in e-discovery, and advance cooperation among parties. 
The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure made draft versions of these rules available for public comment through February 15, 2014. The proposed changes to the Rules as related to e-discovery are summarized in <a href="http://www.cozen.com/news-resources/publications/2013/proposed-changes-to-federal-e-discovery-rules">this Alert</a>, and all of the proposed changes are available <a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/rules/preliminary-draft-proposed-amendments.pdf">here</a>.
These changes may impact your practice, positively or negatively, depending on who you represent and the nature of the cases you try. Therefore we strongly encourage you to <a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/rules/proposed-amendments.aspx">submit comments</a> prior to the February 15 deadline, or to participate in one of the three public hearings on the proposed rules (Washington, D.C., on November 7, 2013; Phoenix on January 9, 2014; or Dallas on February 7, 2014).]]></description>
<link>http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2013/09/articles/how-will-proposed-changes-to-federal-ediscover-rules-affect-your-practice/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2013/09/articles/how-will-proposed-changes-to-federal-ediscover-rules-affect-your-practice/</guid>
<category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/">Articles</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">Federal</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">Procedure</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">Public</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/articles">Sanctions</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">case</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">civil</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">comment</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">cooperation</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">eDiscovery</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">management</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">of</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">preservation</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">proportionality</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">rules</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 05 Sep 2013 10:22:00 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Scott Galla</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>Google Invited to the Apple v. Samsung Discovery Dispute: Court Orders Third Party Google to Produce Search Terms and Custodians used to Respond to Apple's Requests for Production</title>
<description><![CDATA[ 
by Terri A. Thomas
In the continuing patent infringement saga between Plaintiff Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) and Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung”), Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal of the District Court of Northern California ordered third party Google, Inc. (“Google”) to produce a list of the search terms and custodians Google used to respond to Apple’s requests for production. Case No. 12-CV-0630-LHK (PSG), Dkt. 501, filed May 9, 2013.
Apple was not, in the present motion, seeking to compel additional discovery from Google, nor was it opposing Google’s objections to Apples requests; Apple sought only to know “how Google created the universe from which it produced documents” in order to “evaluate the adequacy of [its] search”. Google initially objected based on attorney-client privilege and work-product grounds, though recognized that “courts generally have not found protection for that type of information.” See Formfactor, Inc. v. Micro-Probe, Inc., Case No. C-10-03095 PJH (JCS), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62233, 2012 WL 1575093, at *7 n.4 (N.D. Cal. May 3. 2012) (listing cases explaining why search terms are not work product). The court considered Google’s complaint that “the impact of requiring non-parties to provide complete ‘transparency’ into their search methodology and custodians in responding to non-party subpoenas whenever unsubstantiated claims of production deficiencies are made would be extraordinary”, and that providing its list of search terms and custodians would open it to further burdensome discovery by Apple.
The court cites to The Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation (The Sedona Conference, Preface (Nov. 2012)) and the principles of “cooperative, collaborative, and transparent discovery”, and relies heavily on Judge Nolan’s holding in DeGeer v. Gillis, wherein Her Honor stated that “[t]he proper and most efficient course of action would have been agreement by [the third party and the defendants] as to search terms and data custodians prior to [the third party’s] electronic document retrieval.” 755 F. Supp. 2d 909 (N.D. Ill. 2010).
The court ultimately held that “transparency and collaboration is essential to meaningful, cost-effective discovery”, and such policies apply equally to parties and third-parties alike, and ordered Google to produce its search terms and custodians to Apple.
This case makes clear that search terms and custodians are not protected work product. If a third-party has to disclose search terms and custodians, certainly parties to litigation will have to do so. Courts are continuing to require greater transparency in the discovery process, and requesting and producing parties would be well-served in cooperating and attempting to reach agreement on search terms and custodians early in the discovery planning process.]]></description>
<link>http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2013/05/articles/google-invited-to-the-apple-v-samsung-discovery-dispute-court-orders-third-party-google-to-produce-search-terms-and-custodians-used-to-respond-to-apples-requests-for-production/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2013/05/articles/google-invited-to-the-apple-v-samsung-discovery-dispute-court-orders-third-party-google-to-produce-search-terms-and-custodians-used-to-respond-to-apples-requests-for-production/</guid>
<category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/">Articles</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 14:24:59 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Thomas M. Jones</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Adopts New Electronic Discovery Guidelines Effective November 27, 2012</title>
<description><![CDATA[by Terri A. Thomas
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California unanimously adopted new guidelines regarding the discovery of electronically stored information (“ESI”). The guidelines are tools “designed to promote cooperative e-discovery planning . . . that is tailored and proportionate to the needs of [a] particular case.” The Court released:
·         Guidelines for the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (“ESI Guidelines”);
·         An ESI checklist for use during the Rule 26(f) meet and confer process; and
·         A Model Stipulated Order Re: the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information.
These documents are available in full at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/eDiscoveryGuidelines
In addition, as part of the Joint Case Management Statements filed by the parties pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-9, the parties must certify that they have each reviewed the ESI Guidelines and confirm that the parties have met and conferred pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) regarding reasonable and proportionate steps taken to preserve evidence relevant to the issues reasonably evident in the action.
The ESI Guidelines were developed to “encourage reasonable electronic discovery with the goal of limiting the cost, burden and time spent, while ensuring that information subject to discovery is preserved and produced to allow for fair adjudication of the merits.” Most notably, the ESI Guidelines expressly adopt the proportionality standards articulated in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) and 26(g)(1)(B)(iii) and apply it to preservation obligations. ESI Guidelines 1.03; 2.01. The ESI Guidelines also encourage cooperation between the parties, beginning at the early stages of discovery, and the appointment of e-discovery liaisons who are versed in the technical aspects of e-discovery for the respective parties.
In an effort to aid in and further encourage cooperation between the parties, the Court created a Rule 26(f) checklist for use during the meet and confer process, which highlights the relevant areas the Court believes parties should be addressing at the 26(f) stage relative to ESI. This includes designation of information that “the party believes could contain relevant information but [] has determined, under the proportionality factors, should not be preserved.”
Finally, the Court drafted a Model Stipulated Order. The Model Order specifically calls for the parties to identify the dates and custodians for whom ESI is to be preserved, with the caveat that custodians may be added or removed as reasonably necessary. The Model Order also requires the party to designate relevant information, which, because of proportionality standards, will not be preserved. Additionally, the Model Order calls for the parties to agree on the production format and any phasing of discovery, and includes a Fed. R. Evid. 502(d) agreement that production of privileged and work-product documents will not constitute a waiver of such privilege(s). Of course, as this is a Model Order, the Court indicates in the Model Order itself its willingness to modify the Order by Stipulation of the parties or good cause.
In adopting the ESI Guidelines and Model Order, the Court attempts to provide some measure of clarity to parties of their preservation obligations; however, at least initially, this is based largely on cooperation and agreement between the parties. Still, such Model Orders and Guidelines are an important step in ensuring early communication of e-discovery issues.]]></description>
<link>http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/12/articles/us-district-court-for-the-northern-district-of-california-adopts-new-electronic-discovery-guidelines-effective-november-27-2012/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/12/articles/us-district-court-for-the-northern-district-of-california-adopts-new-electronic-discovery-guidelines-effective-november-27-2012/</guid>
<category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/">Articles</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">ESI</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">courts</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">discovery</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">e-discovery</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">eDiscovery</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">electronically stored information</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:35:17 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Mike Zabel</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>Judge Orders Parties to Keep it "Kleen"</title>
<description><![CDATA[<img hspace="5" alt="" vspace="5" align="left" width="179" height="250" src="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/uploads/image/shutterstock_7428088.jpg" />            The first rule of successful lawyering is that one must be a zealous advocate for his or her client. While this mantra is essential to best practice, it should not be followed to the exclusion of traditional trial etiquette. This was the message propounded by the Honorable Nan R. Nolan of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in her recent order calling for collaboration and cooperation during eDiscovery.
In Kleen Products, LLC v. Packaging Corp. of America, Plaintiffs brought a class action suit against manufacturers of containerboard charging antitrust violations under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The first of many disputes in the litigation concerned the use of predictive coding technology, a form of computer-assisted review used to aid document search and production. Plaintiffs sparked this debate when they asked Judge Nolan to order Defendants to revamp their system of production to employ a specific kind of content-based analytics.  Judge Nolan signed a joint Stipulation and Order in August, in which Plaintiffs agreed to withdraw their demand that Defendants apply this particular methodology with respect to any requests for production served prior to October 1, 2013.
In response to the current flood of motions pertaining to interrogatories and document requests, Judge Nolan’s order emphasizes cooperation and proportionality, quoting the Sedona Conference’s Cooperation Proclamation at the outset: “Lawyers have twin duties of loyalty: While they are retained to be zealous advocates for their clients, they bear a professional obligation to conduct discovery in a diligent and candid manner. . . . Cooperation does not conflict with the advancement of their clients' interests—it enhances it.” These words of wisdom were directed predominantly at Plaintiffs’ most recent set of interrogatories, which, according to Judge Nolan, “violated the spirit of cooperation that this Court has encouraged.” Only three days after one of the defendants, Georgia Pacific, went above and beyond to produce certain requested information pertaining to individuals within its corporate structure who had received the litigation hold notice, Plaintiffs issued a Sixth Set of Interrogatories demanding extensive background information on each person identified. Judge Nolan referred to the proportionality standards of FRCP 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) in granting Georgia Pacific’s motion for a protective order.
