Court orders phased discovery under Rule 26′s proportionality principles pending resolution of dismissal motion

Tamburo v. Dworkin, 2010 WL 4867346 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2010)

Proving once again that it is a “dog-eat-dog world,” plaintiffs’ lawsuit stemmed from a dispute involving a dog-pedigree software program. Plaintiffs developed the software program from information found on the defendants’ web-sites, which plaintiffs claimed was in the public domain. Plaintiffs claimed that defendants subsequently “engaged in a concerted campaign of blast emails and postings on their websites,” which accused plaintiffs of stealing their information and “urging dog enthusiasts to boycott plaintiffs’ products.”

Over six years after plaintiffs filed their original complaint (that is more than 40 years in dog years), defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ seventh amended complaint and sought a stay of discovery. While the court recognized that motions to stay discovery may be appropriate when a claim is patently frivolous, a party raises a potentially dispositive threshold issue such as standing, pending resolution of the defense of qualified immunity, or in some antitrust actions, it refused to enter a discovery stay when the defendants’12(b)(6) motion did not involve or raise those types of issues. The court further observed that because plaintiffs’ claims had been pending for over six years, the motion to stay was unlikely to significantly expedite the ultimate resolution of those claims.

While the court rejected the requested discovery stay, it did explain that the proportionality principles set forth in Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) provide judges with significant flexibility and discretion to limit discovery to insure that the “scope and duration” of discovery is “reasonably proportional” to the needs of the case. The court observed that when a lawsuit “is in its early stages,” phased discovery may be warranted beginning with “relevant information located in the most accessible and least expensive sources.” The court noted that phasing the discovery in this fashion could allow the parties to later determine if more burdensome or expensive discovery is actually required.

Noting that plaintiffs’ claims “have been in constant flux” and that the pending motion to dismiss could alter or limit the scope of discovery, the court directed the parties to engage in a “phased approach” to discovery. The court allowed only written discovery to be served on the named parties and directed that non-party discovery be postponed until a later phase of the case. The parties were further directed to focus their efforts on completing or updating their Rule 26(a) disclosures before proceeding to any other written discovery. The parties were also directed to identify those claims that were most likely to survive the pending motion to dismiss and to concentrate their discovery efforts on those claims. Finally, the court directed the parties to prioritize their efforts by focusing on discovery which was less expensive and burdensome.

To ensure that a phased discovery approach was followed, the parties were directed to meet in person and prepare such a discovery schedule, consistent with the case management procedures outlined in the Seventh Circuit’s Electronic Discovery Pilot Program Principles. The parties were also directed to become familiar with the Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation, and to “actively engage in cooperative discussions to facilitate a logical discovery flow.” The court reiterated that under Sedona’s Cooperation Proclamation “[c]ooperation [between attorneys] does not conflict with the advancement of their clients’ interests – it enhances them. Only when lawyers confuse advocacy with adversarial conduct are these twin duties in conflict.”

While Tamburo presents a unique fact pattern, the decision demonstrates how the use of Rule 26(b)’s proportionality principles can potentially limit ediscovery costs. The phased discovery approach taken by the court in Tamburo is one that should be considered when bringing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

And, when it comes to dogs, always remember: “Never judge a dog’s pedigree by the books he does not chew.” Anonymous.

Making the case for uniform culpability standards for ediscovery sanctions

Victor Stanley, Inc., v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93644 (D.Md., Sept. 9, 2010), (“Victor Stanley II“)

The sanctions entered in Victory Stanley II, which included a civil contempt finding and potentially up to two years of jail time for egregious ediscovery violations, obscure the decision’s deeper significance. In Victor Stanley II, Judge Paul Grimm establishes the need for uniform federal standards for spoliation sanctions.

