NewsFlash: e-Discovery Sanctions on the Rise

Okay, so maybe it isn’t shocking to learn that E-Discovery sanctions have risen every year in the past 10 years.  But it is surprising to find that the rise has been so great and that it continues regardless of aggressive attorney educational efforts and maturing technological solutions. 

If you haven’t already seen it, last month the folks at legalworkshop.org published a thorough analysis of e-discovery violations throughout the past 29 years (yes, there was an e-discovery case in 1981). You can find the original post here.  According to the authors “ESI has played a more predominant role in pretrial discovery; producing parties have struggled to comply with ever-expanding and increasingly complex responsibilities. The liberal scope of discovery in federal courts, when coupled with ESI’s defining characteristics—high volume, broad dispersal, and dynamic nature—also confounds efforts to conduct discovery effectively and economically.”

We continue to see this played out in the courts and in the marketplace. The ruling in Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp concluded that Qualcomm and its counsel failed to produce more than 200,000 pages of relevant electronic documents and was ordered to pay $8.5 million in legal fees. In the Victor Stanley v. Creative Pipe decision, intentional e-discovery mishaps nearly led to jail time and cost over $300,000 in sanctions.

A quick analysis of the data shows that written rulings on E-Discovery almost tripled between 2003 and 2004 – with a steady increase in each consecutive year and culminating in 2009 with 111 total rulings, 46 sanctions awarded and 12 adverse jury instruction sanctions. The rise of adverse jury instruction sanctions should be of particular concern for  defendants since it was found that the sanctions disproportionally affect them.  Indeed, since 2005, the courts have seen between a 1:5 to 1:3 ratio of plaintiff sanctions to defendants’.

With sanctions being given out at historic rates, it behooves legal counsels to take advantage of timely educational opportunities.  For example, ZL is hosting a webinar next week, December 14^th, on Ethics in E-Discovery (sign up here) and another on 1/11 and 1/25 in January.  For more information click here. 

In addition, in-house attorneys should re-evaluate their e-discovery software to see if it can scale to match the incredible influx of documents and includes air-tight audit trails to prove the defensibility of all actions taken.  By combining education and the tools to properly address e-discovery, ZL aims to help all of our customers develop an unquestionably defensible e-discovery process.

Avoid the Big House: Bring e-Discovery In-House

Over at Law.com you can find an extensive examination of the recently filed Victor Stanley Inc. v. Creative Pipe Inc ruling. Here's a valuable excerpt [emphasis mine]:

Magistrate Judge Paul Grimm's lengthy opinion in Victor Stanley Inc. v. Creative Pipe Inc., filed Sept. 9, is worth the read... But the opinion is newsworthy because it sets out a harsh remedy for the defendant whom he found had destroyed evidence, lied to the court and dragged out proceedings -- civil contempt, with the defendant facing severe costs and fines or a two-year prison sentence if he fails to pay that fine. 

The court's focus upon and analysis of the costs -- in time, money, effort, and expertise -- of spoliation and dilatory tactics to the justice system is both spot on and timely.

What this has done is to highlight how important it is to follow a defensible discovery collection process and reinforce the fact that spoliation can directly lead to jail time. The importance of a legally defensible and thorough discovery process cannot be overstated.

It is not just one tool which can be a panacea, but the build-out of an entire data management process which will reduce risk. The industry standard, Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM), serves as a decent guide:



The EDRM, although a good guide, can be limiting, as its flow does not represent the continuous nature of many discovery processes. At ITBusinessEdge I found another way to look at managing the process:

This visualization, unlike the one-way EDRM, views information management and discovery as part of a continuing process. I believe that this is much more accurate, as discovery can last for years (in the case of Victor Stanley, four years) and can involve going back to the data well many times for a multitude of matters or custodians. The process involves many more parties than purely Legal or IT, but touches upon the foundation of a company's technology strategy.

In order to develop a thorough discovery process, GCs and, increasingly, CIOs need to bring as much e-discovery in-house as possible. CIO.com states that:

The other critical remedy to minimizing risks and costs is bringing as much of the e-discovery process as possible “in-house”. Of course, this means that in-house staff must have a thorough working knowledge of the relevant processes, organizational archiving and data structure and enough technical know-how to choose and implement the right tools to support the required processes, which include (data) identification, preservation, collection, processing, review, analysis, production and presentation.

ZL Technologies developed our solution exactly so that companies can have this level of control over their data. Streamlining the discovery process is only one function of managing data, yet it may well be the most important, as emphasized by Judge Grimm in Victor Stanley Inc. v. Creative Pipe Inc. Corporations should get control of their data and discovery...and leave prison to the murderers.

Obama Administration and Email Privacy

Check out this article posted today on BoingBoing about Obama's policy on encrypted e-mails. The administration wants to keep back doors open for the government to get to encrypted messages to ensure that they have access to sensitive or potentially threatening information. Personally, I view this as an attack on privacy altogether. Individuals, employees, and especially companies have good reason to secure their communications (i.e. intellectual property) and any back doors can be exploited.

Ball Sees Decisions

Over on Craig Ball's EDD Update, he posts in reference to Zubulake that: 

Total reliance on an employee to search and select won't cut it in Judge Scheindlin's court. 

The decision puts a nail in the coffin of custodial-delegated holds and persuades me that, at least in the SDNY, no nabob should delegate preservation and search to minions, and certainly no lawyer should leave search to clients alone.  The opinion prompts further resignation to keep everything--especially all e-mail--and cease rotating tapes [s]hould someone so much as whisper the word "lawsuit."  

Mr. Ball is an e-Discovery thought leader and has practically written the book on the subject. In this case, I could not agree with him more and this relates directly to my last post. ESI must be managed centrally; relying on custodial-delegates is just not defensible AND is inefficient. There is no reason to keep high-cost, high-liability processes alive when there are known processes to replace them.

Dead End: Hold On! Theres a hole in your case...

Over at Practical e-Discovery, they point to the recent ruling in Siani v. State Univ. of New York, 2010 as being critical in the e-Discovery space. To understand why, let us start at crux of the problem: when do organizations have a duty to preserve data?

Is it forever? Or when there is reasonable suspicion of an upcoming case? Does the pre-suit duty to preserve begin by just a letter by a putative plaintiff which even contemplates a suit? Or perhaps when the suit hits? Without a definitive landmark, it is impossible for organizations and legal teams to plan for litigation. And in a world which runs on dependable schedules and efficiency, that means costly and protracted reaction. 

Siani relies upon the the work-product doctrine, which encompasses documents that are prepared “in anticipation of litigation.” As Practical e-Discovery mentions, Siani v. State Univ. of New York reached the reasonable conclusion, 'that if litigation was reasonably foreseeable for one purpose, “it was reasonably foreseeable for all purposes."' Which means that the duty to preserve begins with the creation of any work-product.

The work-product doctrine slices both ways, since by invoking it for protection means that to the organization, litigation was reasonably anticipated and the duty to preserve had been triggered at that point. Again, this translates into the fact that the beginning of the work-product immunity should be the beginning of related electronically stored information (ESI) on legal hold.

In effect, companies must enact legal hold the moment in which documents are prepared in anticipation of litigation. There is no way to do so without a proactive archiving and e-Discovery tool already in place, because otherwise there would be reliance on the custodian (potentially those involved) to retain their own (potentially incriminating) documents. And as we have seen in Adams v. Dell, there continues to be a large question in custodian-trusted legal hold.

As more and more of these cases evolve, organizations must focus on proactive e-Discovery.