Judge Nolan did, however, grant Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the production of additional document custodians directed at two particular defendants, concluding that “in an antitrust case such as this, Plaintiffs are at least entitled to a sample of lower-level and plant-level employees to determine if they possess significant and non-duplicative information.” Judge Nolan stated that while certain production requests can be found to violate the proportionality standards of FRCP 26(b)(2)(C), the party objecting to discovery must provide specific evidence to demonstrate the burden, which the defendants here failed to do.
            Judge Nolan capped off the final order of her judicial career with some parting guidance to the parties, as well as the legal community at large, regarding eDiscovery propriety and protocol: 
 
First, the approach should be started early in the case. It is difficult or impossible to unwind procedures that have already been implemented. Second, in multiple party cases represented by separate counsel, it may be beneficial for liaisons to be assigned to each party. Finally, to the extent possible, discovery phases should be discussed and agreed to at the onset of discovery.     
 
Kleen Products instructs that practitioners should take heed of Judge Nolan’s suggestions and attempt to comply with the spirit of collaborative and proportional eDiscovery. While zealous advocacy remains a hallmark of legal representation, vigorous client activism and cooperative litigation are certainly not mutually exclusive.]]></description>
<link>http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/11/articles/judge-orders-parties-to-keep-it-kleen/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/11/articles/judge-orders-parties-to-keep-it-kleen/</guid>
<category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/">Articles</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">Class action</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">coding</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">discovery request</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">eDiscovery</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">predictive</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">production</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">proportionality</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2012 09:48:00 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Dylan Alper</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Address Admissibility of Text Messages as Evidence</title>
<description><![CDATA[ This piece was first published on the blog <a href="http://www.fromthesidebar.com">From the Sidebar</a> and is reprinted with permission.
By Hayes Hunt and Michael Zabel
<p style="line-height: 13.5pt; widows: 2; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; outline-style: none; outline-color: invert; outline-width: 0px; orphans: 2; background: white; vertical-align: baseline; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><img hspace="12" alt="" align="left" width="125" height="83" src="http://www.fromthesidebar.com/text%20message.jpg" />Today, oral argument will be heard in <span style="border-bottom: windowtext 1pt; border-left: windowtext 1pt; padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 0in; padding-right: 0in; color: #555555; font-size: 10pt; border-top: windowtext 1pt; border-right: windowtext 1pt; padding-top: 0in"><a href="http://www.applieddiscovery.com/ws_display.asp?filter=Case%20Summaries%20Detail&item_id=%7BAF12893F-44BC-445D-91CD-2ACBD54711F0%7D">Commonwealth v. Koch</a>, a case in which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is confronted with a question that is increasingly important: When to admit a text message into evidence at trial?
<p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 13.5pt; widows: 2; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; outline-style: none; outline-color: invert; outline-width: 0px; orphans: 2; background: white; vertical-align: baseline; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">The question matters because electronic messaging – such as text messages or instant messages – is a significant and growing source of potential evidence. In 2010, an estimated <a style="outline-style: none; outline-color: invert; outline-width: 0px" href="http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2010/39.aspx"><span style="border-bottom: windowtext 1pt; border-left: windowtext 1pt; padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 0in; padding-right: 0in; color: #c7062a; border-top: windowtext 1pt; border-right: windowtext 1pt; text-decoration: none; padding-top: 0in; text-underline: none">6.1 trillion text messages</a> were sent (that’s over 200,000 messages <span style="border-bottom: windowtext 1pt; border-left: windowtext 1pt; padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 0in; padding-right: 0in; color: #555555; font-size: 10pt; border-top: windowtext 1pt; border-right: windowtext 1pt; padding-top: 0in">per second). Attorneys now realize that a key piece of evidence is an exchange of text or instant messages instead of an e-mail or an old-fashioned letter.
<p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 13.5pt; widows: 2; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; outline-style: none; outline-color: invert; outline-width: 0px; orphans: 2; background: white; vertical-align: baseline; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">When seeking to introduce a text or instant message at trial, one of the biggest evidentiary hurdles is establishing authenticity. (<a style="outline-style: none; outline-color: invert; outline-width: 0px" href="http://federalevidence.com/rules-of-evidence#Rule901"><span style="border-bottom: windowtext 1pt; border-left: windowtext 1pt; padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 0in; padding-right: 0in; color: #c7062a; border-top: windowtext 1pt; border-right: windowtext 1pt; text-decoration: none; padding-top: 0in; text-underline: none">FRE 901</a>). State and federal courts across the country have been applying FRE 901 and its state rule equivalents to text and instant messages.
<p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 13.5pt; widows: 2; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; outline-style: none; outline-color: invert; outline-width: 0px; orphans: 2; background: white; vertical-align: baseline; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">How do you show that a text message from Joe Smith is a text message from Joe Smith? <img hspace="12" alt="" align="right" width="75" height="107" src="http://www.fromthesidebar.com/pen.jpg" /> The  answer is not as simple as “it came from Smith’s phone number.”  This is no different than what is required to authenticate a handwritten letter.  A letter from Mary Jones may bear her signature, but that signature could be forged.  A court would likely require the proponent produce something beyond the letter itself as evidence such as a witness who could identify her signature.
<p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 13.5pt; widows: 2; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; outline-style: none; outline-color: invert; outline-width: 0px; orphans: 2; background: white; vertical-align: baseline; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">Similarly, the developing case law across the country says that something more is needed for text messages and instant messages.  Federal and state courts are grappling with the question of what that “something more” can be.  Most commonly (and unsurprisingly), courts favor authentication by means of testimony from either the sender or recipient of the message (<span style="border-bottom: windowtext 1pt; border-left: windowtext 1pt; padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 0in; padding-right: 0in; color: #555555; font-size: 10pt; border-top: windowtext 1pt; border-right: windowtext 1pt; padding-top: 0in"><a style="outline-style: none; outline-color: invert; outline-width: 0px" href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ny-supreme-court-appellate-division/1604136.html">People v. Agudelo</a>).  In <span style="border-bottom: windowtext 1pt; border-left: windowtext 1pt; padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 0in; padding-right: 0in; color: #555555; font-size: 10pt; border-top: windowtext 1pt; border-right: windowtext 1pt; padding-top: 0in">Koch, the Superior Court held that the text messages at issue were not properly authenticated because there was no confirming testimony from the senders or recipients of the disputed messages and no contextual clues within the messages themselves that revealed the identity of the sender. Interestingly, the court also rejected the idea that the defendant’s physical proximity to the cell phone when it was seized was probative of the defendant’s authorship of the text messages made days or weeks earlier.
<p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 13.5pt; widows: 2; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt; outline-style: none; outline-color: invert; outline-width: 0px; orphans: 2; background: white; vertical-align: baseline; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><img hspace="12" alt="" align="left" width="125" height="91" src="http://www.fromthesidebar.com/textmessage.jpg" />It will be interesting to see whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agrees with the lower court’s analysis or opts for a different standard of authentication.  Regardless of the court’s answer, however, the safest way to get a text or instant message admitted into evidence will be to produce the sender or recipient of that message at trial.]]></description>
<link>http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/10/articles/pennsylvania-supreme-court-to-address-admissibility-of-text-messages-as-evidence/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/10/articles/pennsylvania-supreme-court-to-address-admissibility-of-text-messages-as-evidence/</guid>
<category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/">Articles</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">admissibility</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">admissible</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">cell phone</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">cellular phone</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">eDiscovery</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">electronic communication</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">evidence</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">instant messages</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">text messages</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2012 05:25:32 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Mike Zabel</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>Social Media Login and Password Discovery Requests: A Useful Tool in the Quest for Truth or an Invasion of Privacy? One Pennsylvania Court Helps Navigate the Debate</title>
<description><![CDATA[            The July 5, 2012 decision of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas in Trail v. Lesko explores the legal landscape relating to the scope of discovery of social media. 
Judge Wettick spends the majority of the Lesko opinion laying the groundwork for his holding.  The opinion begins with an introduction to Facebook and social networking sites, followed by a synopsis of nine Pennsylvania cases where the discoverability of social media was at issue (many of which were reviewed <a href="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags/facebook/">here</a>) <img alt="" align="right" style="width: 171px; height: 122px" src="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/uploads/image/shutterstock_72840718(4).jpg" />and an overview of the law in other jurisdictions.  He notes that the “consistent train of reasoning” found in the case law is to require the party seeking discovery to point to facts suggesting that relevant information may be contained within the non-public portions of a Facebook profile.  While privacy settings do not offer absolute protection from discovery, it appears that they can go a long way, as courts often use any profile content that is publicly accessible to determine whether a Facebook user’s full profile is potentially relevant.