In what he described as “the single most egregious example of spoliation” encountered in nearly 14 years on the bench, Judge Grimm concluded that the defendant’s “pervasive and willful” acts of spoliation should be treated as contempt of court. He entered an uncontested default judgment on the plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim, and further directed the defendant be imprisoned for a period not to exceed two years, “unless and until” the defendant pays the plaintiff’s attorneys fees and costs “with respect to all efforts expended throughout the case to demonstrate the nature and extent of the defendant’s spoliation.” Judge Grimm explained that the sanction of civil contempt with the specter of jail time was “absolutely essential” because without it, the defendant would do everything possible to avoid paying any money judgment or fee award entered as a result of the defendant’s discovery misconduct.
Read the rest of this entry »

Rule 37(e)’s safe harbor provision used to limit sanctions requested under the court’s inherent authority

Grubb v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 2010 WL 3075517 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 4, 2010)

One of the limitations in the protection provided by Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(e)’s “Safe Harbor” provision is that it ostensibly only applies to ediscovery sanctions “under these rules.” For that reason, I have referred to Rule 37(e) as a “wading pool,” rather than a safe harbor. So, when a court points to Rule 37(e) as a basis for exercising restraint when sanctions are sought under the court’s inherent authority, it bears highlighting.

Grubb involved a claim brought by a former professor at the University of Illinois that the University violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act when it accessed a laptop computer he had been using in order to remove University software. That laptop was not owned by the professor but rather by the American Board of Orthodontics (“ABO”), and allegedly contained personal and sensitive information as well as testing data and private patient information. After plaintiff filed suit, ABO gave him a new laptop to use and he returned the one that was involved in his claim against the University. Subsequently, ABO “wiped” the hard drive of that laptop. When the University learned of this development, it filed a motion which sought terminating sanctions under the court’s inherent authority arguing that plaintiff had permitted the destruction of evidence relevant to his claim. The University contended that plaintiff had allowed the spoliation of evidence to occur which rendered it impossible to refute the plaintiff’s Computer Fraud and Abuse claim.

In rejecting the University’s claim for sanctions, the district court noted that in Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991), the Supreme Court warned that a court’s use of its inherent powers “must be exercised with restraint and discretion.” Pointing to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37, the district court observed “restraint seems imminently sensible given the content of the federal rules.”

The district court in Grubb also pointed to the plaintiff’s lack of computer expertise as a basis for exercising restraint. The court noted that plaintiff’s computer expertise, “like most people, falls somewhere in that broad swath between technophobe and technophile.” Taking a common-sense approach to the issue, the district court aptly noted, “it cannot be said that everyday people would possess an understanding of how data are stored and how access history can be reconstructed (or destroyed).” Because plaintiff testified that while he knew how to turn on his laptop but little else about how computers work, the court had little difficulty in concluding that plaintiff did not take any actions for the purpose of hiding adverse information.

The court’s decision in Grubb should be contrasted with Green v. McClendon, 2009 WL 2496275 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2009) where a defendant’s lack of computer expertise did not save her from the imposition of sanctions. The Green decision was critically analyzed in one of our prior posts, which can be found here. The outcomes reached in these decisions underscore the practical reality that parties and counsel now face – that the outcome of an ediscovery sanctions motion frequently turns on the approach generally taken in a given district court and by a given district court judge in particular. While uniformity will never be achieved, a more consistent approach would certainly ease the burdens of ediscovery on clients and their counsel, and is one of the reasons why various organizations are pushing to have the federal ediscovery rules amended.

Failing to issue a litigation hold letter is not per se evidence of sanctionable conduct

Haynes v. Dart, 2010 WL 140387 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 11, 2010)

Here at Practical Ediscovery, we are always on the lookout for decisions that bring a little bit of sanity to the crazy world of ediscovery. Therefore, we thought the Haynes decision was worth a mention. While Haynes involved the alleged failure to preserve paper records, not ESI or emails, the decision addressed a motion for sanctions which claimed that evidence was lost as a result of the alleged failure to impose a formal litigation hold at the onset of the case.

While a party has a duty to preserve potentially relevant information once litigation is “reasonably anticipated,” the court in Haynes, further explained that the duty to preserve potentially discoverable information does not require a party to retain every scrap of paper in its possession. In fact, the court acknowledged that the steps a party must take “to satisfy its obligation to preserve evidence may vary from case to case.” Significantly, the court in Haynes observed that while the failure to institute a litigation hold was a “relevant” consideration, it was “not per se evidence of sanctionable conduct.” The court observed that this case was one of many pending against the Sheriff’s Office, which runs the largest single site jail in the country, “and that the establishment of a formal litigation hold in every case could cause an undue burden.” Because of the “breadth of the plaintiffs’ claims and discovery requests,” the court in Haynes could not conclude “that the absence of a large-scale litigation hold was objectively unreasonable.” The court also found it significant that the lost evidence involved the handwritten notes of a jail superintendent and that there was “no evidence that relevant documents were destroyed pursuant to a routine destruction policy that defendants failed to curb.”

