2014 E-Discovery Year in Review - "Courts continued in 2014 to endorse the use of technology to improve the efficiency and accuracy of document review management..."

by Nexsen Pruet, PLLC
Contact

2014 demonstrated that management and discovery of electronic information continues to be a challenging issue in litigation.  A review of 2014 court decisions also underscores the importance of litigation hold notices, records retention policies and practices, early identification of potential sources of relevant information, and general litigation readiness.  It is clear that counsel, parties, and potential litigants must take reasonable but defensible steps to preserve and collect electronically stored information stored in various formats.  While preservation obligations continue to increase, there is some good electronic discovery news—parties may start seeing some relief on the expense and time associated with the review of electronic information.  Courts continued in 2014 to endorse the use of technology to improve the efficiency and accuracy of document review management.  

Litigation Hold Notice Possibly Discoverable

In United States ex rel. Barko v. Halliburton Co., the District Court for the District of Columbia held that litigation hold notices circulated to company employees were discoverable.[1]  The litigation hold notice in Barko was sent by defendants’ CEO and Vice President of the Legal Department to all employees.  Employees were later directed to forward the litigation hold notice to other employees who may not have received it.  The litigation hold notice did not instruct employees to keep the contents of the notice confidential.  

The court recognized that litigation hold notices were protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine in other jurisdictions; however, this “particular” litigation hold notice was discoverable according to the court because (1) the notice was widely disseminated, (2) no steps were taken to protect the confidentiality of the notice, and (3) the notice was likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

Prior to Barko, litigation hold or document retention notices prepared by counsel have usually been protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine unless there is a spoliation dispute.[2]  But Barko is a reminder for counsel and parties to evaluate their litigation hold procedures and consider the following precautions:

  • Litigation hold notices should be sent only to relevant personnel such as the IT department, key custodians, or personnel likely to possess relevant information.
  • The litigation hold notice should contain confidentiality provisions and instruct recipients not to discuss the notice with anyone other than counsel.
  • The litigation hold notice should provide clear and concise guidelines on what to preserve—but it should not contain sensitive or confidential company information in the event disclosure is required.

Sanctions, Sanctions, Sanctions

The duty to preserve relevant evidence arises once litigation is “reasonably anticipated.” A preservation obligation “arises not only during litigation but also extends to that period before the litigation when a party reasonably should know that the evidence may be relevant to anticipated litigation.”  Silvestri v. Gen. Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583, 591 (4th Cir. 2001).  A duty to preserve relevant electronic information is thus triggered by one of the following events:  (i) receipt of a complaint; (ii) receipt of a subpoena for information as a third party to an existing lawsuit or investigation; (iii) receipt of a formal order of investigation from a regulatory body; or (iv) any notice or awareness of a potential legal claim. 

Failure to comply with preservation obligations may warrant sanctions including monetary penalties, adverse inference instructions, preclusion of evidence, or in extreme cases, default judgment or dismissal.  A court “enjoys considerable discretion over whether to sanction the offending party.”  Calderon v. Corporacion Puertorriquena de Salud, 992 F. Supp. 2d 48, 52 (D.P.R. 2014).  Once the preservation obligation is triggered, it is imperative that counsel, companies, and company personnel take adequate steps to preserve and collect electronically stored information. 

A number of 2014 electronic discovery decisions involved sanctions for failure to preserve electronic information, including: 

  • Brown v. Tellermate Holdings Ltd., No. 2:11-CV-1122, 2014 WL 2987051 (S.D. Ohio July 1, 2014) (defendant precluded from using evidence and ordered to pay attorneys’ fees and costs for failure to preserve information stored on company database).
  • Mazzei v. Money Store, No. 01CV5694 JGK RLE, 2014 WL 3610894 (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2014) (defendants sanctioned with attorneys’ fees and costs associated with searching a database in the possession of a third party).
  • Small v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nevada, No. 2:13-CV-00298-APG, 2014 WL 4079507 (D. Nev. Aug. 18, 2014) (special master recommended sanctions that included adverse inferences and monetary penalties for failure to institute a timely litigation hold notice, notify IT personnel, and preserve company computers, custodian laptops, network files, intranet server, custodian personal mobile phones, and Blackberries).
  • Novick v. Axa Network, LLC, No. 07-CV-7767 AKH KNF, 2014 WL 5364100 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2014) (defendant sanctioned with an adverse inference jury instruction and monetary sanctions for failure to preserve audio recordings).
  • In the Matter of Certain Opaque Polymers, No. 337-TA-883 (US International Trade Commission sanctions party for not sending out a litigation hold notice, failing to preserve evidence, and destroying evidence on laptops).