            In Lesko, the plaintiff alleged serious injuries from a car accident, and the defendant originally claimed he was not the driver of the vehicle involved.  In an increasingly popular attempt at debunking their opponent’s factual assertions, the parties filed cross motions to compel access to each other’s Facebook accounts. 
Since the defendant denied driving the vehicle involved, plaintiff argued that postings surrounding the time period at issue were relevant to determine the defendant’s whereabouts.  However, in response to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, the defendant admitted he was driving the car.<a class=" FCK__AnchorC" title="" href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a>  Accordingly, Judge Wettick denied plaintiff’s request, finding that the defendant’s Facebook information was no longer relevant in light of his admission.
            The defendant asserted that Facebook photographs of the plaintiff socializing at a bar and “drinking at a party” cast doubt on his claim of serious injuries.  The Judge was not persuaded, however, noting that since the plaintiff never alleged that he was bedridden, the photos were not inconsistent with his alleged injuries.
In possibly the most useful part of the opinion for future litigants resisting discovery requests for social networking information, Judge Wettick maps out the basis for his opinion, explaining, “I base my rulings on Pa.R.C.P. No. 4011(b) which bars discovery that would cause ‘unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression …’  This rule will reach intrusions that are not covered by any constitutional right to privacy or any common law or statutory privileges.”  The Judge explained that a blanket court order to provide Facebook login information likely allows access to much more information than is relevant to the litigation, which could be particularly embarrassing for a person who thought they were only sharing such information with “Friends.”  The opinion then clarifies that discovery must be unreasonably intrusive to be barred.  Thus, although ordering court access to one’s Facebook account might have the unfortunate consequence of causing embarrassment, the sharing of personal information that underlies the entire concept of Facebook can negate a user’s claim to privacy.
With this overview of the current legal landscape memorialized in the Lesko opinion, it will be interesting to watch the law evolve as additional courts rule on the discoverability of social media.  Regardless of what happens in the future, one aspect of the developing law has clearly emerged: if a Facebook post is publicly accessible, the user should be prepared to share that post and all related account information with anyone interested — “Friend” or foe.
<div> 
<hr size="1" width="33%" align="left" />
<div id="ftn1">
<a class=" FCK__AnchorC" title="" href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a> Question of the day: Did the defendant admit he was driving the car to avoid turning over his prized Facebook login information?
</div>
</div>
 ]]></description>
<link>http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/10/articles/social-media-login-and-password-discovery-requests-a-useful-tool-in-the-quest-for-truth-or-an-invasion-of-privacy-one-pennsylvania-court-helps-navigate-the-debate/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/10/articles/social-media-login-and-password-discovery-requests-a-useful-tool-in-the-quest-for-truth-or-an-invasion-of-privacy-one-pennsylvania-court-helps-navigate-the-debate/</guid>
<category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/">Articles</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">Facebook</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">Social Media</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">discovery of social media in lawsuits</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">discovery of social networking sites</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">discovery request</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">e-discovery</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">social media and disclosure of confidential information</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Oct 2012 10:21:52 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Katie Beran</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>Shifting E-Discovery Costs to the Plaintiff in a Potential Class Action: a Pennsylvania Federal Court Tells Plaintiffs' Counsel to "Make the Investment in Discovery"</title>
<description><![CDATA[In what could be a significant opinion for federal class action defendants seeking to limit their e-discovery costs, a court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently held in <a href="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/uploads/file/Boeynaems v_ LA Fitness.pdf">Boeynaems v. LA Fitness International, LLC</a>, No. 10-2326, No. 11-2644 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 16, 2012), that plaintiffs who were seeking broad discovery regarding class certification issues – including extensive ESI requests -- should share in the costs of the defendant’s discovery production. <img src="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/uploads/image/lawyer cash.jpg" width="200" height="234" vspace="10" hspace="10" align="left" alt="" />
Recognizing that the potential for a class action suit “dramatically increases the economic pressure on the defendant” and that the economic burden of discovery production regarding certification often falls primarily on the defendant, Judge Michael Baylson wrote, “[D]iscovery burdens should not force either party to succumb to a settlement that is based on the cost of litigation rather than the merits of the case.”  Where there is a substantial discovery dispute prior to class certification, Judge Baylson held, “economic motivation and fairness are relevant factors in determining cost-shifting of disputed discovery burdens.”
In Boeynaems, the five individual plaintiffs had asserted deception and breach of contract actions relating to their attempts to cancel their gym memberships with the defendant.  In the process of seeking class certification for what they anticipated would be a very large class, the plaintiffs sought extensive discovery from defendants.  After the defendant had already provided some discovery  to the plaintiffs, substantial disputes arose between the parties about the scope of remaining discovery to be provided by the defendant.  Among other things, the plaintiffs sought “millions of items” of ESI (electronically stored information).  The cost of production of that ESI, the court noted, was “a significant factor in the defense of the litigation.”
In determining how to allocate discovery costs between the parties, the court focused on the specific circumstances of the case.  Discovery in the case was called “asymmetrical,” in that discovery production and its attendant expenses were rather small for the plaintiffs, and potentially huge for the defendant.   The court noted while class determination requires a “searching inquiry” and “very detailed analysis,” the plaintiffs had already amassed a very large set of documents that were potentially probative of the class action issue.  With that in mind, the court held that the plaintiffs should bear the economic responsibility of any future discovery efforts in regard to class determination:
<p style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:
12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">The Court is persuaded, it appearing that Defendant has borne all of the costs of complying with Plaintiffs’ discovery to date, that the costs burden must now shift to Plaintiffs, if Plaintiffs believe that they need additional discovery.  In other words, given the large amount of information Defendant has already provided, Plaintiffs need to assess the value of additional discovery for their class action motion.  If Plaintiffs conclude that additional discovery is not only relevant, but important to proving that a class should be certified, then Plaintiffs should pay for that additional discovery from this date forward, at least until the class action determination is made.
Remarkably, in arriving at its decision, the court took into consideration the economic resources of the plaintiffs’ counsel.  The court observed that the plaintiffs’ counsel was a “very successful and well regarded” firm, and reasoned that if that firm “believes that this case is meritorious, it has the financial ability to make the investment in discovery[.]”  The court further noted that while the discovery costs were likely not recoverable from the defendant in the event of  plaintiff victory,<a href="file:///C:/Users/mzabel/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/XSPUKIEL/Boeynaems%20blog%20piece%20(2).docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a> the court would likely allow the firm’s “out-of-pocket costs to be deductible from any award to a class, assuming a class was certified.”
Although federal rules have allowed the courts to shift discovery costs for years, Boeynaems appears to be the first instance in which a federal court has  addressed the shifting of discovery costs in a pre-class determination setting.  Judge Baylson’s analysis in Boeynaems should present a useful resource to a defendant who is facing the prospect of class action litigation and seeking to limit the potential for extensive e-discovery costs.
<div> 
<hr align="left" width="33%" />
<div id="ftn1">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/mzabel/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/XSPUKIEL/Boeynaems%20blog%20piece%20(2).docx#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="">[1]</a> For this proposition, the court cited to the recent, major e-discovery case <a href="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/uploads/file/Third%20Circuit%20Race%20Tires%20opinion.pdf">Race Tires America v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp</a>., 674 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. 2012).  You can find <a href="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/03/articles/flattened-by-race-tires-the-third-circuit-limits-what-types-of-ediscovery-costs-are-recoverable-by-a-prevailing-party/">our analysis of the Race Tires opinion here</a>.
</div>
</div>]]></description>
<link>http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/09/articles/shifting-ediscovery-costs-to-the-plaintiff-in-a-potential-class-action-a-pennsylvania-federal-court-tells-plaintiffs-counsel-to-make-the-investment-in-discovery/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/09/articles/shifting-ediscovery-costs-to-the-plaintiff-in-a-potential-class-action-a-pennsylvania-federal-court-tells-plaintiffs-counsel-to-make-the-investment-in-discovery/</guid>
<category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/">Articles</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">Class action</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">ESI</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">Eastern District of Pennsylvania</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">Third Circuit</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">cost sharing</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">costs</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">discovery</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">discovery request</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">e-discovery</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">e-discovery compliance</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">e-discovery costs</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">e-discovery plan</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">electronically stored information</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">federal courts</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">litigation hold</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">recovery</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">recovery of e-discovery costs</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">unproduced documents</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:24:52 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Mike Zabel</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>Impact of Chin Decision on Pension Committee</title>
<description><![CDATA[ 
 
The Second Circuit’s recent decision in Chin v. Port Authority, Nos. 10-1904-cv(L), 10-2031-cv(XAP), 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14088 (2d Cir. July 10, 2012), appears to have overruled the 2010 opinion from the Southern District of New York in The Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan, et al. v. Banc of America Securities, et al, 685 F. Supp. 2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).