So, while Haynes is helpful, the decision does have its limits and should not be viewed as a “Get Out of Jail Free Card.” Obviously, the safest approach in any case is for the client to take reasonable steps to preserve potentially relevant information once litigation is reasonably anticipated. Decisions such as Haynes provide only a limited backstop, should a misstep occur.

Haynes bears mentioning for another reason. Various ediscovery decisions seemingly require an attorney to follow up and confirm that the client’s “key personnel” are aware of the litigation hold and are preserving potentially relevant ESI. Attorneys frequently ask how they can or should identify the key personnel to whom these decisions vaguely refer. After-the-fact criticisms always speak with the wisdom of 20-20 hindsight. The court in Haynes noted that the particular employee of the defendant whose notes were the subject of plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions had been listed in plaintiffs’ Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures as someone likely to have discoverable information. Therefore, the court concluded that the witness should have been instructed to preserve relevant information no later than the date of that initial disclosure. Accordingly, one common-sense approach to identifying the client’s “key personnel” is to work from the parties’ Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures. Occasionally, there may be other key employees, but in many, if not most instances, the witnesses listed in those initial disclosures will be the persons most likely to possess relevant information that should be preserved.

Relationship Between the Work Product Doctrine and the Duty to Preserve

Siani v. State Univ. of New York, 2010 WL 3170664 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2010)

The duty to preserve electronically stored information (ESI) can arise long before a lawsuit is ever filed. Several of our prior posts, such as the ones found here and here, chronicle the problem of determining whether a pre-suit duty to preserve is triggered by a letter from a putative plaintiff which contemplates the possibility of litigation. So, any decision which recognizes a landmark that can be readily followed when navigating the pre-suit preservation minefield bears highlighting. Sinai provides such a beacon to follow.

The work-product doctrine encompasses documents that are prepared “in anticipation of litigation.” Siani reached “the common sense conclusion” that if litigation was reasonably foreseeable for one purpose, “it was reasonably foreseeable for all purposes.” 2010 WL 3170664 at *5. Thus, Siani recognizes a direct relationship between the assertion of the work-product doctrine and a duty to preserve ESI in a pre-suit context.

Thus, before asserting the protection of the work-product doctrine, an attorney would be wise to also confirm that the client has instituted a litigation hold to preserve potentially relevant ESI in the context of that anticipated litigation. Claiming the protection of the work-product doctrine means that litigation was reasonably anticipated and that a duty to preserve potentially relevant ESI has been triggered.

Oy Vey! Court attempts to define degrees of unacceptable ediscovery conduct and fashions a problematic adverse jury instruction in the process

Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities, LLC, 2010 WL 184312 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010)

Pension Committee is an ediscovery opinion that is sure to garner a lot of attention. The opinion was written by Judge Shira Sheindlin, who authored the Zubulake decisions. Judge Scheindlin includes a subheading in Pension Committee that her decision is: “Zubulake Revisted: Six Years Later.” While noting that “[c]ourts cannot and do not expect that any party can meet a standard of perfection,” she nonetheless concludes “courts have a right to expect that litigants will take the necessary steps to ensure that relevant records are preserved when litigation is reasonably anticipated.”

In Pension Committee, ninety-six investors brought suit claiming the violation of federal securities law seeking to recover $550 million dollars in losses stemming from the liquidation of two British Virgin Island based hedge funds. Shortly after being retained, counsel telephoned and emailed the plaintiffs to begin document collection and preservation. Besides calling and emailing the clients, counsel also distributed memoranda instructing the plaintiffs to be over-inclusive, rather than under-inclusive in their efforts and noting that emails and electronic documents should be included in the production. After suit was filed, a stay of discovery was issued pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. However, a formal written litigation hold was not issued until after the discovery stay was lifted several years later. After discovery commenced, gaps were found in plaintiffs’ document productions, which prompted a motion for sanctions asserting plaintiffs failed to properly preserve and produce documents and electronically stored information.
Read the rest of this entry »

Identifying inaccessible sources of ESI just got a little easier

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(B) explains that a party need not produce electronically stored information (“ESI”) from sources that are not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. Parties are expected to produce relevant, non-privileged information from sources that are “reasonably accessible” subject to Rule 26(b)(2)(C)’s limitations that apply to all discovery under the federal rules. This “two-tier” approach to ediscovery is easy to recite but can be very difficult to apply in practice. At what point does a source of ESI cross the threshold from reasonable accessibility to inaccessibility under the Rule? Are there sources of information that parties can readily agree are not reasonably accessible? Alas, neither Rule 26(b)(2)(B) nor its accompanying committee note provide any helpful insight. Indeed, the 2006 Advisory Committee Note states “[i]t is not possible to define in a rule the different types of technological features that may affect the burdens and costs of accessing electronically stored information.”