Duty to Preserve Encompasses Text Messages and Social Media

In 2014, several courts determined that text messages and social media are discoverable electronic information and subject to preservation.  The plaintiff in Hosch v. BAE Sys. Info. Solutions, Inc., No. 1:13-CV-00825 AJT, 2014 WL 1681694 (E.D. Va. Apr. 24, 2014) deleted all text messages and voicemails from his iPhone prior to producing his phone to counsel.  Determining this to be “severely egregious conduct,” the court dismissed plaintiff’s case with prejudice and awarded the defendant attorney’s fees and costs.  In Calderon v. Corporacion Puertorriquena de Salud, 992 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.P.R. 2014), the court ordered an adverse inference instruction against plaintiff for failure to preserve text messages.  Although the litigation had not commenced when the text messages were deleted, the plaintiff had contacted his attorney and the record indicated that the plaintiff “reasonably foresaw litigation.”

The magistrate judge in Painter v. Atwood, No. 2:12-CV-1215 JCM NJK, 2014 WL 3611636 (D. Nev. July 21, 2014) granted an adverse inference against the plaintiff for deleting relevant Facebook comments.  The magistrate judge rejected the argument that plaintiff was a twenty-two year old girl who failed to appreciate her preservation obligation.  The district court upheld the magistrate judge’s adverse inference sanction for spoliation of evidence.  In Smith v. Hillshire Brands, No. 13-2605-CM, 2014 WL 2804188 (D. Kan. June 20, 2014), the court allowed for the discovery of social media that revealed plaintiff’s emotions or mental state

Technology Assisted Review Gaining Steam

Courts continued in 2014 to approve or encourage technology assisted review (“TAR”) or predictive coding to search for relevant electronic discovery.  In February of 2014, Judge Denise Cote of the Southern District of New York recognized the reliability of predictive coding in Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency v. HSBC N. Am. Holdings Inc., No. 11 CIV. 6189 DLC (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2014):

I think there’s every reason to believe that, if [predictive coding is] done correctly, it may be more reliable — not just as reliable but more reliable than manual review, and certainly more cost effective — cost effective for the plaintiff and the defendants.[3] 

Courts approved the use of predictive coding in Dynamo Holdings Ltd. P’ship v. C.I.R., No. 2685-11, 2014 WL 4636526 (U.S. Tax Ct. Sept. 17, 2014) as well as F.D.I.C. v. Bowden, No. CV413-245, 2014 WL 2548137 (S.D. Ga. June 6, 2014).  In Bridgestone Americas, Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., No. 3:13-1196, 2014 WL 4923014 (M.D. Tenn. July 22, 2014), the plaintiff was permitted to “to switch horses in midstream” to use predictive coding.  Although the parties were not allowed to change course and use predictive coding in Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Delaney, No. 2:11-CV-00678-LRH, 2014 WL 3563467 (D. Nev. July 18, 2014), Nevada Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen recognized that “[p]redictive coding has emerged as a far more accurate means [that than human review or keyword searches] of producing responsive ESI in discovery.” 


[1] United States ex rel. Barko v. Halliburton Co., No. 1:05-CV-1276, 2014 WL 6657103, at *4 (D.D.C. Nov. 20, 2014).

[2] Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel, No. CIV 05-3091(JBS/JS), 2009 WL 2413631, at *1 (D.N.J. Aug. 4, 2009).

[3] Hr’g Tr. 8 July 24, 2012, Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency v. HSBC N. Am. Holdings Inc., No. 11 CIV. 6189 DLC (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2014).

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Nexsen Pruet, PLLC | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Nexsen Pruet, PLLC
Contact
more
less

Nexsen Pruet, PLLC on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.