 
The Pension Committee decision, written by Judge Shira Scheindlin, was one of the first cases to recognize the importance of issuing written litigation holds. In Pension Committee,the court recognized that the failure to issue a written litigation hold constitutes gross negligence per se. See id. at 465 (citing Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 229 F.R.D. 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)). Although some of the plaintiffs in the case issued a written litigation hold, they did not do so until almost three years after commencing their action. Pension Commitee, 685 F. Supp. 2d at 476-477. Moreover, the litigation hold was not issued until years after the Zubulake decision, in which the Southern District of New York articulated the necessity to issue written litigation holds. See id. Based on the conduct of these plaintiffs, the court noted that a jury could infer that any missing documents were relevant, and that the defendants were prejudiced due to their absence. See id. at 478.
 
     In contrast, in Chin, the Second Circuitrejected the idea that failure to issue a litigation hold necessarily constitutes gross negligence per se,although the decision does not articulate whether the litigation hold at issue was written or oral. Consequently, the Chin decision places less of a burden on litigants to issue litigation holds. 
Nevertheless, because of the potential benefits they provide, parties would be well served to continue to issue written litigation holds. Among the benefits of issuing a written litigation hold are avoiding spoliation issues and ensuring that key evidence is preserved. Further, the time, effort, and cost required to issue a written litigation hold is minimal. In addition, written litigation holds will help to protect those parties litigating in courts outside of the Second Circuit, which have not yet addressed the issue.
 
 ]]></description>
<link>http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/07/articles/impact-of-chin-decision-on-pension-committee/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/07/articles/impact-of-chin-decision-on-pension-committee/</guid>
<category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/">Articles</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:35:17 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Rachel S. Fendell</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>Second Circuit Refuses to Find Failure to Issue Litigation Hold Gross Negligence Per Se</title>
<description><![CDATA[<img alt="" align="right" width="120" height="160" src="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/uploads/image/Litigation Hold.jpg" />            Reviewing a motion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence, the United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit rejected the argument that failure to issue a litigation hold constitutes gross negligence per se. Chin v. Port Authority, Nos. 10-1904-cv(L), 10-2031-cv(XAP), 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14088, at *68 (2d Cir. July 10, 2012).  Instead, the Second Circuit held that failure to issue a litigation hold is just one factor in the spoliation analysis.
In Chin, the plaintiffs brought an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for failure to promote seven police officers of Asian descent. The basis for the plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions was the destruction of promotion folders that had been used as part of the relevant promotion decisions.  The folders were destroyed at some point after the defendant received notice of the plaintiffs’ EEOC charge. In their motion, the plaintiffs sought an adverse inference instruction from the district court. The district court denied the motion finding that the plaintiffs had ample alternative sources of evidence and that the destruction of the promotion folders was negligent, but not grossly so.
On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that failure to issue a litigation hold amounted to gross, rather than simple, negligence. The Second Circuit rejected this argument, and held that “the better approach is to consider the failure to adopt good preservation practices as one factor in the determination of whether discovery sanctions should issue.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).
Furthermore, the Second Circuit also noted that even if the defendant’s actions were grossly negligent, the District Court was not required to give an adverse inference instruction. Instead, “a ‘case-by-case approach to the failure to produce relevant evidence,’ at the discretion of the district court, is appropriate.” Id. (quoting Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin. Corp., 306 F.3d 99, 108 (2d. Cir. 2002)).
It is important to note the Chin decision does not indicate that parties should stop issuing litigation holds altogether. The absence or presence of a litigation hold is still a factor in determining whether a party’s preservation practices were so flawed as to justify sanctions. However, the decision should provide relief to any party that inadvertently fails to issue a litigation hold and faces a motion for sanctions. The Chin decision makes clear that a party’s failure to issue a litigation hold is not sufficient in and of itself to prove gross negligence and the applicability of sanctions.
For more on Litigation Holds, including what should be in them and when they are necessary, please see these two previous posts by Rachel Fendell: <a href="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2011/08/articles/litigation-holds-take-1/">Litigation Holds, Take 1</a> and <a href="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2011/08/articles/litigation-holds-take-2/">Litigation Holds, Take 2</a>.]]></description>
<link>http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/07/articles/second-circuit-refuses-to-find-failure-to-issue-litigation-hold-gross-negligence-per-se/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/07/articles/second-circuit-refuses-to-find-failure-to-issue-litigation-hold-gross-negligence-per-se/</guid>
<category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/">Articles</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:01:25 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Kevin Kelly</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>Judge Refuses Recusal in Da Silva Moore</title>
<description><![CDATA[ 
Drama stirred in the burgeoning e-discovery world on March 15, 2012, when Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck denied Plaintiffs’ request that he recuse himself from Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, No. 11-CV-1279 (ALC) (AJP) (S.D. N.Y. June 15, 2012).
Plaintiffs moved for recusal in the aftermath of Judge Peck’s February 24, 2012 order, allowing the use of predictive coding and adopting Defendant-MSL’s protocol for its use. This is the latest development in the ongoing saga of this case, the first to judicially-endorse the use of predictive coding in electronic discovery.  The Defendants proposed using predictive coding to wade through the approximately 3 million electronic documents involved in the discovery.
Plaintiffs claim that recusal is warranted because Judge Peck’s “advocacy of predictive coding” renders him biased.  Specifically, Plaintiffs pointed to an article Judge Peck wrote for Law Technology News, “Search, Forward,” an article Judge Peck himself called a “sign of judicial approval of predictive coding” for appropriate cases. At the first conference with the parties, Judge Peck said to the defendants, who were pushing the use of predictive coding:  “You must have thought you died and went to Heaven when this case was referred to me.”  Judge Peck spoke publicly in support of predictive coding as a panelist for a LegalTech conference and at several e-discovery CLEs. Plaintiffs’ also alleged improper ex-parte contact with one of the co-panelists at LegalTech, and a partner at the firm representing Defendants, Ralph Losey.
Plaintiffs filed their motion for recusal on April 13, 2012, after informally requesting Judge Peck recuse himself on March 28, shortly after Judge Peck issued the Court’s formal opinion adopting MSL’s Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) protocol on February 24. 2012 WL 607412 (S.D. N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012) (Peck, M.J.) adopted by 2012 WL 1446534 (S.D. N.Y. Apr. 26, 2012).
Judge Peck denied the motion for recusal, finding the motion untimely and meritless. The motion was held untimely because Judge Peck had informed both parties about his “Search, Forward” article, LegalTech speaking engagement, and his acquaintance with Losey months before the plaintiffs moved for recusal. He noted that Plaintiffs waited to seek his recusal until after he adopted MSL’s predictive coding protocol, citing agreement with a Second Circuit opinion, which held that such untimely recusal motions may be improperly used as a fall-back position to an unfavorable ruling.  See, Weisshaus v. Fagan, 456 F. App’x 32, 34 (2d Cir. 2012).
Additionally, Judge Peck held the recusal motion was meritless because the parties were already discussing the use of predictive coding before the case was referred to him on November 28, 2011. Plaintiffs had been open to using predictive coding from the beginning, but disagreed with Defendants about the specific protocol. Judge Peck found the Plaintiff’s allegations that he had taken “personal offense” to Plaintiffs’ filing of objections to his rulings, had “chastised and yelled at Plaintiffs’ counsel”, and had “intimidated Plaintiffs for disagreeing with rulings” to have been taken out of context and to be insufficient to overcome a judge’s presumption of impartiality.
Importantly, the Plaintiffs “never accused Judge Peck of actual bias or sought to impugn Judge Peck’s integrity” but sought his recusal only on the basis that the facts, taken together, “create an appearance of partiality.” Apparently finding that a “reasonable person knowing and understanding all of the relevant facts” would not find such an appearance of partiality (United States v. Bayless, 201 F.3d 116, 126–27 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1061 (2000)), Judge Peck denied Plaintiffs’ motion for recusal.
No doubt the legal community will continue to keep a close watch as the drama of Da Silva Moore continues.]]></description>
<link>http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/06/articles/judge-refuses-recusal-in-da-silva-moore/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/06/articles/judge-refuses-recusal-in-da-silva-moore/</guid>
<category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/">Articles</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:56:52 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Thomas M. Jones</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>Pennsylvania Announces E-Discovery Amendments to Rules of Civil Procedure</title>
<description><![CDATA[         <img alt="" align="right" width="75" height="99" src="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/uploads/image/shutterstock_28766500(2).jpg" /> Pennsylvania recently adopted amendments to its Rules of Civil Procedure that govern e-discovery practice in the Commonwealth. Although the amendments to Rules 4009 and 4011 (requests for production and the scope of discovery, respectively) use the federal term “electronically stored information,” the Rules Committee specifically did not incorporate federal jurisprudence, and instead declared that “[e-discovery] is to be determined by traditional principles of proportionality under Pennsylvania law.” Explanatory Comment A, Pa. R.C.P. No. 4009. Without the guidance of nearly a decade of e-discovery case law and detailed procedure under the federal rules, practitioners and their clients should be cautious regarding their obligations approaching and during litigation.
