• Home
  • About
  • Terms
  • RSS

Must a lawyer’s litigation hold letter be written by an IT professional?

August 27th, 2009 | By Steve Puiszis

Green v. McClendon, 2009 WL 2496275 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2009)

This isn't Mrs. McClendon

This isn't Mrs. McClendon

In Green v. McClendon, the court ordered that sanctions be entered against Mrs. McClendon and her counsel for the failure to preserve certain electronically stored information (“ESI”) about an Excel spreadsheet that she produced in discovery. The ESI was lost when “the son of a friend” who was “familiar with computers” reinstalled the operating system on her home computer. The court in Green was uncertain if the plaintiff had actually been deprived of any information because all files on the defendant’s home computer were downloaded onto discs before the hard drive on the computer was reinstalled, and those discs were subsequently produced in discovery. Nonetheless, the court ordered that sanctions be entered, and in the process fashioned an order that may have spawned a potential conflict of interest for defendant and her counsel.

One of the criticisms of ediscovery is that it has evolved into a tactical game of “gotcha,” where one of the goals is to shift the focus from the merits of the case to sanctions on the opposing party. The court’s opinion in Green suggests that trend has not abated. Unfortunately, in a zeal to protect all things digital, the court in Green assumed either that a litigation hold was not properly issued or that the client “brazenly” disregarded those instructions. The court apparently never considered whether the client may not have known or failed to realize that the reinstallation of her home computer’s hard drive would result in the loss of electronic information under the circumstances.

An issue simmering beneath the surface of Green is how detailed must a lawyers’ litigation hold instructions be in order to comply with the attorney’s ethical and professional duties? Does the applicable standard of care require that lawyers now specifically advise their clients to not reinstall the hard drives on their home computers? If so, given the myriad of technological ways ESI can be lost, must a lawyer’s litigation hold letters be written by an IT professional? It is the client’s obligation to preserve evidence not the lawyer’s responsibility. As litigation-hold letters become longer and more detailed, how likely is it that they will be read, understood and followed by the client?

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment »

OCR cost shifting rejected

March 2nd, 2009 | By Steve Puiszis

Proctor & Gamble Co. v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 2009 WL 440543 (E.D. Tex., Feb. 19, 2009)

Given today’s economic climate, shifting the costs of electronic discovery is a strategy that should be considered whenever possible. In Proctor & Gamble, the district court rejected the defendant’s attempt to shift the costs of applying optical character recognition (“OCR”) to documents it had agreed to produce in a tagged image file format (“TIFF”). The application of OCR to the TIFF images would make the imaged documents electronically searchable.

chess

While the district court recognized that the application of OCR to the imaged documents was “not absolutely necessary to [the] litigation,” it rejected the defendant’s attempt to shift the cost of OCR processing because the defendant failed to provide any support for its cost estimate, and no valid legal argument to support its claim that the cost burden should be shifted. The defendant advised the court that it did not intend to use the OCR process, and argued that it should not be forced to bear the added OCR expense solely for the plaintiff’s convenience. That argument failed to carry the day in Proctor & Gamble.

Any cost-shifting strategy requires careful advanced planning, and a thorough knowledge of the client’s information systems. While the district court’s ruling in Proctor & Gamble appears relatively straightforward, there are a number of issues that are relevant to any cost-shifting strategy that must be carefully analyzed before a party should even begin to evaluate cost-shifting factors outlined in Zubulake, which was the focus of the district court’s opinion in Proctor & Gamble.

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment »

Follow @ediscoveryblog


Recent Posts

  • Requiring defendant to restore backup tapes would have violated proportionality standard
  • Model order for ediscovery is not just for patent troll cases
  • Puiszis authors feature article on DRI Today about model orders governing electronic discovery
  • Court orders phased discovery under Rule 26′s proportionality principles pending resolution of dismissal motion
  • Making the case for uniform culpability standards for ediscovery sanctions

Categories

  • Accessibility
  • Cost
  • electronic data
  • Forensics
  • Litigation Hold
  • Metadata
  • Preservation
  • Privacy
  • Privilege
  • Production
  • Review
  • Sanctions
  • Uncategorized

Blogroll

  • Death by Email
  • Dennis Kennedy
  • Ediscovery 2.0
  • Fios Inc.
  • For the Defense (DRI)
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • HR Illinois Blog
  • Illinois Institute for CLE
  • Internet Cases
  • kCura Corporation
  • Kroll Ontrack
  • Richmond Journal of Law & Technology
  • The Ethical Quandary
  • The Sedona Conference

Archives

  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • December 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008

Tags

Accessibility attorney-client privilege backup tapes confidentiality Cost costs cost shifting deposition electronic data email employee keyword keyword searching Litigation Hold locations Metadata model order native format not reasonably accessible ocr ordinary course of business Preservation Privacy Privilege Production proportionality Review rhoads routes rule 26c Rule 34 Sanctions searching spoliation state rules stay storage stored communications act strategy text messages trade secrets waiver website content work product doctrine zubulake

Copyright © 2009 Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.