The Report of the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Standing Committee Report”) which predated the enactment of the 2006 ediscovery amendments to the federal rules provided some insight. The Standing Committee Report did note that the features of an information system that make it burdensome or costly to access ESI can vary from system to system and will change over time. However, it provided several examples of “current technology” that do not generally fit under the rubric of reasonable accessibility. Those examples included “deleted information, information kept on some backup-tape systems for disaster recovery purposes, and legacy data remaining from systems no longer in use.” See THE NEW E-DISCOVERY RULES, Dahlstrom Legal Publishing, Inc. (2006) at p. 15. Unfortunately, that guidance was not carried over into the 2006 Advisory Committee Note to Rule 26(b)(2)(B).

Read the rest of this entry »

Sanctions rejected where evidence was destroyed pursuant to routine, good-faith records management practice before receipt of any notice of a likelihood of litigation

Today’s post demonstrates the importance of a document retention/destruction policy applicable to a company’s paper and electronic records that is consistently applied and routinely followed.

In Mohrmeyer, plaintiff sought discovery sanctions in the form of an adverse inference instruction because Wal-Mart failed to preserve certain records relevant to his accident. The particular record, a maintenance log, was not typically preserved in the ordinary course of the company’s business. It was routinely discarded on a weekly basis. Plaintiff noted that Wal-Mart employees attended to him immediately after his fall, called 911 and summoned an ambulance to take him to the hospital. As a result, the plaintiff in Mohrmeyer claimed that Wal-Mart’s duty to preserve all relevant documents was triggered immediately following his fall because Wal-Mart “should have known” that his accident would result in litigation.

Mohrmeyer is significant because the court recognized:

The law does not and should not require businesses to preserve any and all records that may be relevant to future litigation for any accidental injury, customer dispute, employment dispute, or any number of other possible circumstances that may give rise to a claim months or years in the future, and there is absolutely no contemporaneous indication that a claim is likely to result at the time the records are destroyed pursuant to a routine records management policy.

That Wal-Mart preserved some records relating to the plaintiff’s accident pursuant to its policy involving accidental injuries did not change the result in the court’s view because the particular maintenance log was only temporarily retained and was routinely discarded. Merely because Wal-Mart summoned an ambulance for the plaintiff did not make the litigation more likely to occur. The court found no deliberate or improper conduct by Wal-Mart involving its failure to preserve what the court described as a “transient record.”

The court recognized that a duty to preserve applies only when a party has been put on notice that evidence is relevant to pending litigation or which may be relevant to future litigation that is likely to occur. It concluded that at the time the maintenance log was discarded, there only existed a speculative possibility that a lawsuit might be brought. The court observed that before the log was destroyed Wal-Mart had received no telephonic or written warning from the plaintiff or his counsel raising the possibility of a lawsuit and there was no history of litigation between the parties which made a lawsuit more likely to occur. The court was not willing “to presuppose the likelihood of litigation for every slip and fall accident that occurs.”

The court in Mohrmeyer distinguished the factual scenario presented from an airline disaster where the “trigger date” for the preservation of evidence would clearly be the date of the disaster “because of the high likelihood of litigation following such [an event].” The mere fact that an accident had occurred was insufficient to establish that litigation was likely to ensue.

The court also noted that the plaintiff testified in his deposition that he did not even consider filing a lawsuit until a couple of months after the accident occurred, which was long after the maintenance records were destroyed in the ordinary course of the company’s business. This is a good practice point to remember in discovery in any matter where discovery sanctions potentially may be sought.

Accordingly, Mohrmeyer concluded that when evidence is destroyed pursuant to a company’s “routine, good-faith records management practices” before any notice of the likelihood of litigation is received, discovery sanctions of any type are not warranted.