Pennsylvania is in the minority of states that do not adopt, in whole or in part, the federal rules governing e-discovery. As of February 2012, at least thirty states “based their new e-discovery rules on the [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure].”<a title="" href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a> While Pennsylvania’s new rules do not incorporate the entirebody of federal jurisprudence on e-discovery, practitioners will find the Rules’ proportionality standard somewhat familiar. In deciding discovery disputes, courts in should consider:
                1.         the nature and scope of the litigation, including the importance and complexity of the issues and the amounts at stake;
                2.         the relevance of electronically stored information and its importance to the court's adjudication in the given case;
                3.         the cost, burden, and delay that may be imposed on the parties to deal with electronically stored information;
                4.         the ease of producing electronically stored information and whether substantially similar information is available with less burden; and
                5.         any other factors relevant under the circumstances.
These factors are actually quite similar to those governing the scope of discovery under the federal rules: the “needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake” and the “importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i)-(iii). Without an existing body of Pennsylvania case law to interpret the rules, federal case law will almost certainly be cited by litigants attempting to bring meaning to the new standard. The Explanatory Comment makes clear, however, that trial court judges are not bound by federal law when deciding any disputes over e-discovery.
The new rules provide standards for the Courts to resolve discovery disputes but leave litigants in Pennsylvania with almost no guidance on how to avoid such disputes entirely. The new rules do encourage cooperation amongst the parties, suggesting the use of “electronic searching, sampling, cost sharing, and non-waiver agreements to fairly allocate discovery burdens and costs.” Explanatory Comment C, Pa.R.C.P. No. 4009.  Unlike the federal rules, however, the Pennsylvania rules provide almost no instruction on how e-discovery should be handled. In seeking electronically stored information, the requesting party must be “as specific as possible” and may state the format in which the material is to be produced. Pa. R.C.P. No. 4009.1(b); Note, Pa. R.C.P. No. 4009.11. The other responding party may produce the material in that format or object to the request. Pa. R.C.P. No. 4009.1(b). If no specific format is requested, the producing party may use a “form in which [the information] is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably useable form.” Id. No other guidance is provided.
There is no standard in the rules with which parties can support their demands or objections during discovery. As a result, the parties may be less likely to reach agreement and more likely to seek intervention from the court. Moreover, there is no standard in the rules that provides consistent e-discovery procedures amongst the trial courts. Until a more extensive body of case law arises that interprets the new rules, each judge could be left to create his or her own procedure.
Pennsylvania has adopted a clean-slate approach to e-discovery and it will take time to develop jurisprudence that gives effective guidance to practitioners and the judiciary. The federal judicial system has spent almost ten years developing e-discovery principles since the Zubulake v. UBS Warburg decisions first addressed these issues. Fortunately, Pennsylvania can turn to an existing e-discovery practice nationwide that continues to evolve alongside new technology and methodology. As practitioners begin operating under the new rules, courts should build upon existing e-discovery scholarship to bring decisional clarity to the new Rules.<a title="" href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a>
<div> 
<hr size="1" width="33%" align="left" />
<div id="ftn1">
<a title="" href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a> Thomas Y. Allman, E-Discovery in Federal and State Courts after the 2006 Federal Amendments 3 (Feb. 9, 2012), available at <a href="http://www.krollontrack.com/publications/2012%20fed%20state%20ediscovery%20rules.pdf?utm_source=ED&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=ED-Rediscovered-2012-02-15-ExternalWebinarFup&utm_content=download.">http://www.krollontrack.com/publications/2012%20fed%20state%20ediscovery%20rules.pdf?utm_source=ED&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=ED-Rediscovered-2012-02-15-ExternalWebinarFup&utm_content=download.</a>
</div>
<div id="ftn2">
<a title="" href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">[2]</a> For example, in 2010 the Sedona Conference offered its “Commentary on Proportionality in Electronic Discovery,” including commentary on the Federal Rules. <a href="http://www.cozen.com/attorney_detail.asp?d=1&atid=285">Dave Walton</a>, co-chair of Cozen O’Connor’s E-Discovery Task Force, contributed to the dialogue as the Conference was drafting its Commentary. You can review a copy <a href="https://thesedonaconference.org/publication/sedona-conference%C2%AE-commentary-proportionality">here</a>.
</div>
</div>
 ]]></description>
<link>http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/06/articles/pennsylvania-announces-ediscovery-amendments-to-rules-of-civil-procedure/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/06/articles/pennsylvania-announces-ediscovery-amendments-to-rules-of-civil-procedure/</guid>
<category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/">Articles</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">e-discovery</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">eDiscovery</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">electronically stored information</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">pennsylvania</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">proportionality</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">rules</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:25:16 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Michael Broadbent</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Ultimate Price--New York Court Dismisses Case as Spoliation Sanction</title>
<description><![CDATA[ 
The Supreme Court in New York County recently dismissed a $20 million suit in a sanctioning order in response to the Plaintiff’s destruction of electronically stored information (“ESI”). In 915 Broadway Associates LLC v. Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP, 34 Misc. 3d 1229A (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012), the court made clear that it would not tolerate spoliation of evidence and that it was willing to impose even the severest of sanctions.
The Plaintiff was initially a party to a separate action involving a failed real estate deal, as a result of which a litigation hold letter was issued in April, 2008. Broadway settled the real estate action and brought this malpractice suit against its former attorneys in August of 2008. The attorneys were allegedly responsible for failing to advise Broadway that the letter of credit provided to it in connection with the real estate deal expired during negotiations, in spite of evidence that Broadway was at least in partly responsible.
By 2008, it was well-established law, consistent with the Zubulake decisions, that once a party reasonable anticipates litigation, it must suspend its routine document retention and destruction policy and put in place a litigation hold to ensure the preservation of relevant documents. See Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 218 (S.D. N.Y. 2003). However, even though the litigation hold letter from April 2008 was sent to the primary custodians, at least one principal actively deleted relevant emails. Further, the company made no effort to suspend the automatic destruction policy of emails, which resulted in the permanent destruction of every email intentionally deleted. Additionally, the court found that nine of fourteen key custodians had deleted relevant documents. Perhaps the worst violation, however, occurred after the Defendant had raised its spoliation concerns with the court, when Broadway decommissioned and discarded an email served without preserving any of the relevant ESI.
The court reiterated that circulation of a litigation hold alone is not sufficient to meet a party’s discovery obligations. Instead, a party must take affirmative steps to ensure potentially relevant evidence is identified and preserved. This includes not only avoiding affirmative acts of destruction, but also taking active steps, if required, to stop automatic deletion features. When evidence is destroyed, even mere negligence is sufficient to warrant sanctions. And when documents are destroyed as the result of, at a minimum, gross negligence, the court will presume the destroyed documents were relevant.
In this instance, the court determined that dismissal was the only remedy capable of addressing the prejudice caused by the intentional and reckless destruction of ESI. In addition to dismissing the Plaintiff’s $20 million suit, the court also awarded attorney’s fees and costs.
This case reinforces the need to not only issue a litigation hold, but to monitor compliance with it and take affirmative steps to ensure that potentially relevant information is collected and preserved. Even negligence in document preservation can result in sanctions.]]></description>
<link>http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/05/articles/the-ultimate-pricenew-york-court-dismisses-case-as-spoliation-sanction/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/05/articles/the-ultimate-pricenew-york-court-dismisses-case-as-spoliation-sanction/</guid>
<category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/">Articles</category>
<pubDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 18:49:38 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Thomas M. Jones</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>A Spoliation Ace in the Hole</title>
<description><![CDATA[ <img hspace="5" alt="" vspace="5" align="left" style="width: 167px; height: 110px" src="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/uploads/image/shutterstock_39931864(2).jpg" />      A district court case decided last month shows how a company’s email retention and litigation hold policies can affect claims of spoliation by adverse parties in litigation. In <a href="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/uploads/file/https___ecf_almd_uscourts_gov_cgi-bin_show_temp_pl_file=file0_986525339112756.pdf">Danny Lynn Electrical v. Veolia ES Solid Waste</a>, No. 2:09CV192-MHT, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31685, at *2 (M.D. Ala. March 9, 2012), the Plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions alleging the Defendants had “blatantly disregarded their duty to preserve electronic information in this case.” Specifically, the Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants failed to implement a litigation hold, deleted a number of email accounts, and failed to disable an email “auto delete” function after litigation commenced. They requested the full spectrum of sanctions, including monetary penalties, adverse evidentiary inferences, and the striking of affirmative defenses.
Despite the Plaintiffs’ accusations, the court found that sanctions were unwarranted. First, the court explained that to evaluate whether sanctions are appropriate in a spoliation case, it must consider the importance of the destroyed evidence, the culpability of the defending party, fundamental fairness, and whether the destroyed evidence is available from other sources. Applying these factors to the case at hand, the court questioned whether any spoliation had actually occurred. Even assuming spoliation had occurred, however, the court found that the Defendants had not acted in bad faith.
