michael hamilton startegic dm case team


Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

michael hamilton startegic dm case team

  1. 1. Background to Electronic Data Discovery (EDD) Michael Hamilton 2006/07
  2. 2. Objectives <ul><li>Background – 6 Key Areas </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Discoverability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Admissibility </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Discovery Techniques </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sanctions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cost Shifting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Privilege and Confidentiality Review </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Beat to death topics </li></ul><ul><ul><li>File Deletion Software </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Backup Tapes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Court Rules </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Time Zone Confusion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Discoverability & Ability to Process </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Instant Messaging </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Video/Audio </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>PDAs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Concept Searching / Linguistic based searching applications </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Discoverability <ul><li>Are electronic documents discoverable? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>FRCP 34: Since 1970 amendment, yes </li></ul></ul><ul><li>How does a party get discovery of e-documents? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ask and ye shall receive . . . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>But ask carefully (specifically tailor discovery request to e-docs) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Media: hard drives, servers, backup tapes, etc. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Storage form: .doc files, .xle files, .pst files, IM archives, etc. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>And specify requested format for production </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Under current rule, earlier paper production not preclusive </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Milwaukee Police Assoc. v. Jones (Wis. Ct. App. 2000) (digital format more useful than analog); National Union Elec. Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Ind. Co., (E.D. Pa. 1980) (e-data more useful than paper) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>But note, especially under recently proposed FRCP amendments, failure to specify production format in original request may result in party having to settle for particular electronic format supplied </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Admissibility – Electronic Evidence <ul><li>What’s admissible – electronic file? paper printout? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Originals & duplicates both generally admissible (FRE 1001, 1003) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>While e-file is true original, printouts generally count as originals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>If metadata is at issue, printout or image may not “reflect data accurately” and therefore may not be admissible </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Imaged (scanned) documents, like photocopies, are generally admissible as duplicates </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Foundation – what is required to admit e-evidence? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Document forensic & acquisition efforts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Document chain of custody </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Preserve pristine originals; work from images (copies) </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Discovery Techniques <ul><li>What’s the best way to gain access to the data? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Thoughtful search protocol can yield valuable results with minimal burden </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Tulip Computers Int'l. v. Dell Computer Corp. (D. Del. 2002) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>How should the data be gathered? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>First rule of discovery: do no harm to existing evidence </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sound technique critical to avoid spoliation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chem. Ind. (D.Colo. 1996) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>How should data be reviewed? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Timely review is critical </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Pay attention to every type of information produced, regardless of format </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Symantec v. McAfee (N.D. Cal. 1998) (Jaz disk) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Electronic review of electronic documents greatly speeds review </li></ul></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Sanctions <ul><li>What is the risk of spoliation (destruction or loss of responsive data)? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Possible issue preclusion or default judgment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Competent forensic assistance can be critical </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge (2nd Cir. 2002) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>What is the risk of failure to produce in a timely manner? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Generally fines, fees, but may result in preclusion of evidence </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Craig (7th Cir. 1993) (failed to produce database of raw data  preclusion of evidence, testimony) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>National Assn. of Radiation Survivors v. Turnage (N.D. Cal. 1987) (omissions due to lack of effective discovery response system  costs, fines, oversight by special master) </li></ul></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Cost Shifting <ul><li>Can a producing party shift e-discovery production costs to requesting party? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>FRCP 26(b)(2) mandates that a party does not have to produce electronic information that is “not reasonably accessible.” Includes modified Zubulake test for reasonable accessibility based on “undue burden or cost” of producing the information. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In Zubulake I, J. Scheindlin adopted a 7-factor cost-shifting test to apply Rule 26(b)(2) to the discovery of electronic information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Applies only to inaccessible data (such as backup tapes) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Factors not weighted evenly </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Most important: specifically tailored request and availability from other sources </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Next most important: expense versus (a) amount in controversy and </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(b) resources of each party </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Sample set required before full analysis (McPeek v. Ashcroft (DDC 2001)) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>As applied by Zubulake III and other courts, generally results in partial shift in costs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>But note: cost shifting applies only to data extraction – not to review expenses </li></ul></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Privilege and Confidentiality <ul><li>What’s special about attorney-client privilege and client confidentiality in the context of e-discovery? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Heightened risk of inadvertent production </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Vast increase in amount of information to be reviewed </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ Hidden” metadata or text fields invisible without proper tools or system settings </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>If waiver of privilege can be excused, what is required? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reasonable review of documents prior to production </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Sandoz, Ltd. (D.N.J. 1995) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>How can likelihood of inadvertent production be minimized? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Use electronic discovery-specific software </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Lessens likelihood of inadvertent production </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Bolsters argument for excuse of waiver </li></ul></ul></ul>
  9. 9. Recent Cases <ul><li>Privilege not waived where emails drafted and sent through company email system </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In re Asia Global Crossing, Ltd. , 322 B.R. 247 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Work product privilege not waived for inadvertent production of email </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Banks v. United States , 2005 WL 974723 (W.D.Wash. Mar. 22, 2005). </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. More Recent Cases <ul><li>Magistrate recommends adverse inference instruction and sanctions for e-discovery misconduct </li></ul><ul><ul><li>E*Trade Securities LLC v. Deutsche Bank AG, et al. , No. 02-3711 RHK/AJB and No. 02-3682 RHK/AJB (D. Minn. Feb. 17, 2005). </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Supreme Court Overturns Arthur Andersen's Document Destruction Conviction </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 125 S.Ct. 2129 (U.S. 2005). </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. Hot Topics <ul><li>Use & Abuse of File Deletion Software </li></ul><ul><li>Backup Tapes </li></ul><ul><li>Court Rules </li></ul><ul><li>Time Zone Confusion </li></ul><ul><li>Discoverability & Ability to Process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Instant Messaging </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Video/Audio </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>PDAs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Concept Searching / Linguistic based searching applications </li></ul>
  12. 12. Use and Abuse of File Deletion Software <ul><li>What’s the best way to get on the court’s bad side? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Use of specialized software especially suspicious </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>CyberScrub: Anderson (Minnesota 2004) – adverse inference </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Evidence Eliminator: Kucala (Illinois 2003) – declaratory judgment on most claims </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Deletion outside of retention policy always dangerous </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Adopt and implement retention policy </li></ul></ul></ul>
  13. 13. Backup Tapes <ul><li>Must tapes be preserved? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Zubulake IV (companies should not have to retain all backup tapes – only portions with data related to issues/key players) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Zubulake V (Adverse inference where employees improperly deleted emails, and backup tapes that would have enabled recovery of emails were recycled) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Proposed “Safe harbor” under FRCP 37 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A proposed amendment to FRCP 37 would preclude spoliation if </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Party takes reasonable steps to prevent loss of data; and </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Loss results from “routine operation of the party’s electronic information system.” (may apply to tape recycling or may be limited to writing over deleted files, etc.) </li></ul></ul></ul>
  14. 14. Backup Tapes <ul><li>What can a law firm or company do to be safe? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Adopt and implement records retention policy, complete with appropriate litigation hold </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Keep limited backups </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Go to court for protective order allowing destruction in accordance with existing records retention policy and procedures. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>But court may order preservation of all electronic data. Dodge, Warren & Peters Ins. Services, Inc. v. Riley, (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2003) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  15. 15. Court Rules <ul><li>Proposed Amendments to the FRCP </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Could go into effect as early as December 2006 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Key proposals: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Early Discussion of Electronic Discovery Issues (Rules 16(b), 26(f) and Form 35) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Definition of Electronic Stored Information (Rule 34(a)) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Production Format (Rule 34(b) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Producing Electronically Stored Information in Response to Interrogatories (Rule 33) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Production of Reasonable Accessible Information (Rule 26(b)(2)(b)) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Belated Assertion of Privilege (Rule 26(b)(5)(b)) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ Safe Harbor” from Sanctions (Rule 37(f)) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Subpoena for Electronically Stored Information (Rule 45) </li></ul></ul></ul>
  16. 16. New Technology <ul><li>Discoverability & Ability to Process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Instant Messaging </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Video/Audio </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>PDAs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Concept and linguistic-based searching applications </li></ul><ul><li>More effective approaches to reviewing huge amounts of data </li></ul>
  17. 17. Conclusion <ul><li>Courts are not afraid to hold companies & their budgets accountable for deficient discovery practices. </li></ul><ul><li>Courts consider electronic data a part of mainstream discovery & are unwilling to tolerate destruction of relevant information. </li></ul><ul><li>Counsel, organizations & individuals must take affirmative steps to prevent intentional and negligent spoliation. </li></ul><ul><li>Spoliation as a result of document mismanagement is no excuse. </li></ul>