Vitruvian Man image courtesy Flickr user Michael Licht under this Creative Commons license.

The Good, The Bad And The Ugly (of an ediscovery decision)

Scalera v. Electrograph Systems, Inc., 2009 WL 3126637 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009)

Today’s blog post is named after the 1967 epic spaghetti western starring Clint Eastwood. Wikipedia explains that the movie’s plot “centers around three gunslingers competing to find a fortune in buried confederate gold.” Intended by its director to be a “tongue-in-cheek satire on run-of-the-mill westerns,” Quintin Tarentino once called it “the best-directed film of all time.”

While that might be a bit of a stretch, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly aptly summarizes the court’s holding in Scalera v. Electrograph Systems. While you won’t find any confederate gold, bounty hunters or ghost towns in the decision, there are a number of important points that can be gleaned from the opinion. However, as with many ediscovery decisions, there are several bad, and at least one downright ugly finding entered by the court. Luckily, while the court concluded the company “unquestionably breached a duty to preserve emails,” the plaintiff failed to establish that any of the destroyed emails would have been favorable to her claim and, thus, the court denied plaintiff’s request for an adverse inference instruction. As a result, on several levels, Scalera is a decision that merits your attention.

Read the rest of this entry »

State court practitioners beware: sanctions can be entered against your clients for failing to preserve emails, even if your state has not adopted a set of ediscovery rules

Einstein v. 357 LLC, et. al. (N.Y. Supreme Court, October 21, 2009)

In Einstein, a trial judge in the Supreme Court of the State of New York recently entered sanctions against several defendants for their failure to implement a litigation hold which resulted in the loss of emails relating to the presale condition of a condominium unit purchased by the plaintiffs in Brooklyn, New York. The trial judge recognized that even though New York had not yet enacted any rules addressing electronic discovery, and that its Civil Practice Law Rules and common law decisions were silent on the need to institute a litigation hold, New York courts have turned to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and case law interpreting them for guidance in other contexts.

The crux of the problem in Einstein was the limited storage capacity of the company’s email server. Each of the company’s brokers were allocated 200 megabytes of space, and once that limit was reached, a broker could not send or receive emails until that space was cleared for more email traffic. As a result, brokers had to clear old emails from the system in the ordinary course of their business. Unfortunately, a litigation hold was never instituted, and as a result, emails (several of which the plaintiff’s produced to the defendants) were not preserved. While emails were forwarded through a central server, the company’s email system was configured in such a way that once an email was deleted by an individual user from the user’s inbox, it was also deleted on the central server. While daily, weekly and monthly backup tapes were made of the email server, the daily and weekly backups were periodically reused. Thus, if emails sent or received during a particular month were also deleted during that month, the monthly backup would not capture those deleted emails.

The court concluded the defendants’ counsel and the company’s IT director failed to investigate the basic mechanics of the company’s email system and its retention practices until 11 months after plaintiffs first served their document demands upon the defendants. The court further concluded that defendants were aware of the fact that the contents of their emails would be relevant to the litigation and recalled that it had repeatedly warned defendants about the need to make a complete production of those emails. Accordingly, the court ruled that the defendants’ failure to take any steps “to implement a litigation hold, relying instead on backup tapes that a reasonable investigation would have revealed failed to capture relevant emails deleted manually by individual users,” constituted gross negligence, and warranted a finding of spoliation.

Therefore, the court imposed sanctions in the form of an adverse inference instruction relating to the missing emails, and awarded attorneys’ fees as well as expert costs associated with the review of the defendants’ hard drives.

While admittedly, a trial court decision lacks any precedential value, Einstein amply demonstrates that parties who are sued in state court, even in those states which have not enacted their own set of ediscovery rules, are not immune from ediscovery sanctions. One of our recent posts identified those states which had adopted their own set of ediscovery rules. Outside counsel would be wise to advise their clients of the need to impose a litigation hold in every case in which they are retained, even state-court proceedings, and seek to preserve ESI in state-court litigation. Counsel also would be wise to investigate the client’s email and information systems as well as its paper and electronic retention/destruction policies. Companies and their counsel can no longer safely assume that because a particular state has not enacted its own set of ediscovery rules that the client has no obligation to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information.

Photo courtesy Flickr user Mike Licht under this Creative Commons license.

View the opinion below or by clicking here.

Einstein_v_357