In coming to its decision, the court noted that while a few emails may have been accidentally deleted due to a computer virus, from the very beginning of the litigation, the Defendants regularly made tape backups of all emails. The tape backup system was later replaced by a system that created email backups on the company network. Throughout the course of the litigation, the Defendants regularly supplied emails from these backup systems in response to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. The court concluded that even if some emails had been lost, the Defendants did not act in bad faith because they “have expended great effort to insure that the plaintiffs receive information from both their live and archived email system by providing document review technology and allowing access to its database.” Therefore, the court decided sanctions were not appropriate.
The decision highlights how an up-front investment in data management technologies and policies can lead to real cost savings from a litigation standpoint. These investments not only decrease the costs – in both time and money – of responding to discovery requests, but also show good faith effort should an adverse party allege spoliation and request sanctions. A company that formulates sound email retention and litigation hold policies, documents and disseminates these policies, and conducts regular audits to ensure these policies are properly implemented will have a readymade shield to employ any time another party makes a spoliation claim. In the long run, these investments can save the company from the tedium of having to justify every email deletion on a case-by-case basis. When it comes to defending against potential spoliation claims, being proactive, rather than reactive, will go a long way to ensure you always have the winning hand.]]></description>
<link>http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/04/articles/a-spoliation-ace-in-the-hole/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/04/articles/a-spoliation-ace-in-the-hole/</guid>
<category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/">Articles</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 05:57:02 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Brian Kint</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>Flattened By Race Tires: The Third Circuit Limits What Types of E-Discovery Costs Are Recoverable by a Prevailing Party</title>
<description><![CDATA[<img width="250" height="188" align="right" alt="" src="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/uploads/image/gavel 2.jpg" />On March 16, 2012, in <a href="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/uploads/file/Third Circuit Race Tires opinion.pdf">Race Tires America, Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp. et al</a>.,<a name="_ftnref1" title="" href="file://cozen.com/PHL/users/MZabel/Documents/E-discovery%20blog/Third%20Circuit%20-%20Race%20Tires%20blog%20post.docx#_ftn1">[1]</a> the<a href="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/"> U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit</a> adopted a conservative view of the types of e-discovery costs recoverable by a prevailing party in federal court.  In a precedential opinion intended to “provide definitive guidance to the district courts in our Circuit,” the Third Circuit held that  the costs of “scanning and file format conversion” are recoverable by a prevailing party, but many other attendant e-discovery costs are not.
Federal Rules for Recovering Costs
As e-discovery costs rise and become more common, a growing number of federal courts have been called upon to determine whether those costs are “taxable” – i.e., whether a prevailing party in federal court may recover the costs that it incurred in  producing ESI for discovery.  <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_54">Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1)</a> allows for “costs” (except for attorney’s fees) to be awarded to a prevailing party, and Congress defined what those “costs” are in <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title28/pdf/USCODE-2009-title28-partV-chap123-sec1920.pdf">28 U.S.C. § 1920</a>.  The debate over e-discovery costs arises almost entirely out of <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title28/pdf/USCODE-2009-title28-partV-chap123-sec1920.pdf">§ 1920(4)</a>, which states that taxable costs include:
<p style="margin-top:12.0pt;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:
0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"> Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case[.]
As federal courts grapple with <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title28/pdf/USCODE-2009-title28-partV-chap123-sec1920.pdf">§ 1920(4)</a> in the context of e-discovery, they key question tends to be what parts of the e-discovery process are encompassed by “exemplification” and “making copies of any materials.”
In Race Tires, the Third Circuit was presented the opportunity to address the applicability of <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title28/pdf/USCODE-2009-title28-partV-chap123-sec1920.pdf">§ 1920(4)</a> to e-discovery costs.  Last year, <a href="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2011/06/articles/recovering-ediscovery-costs-in-federal-court/">this blog wrote about an opinion</a> from the <a href="http://www.pawd.uscourts.gov/">U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania</a> that took a broad view of the terms in <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title28/pdf/USCODE-2009-title28-partV-chap123-sec1920.pdf">§ 1920(4)</a>, and awarded to the successful defendants in an anti-trust case over $367,000 in e-discovery costs for work done by third-party vendors and consultants that was “highly technical” and “not the type of services that attorneys or paralegals are trained for or capable of providing.”
The Third Circuit Opinion
The Third Circuit reversed that District Court’s decision in Race Tires, as the appellate court opted for a limited, rather than expansive reading of § 1920(4).  The court identified only  two e-discovery costs that were recoverable in the case: 1) the conversion of native files<a name="_ftnref2" title="" href="file://cozen.com/PHL/users/MZabel/Documents/E-discovery%20blog/Third%20Circuit%20-%20Race%20Tires%20blog%20post.docx#_ftn2">[2]</a> to an ESI format which had been agreed upon by the parties, and 2) the scanning of physical documents to create digital duplicates.  As a result, the court reduced the defendants’ award of costs to just over $30,000.
In the opinion, Judge Vanaskie emphasized the historical purpose of <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title28/pdf/USCODE-2009-title28-partV-chap123-sec1920.pdf">§ 1920</a> and its statutory predecessors, and the “‘American rule’ against shifting the expense of  litigation to the losing party.”  The court cited Supreme Court precedent for the principle that <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title28/pdf/USCODE-2009-title28-partV-chap123-sec1920.pdf">§ 1920</a> was intended to provide “rigid controls on cost-shifting in federal courts” and thus that the statute “defines the full extent of a federal court’s power to shift litigation costs absent express statutory authority.”
“Making Copies”
In its most important piece of analysis, the court concluded that e-discovery services such as ESI collection and preservation, indexing and processing, and keyword searching do not fall within the meaning of the term “making copies” found in <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title28/pdf/USCODE-2009-title28-partV-chap123-sec1920.pdf">§ 1920(4)</a>.  The court expressly rejected the argument that because such services are a necessary part of the process of ESI production, they are the modern equivalent of making copies. Such notions, the court wrote, “are untethered from the statutory mooring.”
Prior to the ESI era, Judge Vanaskie noted, there could also be a lengthy process involved in producing copies for discovery which included collecting, processing, and reviewing paper files for relevancy and privilege, and the costs of those activities were never taxable under the statute.  Similarly, the court reasoned, the costs of “gathering, preserving, processing, searching, culling and extracting ESI” may be necessary expenses leading up to the production of ESI, but they cannot be considered the costs of “making copies.”
Several components of e-discovery do qualify as “making copies,” according to the Third Circuit.  The court expressly approved of scanning paper documents into electronic form and transferring VHS tapes to DVD as taxable costs.  Additionally, because the parties in Race Tires had agreed to produce ESI in TIFF<a name="_ftnref3" title="" href="file://cozen.com/PHL/users/MZabel/Documents/E-discovery%20blog/Third%20Circuit%20-%20Race%20Tires%20blog%20post.docx#_ftn3">[3]</a> format, the court allowed the defendants to recover the costs of converting non-TIFF electronic files into TIFF format.  These recoverable costs represented roughly $30,000 worth of the defendants’ e-discovery bill, which totaled more than $367,000.
Recovering E-Discovery Costs with Race Tires
Race Tires offers reasonably clear guidelines for the recovery of e-discovery costs by a prevailing party in a district court in the Third Circuit.  Under Race Tires, a prevailing party should be able to recover 1) the cost of scanning physical documents and 2) the cost of converting electronic files into another format that has been agreed upon by the parties in a discovery plan or case management order.  A prevailing party should not expect, however, to recover the costs of gathering, preserving, processing, searching, culling and extracting ESI – services which will often represent the bulk of e-discovery costs.  In short, Race Tires gives some certainty, but little relief to litigants facing expensive e-discovery bills.
<div> 
<hr align="left" width="33%" />
<div id="ftn1">
<a name="_ftn1" title="" href="file://cozen.com/PHL/users/MZabel/Documents/E-discovery%20blog/Third%20Circuit%20-%20Race%20Tires%20blog%20post.docx#_ftnref1">[1]</a> No. 11-2316, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5511 (3d Cir. March 16, 2012).
</div>
<div id="ftn2">
<a name="_ftn2" title="" href="file://cozen.com/PHL/users/MZabel/Documents/E-discovery%20blog/Third%20Circuit%20-%20Race%20Tires%20blog%20post.docx#_ftnref2">[2]</a> As the Third Circuit explained, “the native file format is the file structure defined by the original creating application.” For example, a document which was originally created in Microsoft Word is a Word (or .doc) file in its native file format.
</div>
<div id="ftn3">
<a name="_ftn3" title="" href="file://cozen.com/PHL/users/MZabel/Documents/E-discovery%20blog/Third%20Circuit%20-%20Race%20Tires%20blog%20post.docx#_ftnref3">[3]</a> “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagged_Image_File_Format">Tagged Image File Format</a>,” a type of electronic file. 
</div>
</div>]]></description>
<link>http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/03/articles/flattened-by-race-tires-the-third-circuit-limits-what-types-of-ediscovery-costs-are-recoverable-by-a-prevailing-party/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/03/articles/flattened-by-race-tires-the-third-circuit-limits-what-types-of-ediscovery-costs-are-recoverable-by-a-prevailing-party/</guid>
<category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/">Articles</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">ESI</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">Race Tires</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">Third Circuit</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">costs</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">discovery</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">e-discovery</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">e-discovery consultants</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">e-discovery costs</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">e-discovery plan</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">eDiscovery</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">electronic communication</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">electronically stored information</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">exemplification</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">federal courts</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">recovery of e-discovery costs</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:11:53 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Mike Zabel</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>Simple Mistakes Lead to Discovery Sanctions Against Delta Air Lines</title>
<description><![CDATA[<img alt="" align="left" width="90" height="90" src="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/uploads/image/Mystery Box.jpg" />             Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr., of the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, imposed discovery sanctions against Delta Air Lines after it failed to disclose documents contained in backup tapes and hard drives that had been inadvertently overlooked by Delta’s counsel and IT personnel. The opinion is In re Delta/Airtran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litigation, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13462 (N.D. Ga. February 3, 2012).
In the underlying action, Plaintiffs allege that Delta conspired with other airlines to impose a baggage fee on a passenger’s first bag. During discovery, Plaintiffs served Delta with document requests, seeking all documents related to its decision to impose a first-bag fee on its air passengers. Delta responded by producing approximately 103,000 pages of documents prior to the close of discovery. Delta made a similar production to the Department of Justice, which was also investigating the baggage fees.
Later while responding to a discovery request from the Department of Justice in a separate investigation, Delta produced documents relevant to the baggage fee action that had not previously been produced. When the Department of Justice noticed the discrepancy and contacted Delta, Delta notified Plaintiffs and the court, and opened an investigation into its document production efforts.
The investigation revealed two sources of unproduced documents. First, the contents of a number of custodian hard drives were never uploaded to Delta’s electronic information management program. Only documents uploaded to the program were reviewed for production. Second, during its investigation, Delta’s IT personnel found an unmarked box containing backup tapes of server information in the office that manages document discovery responses. The tapes contained documents that were relevant to the baggage fee litigation. Delta eventually released an additional 60,000 pages of documents to Plaintiffs.
As a result, Plaintiffs sought discovery sanctions from Delta. The court found that Delta was subject to sanctions for two violations. First, the court determined that Delta had failed to make a reasonable inquiry into the completeness of its discovery responses as it had certified pursuant to FRCP 26(g). The court indicated that Delta should have done a better job making sure that the IT department followed its instructions and produced the correct documents. Based on the violation of FRCP 26(g), the court awarded Plaintiffs reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by Delta’s violation. Second, the court determined that Delta had breached its obligation to supplement its discovery requests pursuant to FRCP 26(e). According to the court, Delta should have been more diligent in searching such an obvious area for tapes related to the investigation. Given its failure under FRCP 26(e), the court imposed sanctions under FRCP 37 and awarded Plaintiffs reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees caused by Delta’s failure, including fees and expenses related to the motion for sanctions, the extended discovery period, and a separate motion for spoliation sanctions.
Errors in e-discovery practice can easily occur to any party. The key to avoiding the situation is taking an active role not only in creating sound e-discovery procedures, but also ensuring that all personnel are aware of the importance of diligently following them. A simple lack of vigilance on the part of any party can lead to an oversight, and as demonstrated by Judge Batten, such an oversight can lead to sanctions. ]]></description>
<link>http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/03/articles/simple-mistakes-lead-to-discovery-sanctions-against-delta-air-lines/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/03/articles/simple-mistakes-lead-to-discovery-sanctions-against-delta-air-lines/</guid>
<category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/">Articles</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/articles">Sanctions</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">attorney's fees</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">discovery request</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">disovery sanctions</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">e-deDiscovery</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">ediscovery misconduct</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">production</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">rule 26(e)</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">rule 26(g)</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">rule 37</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">unproduced documents</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:59:12 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Kevin Kelly</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>New York Appellate Division Rules Producing Party Must Bear the Cost of ESI Production</title>
<description><![CDATA[<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG />
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves />
<w:TrackFormatting />
<w:PunctuationKerning />
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas />
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF />
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables />
<w:SnapToGridInCell />
<w:WrapTextWithPunct />
<w:UseAsianBreakRules />
<w:DontGrowAutofit />
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark />
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning />
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents />
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps />
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math" />
<m:brkBin m:val="before" />
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--" />
<m:smallFrac m:val="off" />
<m:dispDef />
<m:lMargin m:val="0" />
<m:rMargin m:val="0" />
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup" />
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440" />
<m:intLim m:val="subSup" />
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr" />
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" Name="Body Text" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography" />
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading" />
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
</style>
<![endif]-->           <img width="200" vspace="5" align="right" border="5" hspace="5" height="140" alt="" src="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/uploads/image/images(1).jpg" />It is no secret that a large-scale document production, especially one involving extensive ESI, can come at a high cost.  Although courts have been split in deciding which party is responsible for bearing this cost, the New York Appellate Division, First Department determined last week that the cost of searching for, retrieving and producing ESI should be borne by the producing party.
In U.S. Bank Nat. Assoc. v. GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., 2012 N.Y. Slip Op 01515 (N.Y. App. Div. Feb. 28, 2010),  plaintiff, assignee of securitized mortgage loans, sued defendant, originator of the loans, for “gross violations” of the representations and warranties regarding the attributes of the loans and the policies and practices under which the loans were originated, underwritten and serviced.
In February 2009, plaintiff served defendant with their first request for production of documents.  Rather than producing the documents requested, on April 28, 2009, defendant submitted a letter to the court seeking a ruling on, among other things, whether the production should be conditioned on plaintiff’s confirmation that it would pay the cost of production.   On December 11, 2009, defendant moved to stay discovery and for a protective order conditioning production of discovery on compliance with a protocol that provided that each party would pay for its own discovery requests.  Plaintiff opposed the motion arguing that they should not have to bear the costs of production, which could run into the millions of dollars.  On April 13, 2010, the court denied defendant’s motion for a protective order but endorsed its contention that the party seeking discovery bears the cost of production.
The Appellate Division pointed out that this area of law has become unsettled as a result of the high cost of locating and producing ESI.  While some courts have held that the requesting party should bear the entire cost of discovery, others, including the Southern District of New York in Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309, 317-318 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), have held that the cost should fall on the producing party.
The Appellate Division determined that Zubulake presents the most practical framework for allocating discovery costs.  Zubulake requires, consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “the producing party to bear the initial cost of searching for, retrieving and producing discovery, but permits the shifting of costs between the parties.”  When determining whether costs should be shifted, the court continued, courts should follow the seven Zubulake factors, which are:
<p style="margin-top:6.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:
0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt" class="MsoBodyText">(1) the extent to which the request is specifically tailored to discover relevant information;
(2) the availability of such information from other sources;
(3) the total cost of production, compared to the amount in controversy;
(4) the total cost of production, compared to the resources available to each party;
(5) the relative ability of each party to control costs and its incentive to do so;
(6) the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation; and
(7) the relative benefits to the parties of obtaining the information.
The Appellate Division found this rule controlling for three reasons.  First, requiring the producing party to bear its own costs of discovery supports “the strong public policy favoring resolving disputes on their merits.”  Second, commentators and courts have recently called into question the validity of the “requestor pays” rule.  Third, this standard is consistent with the long-standing New York rule that expenses incurred in connection with disclosure are to be paid by the respective producing parties and said expenses may be taxed as disbursements by the prevailing party.
The Appellate Division applied this rule and determined that defendant’s motion for a protective order was premature.  Defendant should have first made a motion to limit or strike plaintiff’s discovery request on the ground that it was overly broad, irrelevant, or unduly burdensome.  If defendant believed costs for producing ESI were still prohibitive after resolution of that motion, defendant should have then filed a motion for the costs to be shifted to the plaintiff.  Because the record contained no evidence supporting defendant’s proposed fee structure, the court refused to offer an opinion on the propriety of shifting costs in this matter.
            Whether other jurisdictions follow New York’s lead is yet to be seen.  Stay tuned to ediscoverylawreview.com for further details and analysis of this emerging issue.  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/03/articles/new-york-appellate-division-rules-producing-party-must-bear-the-cost-of-esi-production/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/03/articles/new-york-appellate-division-rules-producing-party-must-bear-the-cost-of-esi-production/</guid>
<category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/">Articles</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">cost</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">document</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">e-discovery</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">production</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2012 08:37:17 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Calli Varner</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>Magistrate Judge Peck's Message to the Bar: Predictive Coding Should Be "Seriously Considered"</title>
<description><![CDATA[<img alt="" align="left" width="100" height="151" src="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/uploads/image/E-Disco Update.jpg" />
Ediscoverylawreview.com first discussed this emerging issue in its blog post on February 15, 2012. As anticipated, Magistrate Judge Peck issued an opinion detailing his reasons for authorizing the use of predictive coding in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Group, No. 11-CV-1279 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2012). Judge Peck’s position on predictive coding can be summarized by a single statement in his Opinion: “What the Bar should take away from this Opinion is that computer-assisted review is an available tool and should be seriously considered for use in large-data-volume cases where it may save the producing party (or both parties) significant amounts of legal fees in document review.”
As Judge Peck noted, this Opinion appears to be the first wherein the Court approved predictive coding. He emphasized that while manual document reviews are still considered the “gold standard,” studies have shown that “computerized searches are at least as accurate, if not more so, than manual review.” Even keyword searches, in Judge Peck’s opinion, are the equivalent of a game of “Go Fish” because the “requesting party guesses which keywords might produce evidence to support its case without having much, if any, knowledge of the responding party’s ‘cards.’ i.e., the terminology used by the responding party’s custodians.”
            Judge Peck listed five considerations in his approving the use of predictive coding:
(1) the parties’ agreement; (2) the vast amount of ESI to be reviewed (over three million documents); (3) the superiority of computer-assisted review to the available alternatives (i.e., linear manual review or keyword searches); (4) the need for cost effectiveness and proportionality under Rule 26(b)(2)(C); and (5) the transparent process proposed by [the defendant].
Judge Peck particularly emphasized the importance of the transparency that the defendant used in its proposed ESI search protocol and the presence of e-discovery vendors at hearings to assist the Court in understanding various ESI issues.
While Judge Peck recognized that predictive coding was not appropriate in every case, he emphasized that it should be considered in large-scale matters. Importantly, he stated, “[c]ounsel no longer have to worry about being the ‘first’ or ‘guiena pig’ for judicial acceptance of computer-assisted review.” As he stated, predictive coding “now can be considered judicially-approved for use in appropriate cases.”
Predictive coding is a tool that should be examined and may be appropriate in a number of cases. It is important to involve counsel at the beginning of litigation so that document review tools, including predictive coding, can be considered for the matter and so that the company can be transparent – with the Court and its adversary – as to its e-discovery efforts.]]></description>
<link>http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/03/articles/opinions/magistrate-judge-pecks-message-to-the-bar-predictive-coding-should-be-seriously-considered/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/03/articles/opinions/magistrate-judge-pecks-message-to-the-bar-predictive-coding-should-be-seriously-considered/</guid>
<category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/articles">Opinions</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2012 13:03:48 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>F Brenden Coller</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>Federal Court Incentivizes Narrow e-Discovery Through Cost Shifting</title>
<description><![CDATA[<img hspace="6" alt="" align="left" width="212" height="123" src="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/uploads/image/e-discovery.jpg" />            A case does not have to involve complex commercial litigation or technical patent disputes to create serious electronic discovery problems. An excellent example of just how messy e-Discovery can get, even with age-old claims, is found in Cannata, et al. v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp., et al.. There, employee plaintiffs brought claims against employer defendants, alleging sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation.  In an order issued February 17, 2012, Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach of the United States District Court of Nevada took charge of an ongoing ESI back-and-forth between plaintiffs and defendants in this case.
Over the course of the litigation, plaintiffs sought to broaden the scope of e-Discovery by increasing the number of search terms and custodians, while the defendants insisted on strictly adhering to a prior court order requiring narrow search terms. The prior order permitted only 10 search terms and avoided using “or” within the context of the searches if at all possible. Defendants further objected to including sexual terms in the searches, claiming that they were irrelevant because they had not been mentioned in any facts asserted by plaintiffs or in any depositions.
Plaintiffs insisted that such an approach would not yield all of the evidence relevant to their case. Plaintiffs instead proposed that the parties jointly engage in a process by which the plaintiffs supply an initial list of 100 search terms and 50 email custodians. Defendants would then run the search terms through the custodians’ files and provide a search term “hit” report to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs would then work with defendants to determine whether the searches were yielding too many duplicate items or irrelevant documents.
Not surprisingly, this joint approach did not work and the court decided that it must appoint an e-Discovery Special Master to oversee the process. The court got even more specific though, stating that the process would include only narrowly tailored search terms. “Indiscriminate terms, such as a defendant’s name, are inappropriate unless combined with narrowing search criteria that sufficiently reduce the risk of overproduction.” The court went on to even provide the methods for conducting the searches (e.g. “Each disjunctive combination of analogous words shall be delimited by parentheses”).
To incentivize a narrowly tailored process, the court ordered that plaintiffs would be required to reimburse defendants for the e-Discovery costs incurred in complying with the order if the final set of combined search terms and sites searched exceeded 40. For each term over 40, plaintiffs would reimburse defendants 5% of their e-Discovery compliance costs from the date of the February 17, 2012 order through the end of discovery. 
As the Cannata v. Wyndham court recognized, the e-discovery process can be expensive and burdensome, even when narrowly tailored to address the parties’ claims. Just because a claim seems straightforward and grounded in the real world, rather than electronic data, that does not mean that parties should not begin planning and budgeting for e-Discovery as early as possible.   
           ]]></description>
<link>http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/02/articles/federal-court-incentivizes-narrow-ediscovery-through-cost-shifting/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/02/articles/federal-court-incentivizes-narrow-ediscovery-through-cost-shifting/</guid>
<category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/">Articles</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:11:23 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Lisa Myers</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>All's "Well" for Halliburton: No Sanctions Result from BP's Spoliation Claims</title>
<description><![CDATA[<img alt="" align="left" width="191" height="136" src="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/uploads/image/Pic for Blog Posting.bmp" />United States District Judge Carl Barbier recently affirmed Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan’s denial of BP’s motion for spoliation sanctions against Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. BP alleged that Halliburton “intentionally destroyed evidence” and “violated the Court’s orders regarding the production of documents.” For these violations, BP sought sanctions including an adverse finding against Halliburton, attorneys’ fees, and an order compelling Halliburton to deliver a computer used in producing 3D modeling results. Judge Shushan refused to make an adverse finding and refused to award attorneys’ fees but ordered Halliburton to deliver the modeling computer for forensic testing.
By way of background, one of Halliburton’s main defenses in this multi-district litigation included the assertion that foam cement that Halliburton pumped into the Macondo well on April 19, 2010 was stable. Access to Halliburton’s testing results was integral to prove or disprove this defense. Another of Halliburton’s main defenses involved BP’s alleged engineering decisions to use fewer centralizers than Halliburton had recommended inside the well. Halliburton’s proprietary Displace 3D Simulator (“Simulator”) allowed engineers to predict with accuracy the possibility of channeling. Halliburton employees conducted an analysis of the April 19 cementing operation using the Simulator that allegedly indicated that there was no channeling at the Macondo well.
BP asserted that Halliburton intentionally destroyed the results of physical slurry testing as it related to foam cement used in the wells because “it wanted to eliminate any risk that this evidence would be used against it at trial.” Judge Shushan, however, determined that BP failed to establish the three elements necessary to secure an adverse inference: 1) Halliburton’s duty to preserve; 2) Halliburton’s bad faith breach of the duty; and 3) that BP was prejudiced. Judge Shushan determined that BP had not demonstrated prejudice and refused BP’s request for an adverse finding as to the cement tests.
Similarly, BP sought Halliburton’s post-incident Simulator modeling. BP argued that the proprietary nature of the model rendered it unavailable to BP or other litigants. Halliburton, however, revealed that the results of the Simulator modeling were “gone.” BP then argued that Halliburton should transfer the computer on which the Simulator modeling had been completed to a third party for forensic testing. Halliburton agreed to submit the computer to a third-party and to make its software available to BP pursuant to a software escrow agreement. Judge Shushan ordered Halliburton to produce the computer for forensic testing and ordered the parties to split the costs.
The mysterious disappearance of evidence in most cases would result in a plethora of sanctions. How, then, did Halliburton fare so well? One possible reason might be Halliburton’s contention that the cement testing that BP referenced used off-the shelf materials that had little or no relevance to the case. Perhaps this fact contributed to Master Shushan’s finding that BP was not prejudiced. Another likely reason includes Halliburton’s willingness to cooperate with BP to conduct forensic testing of its computer. In contentious cases, a little cooperation goes a long way. In all cases, especially in the e-discovery context, sound record-keeping and cooperation with all parties remains essential to avoiding costly and embarrassing sanctions. ]]></description>
<link>http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/02/articles/alls-well-for-halliburton-no-sanctions-result-from-bps-spoliation-claims/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/2012/02/articles/alls-well-for-halliburton-no-sanctions-result-from-bps-spoliation-claims/</guid>
<category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">Adverse</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/">Articles</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/articles">Sanctions</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">attorneys'</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">bad</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">cooperation</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">faith</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">fees</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">finding</category><category domain="http://www.ediscoverylawreview.com/tags">spoliation</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:15:33 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Diana Lin</dc:creator>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>

If you would like to create a banner that links to this page (i.e. this validation result), do the following:

Download the "valid RSS" banner.
Upload the image to your own server. (This step is important. Please do not link directly to the image on this server.)
Add this HTML to your page (change the image src attribute if necessary):

<a href="http://www.feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A//feeds.lexblog.com/E-discoveryLawReview"><img src="valid-rss-rogers.png" alt="[Valid RSS]" title="Validate my RSS feed" /></a>

If you would like to create a text link instead, here is the URL you can use:

http://www.feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A//feeds.lexblog.com/E-discoveryLawReview

Home · About · News · Docs · Terms