senderskrollontrack

CurrentTrendsinElectronicDiscoveryCopyright(c)2006,2007O'Melveny&MyersLLP.
Allrightsreserved.
ByAmyJ.
LongoandDaleCendalin1I.
IntroductionThereareanestimated105millione-mailusersintheUnitedStates,sendingmorethan1.
5billione-mailsdaily,orapproximately547.
5billione-mailsperyear.
n2Indeed,over99%ofnewinformationcurrentlybeingcreatedandstoredisbeingcreatedandstoredelectronically;n3only.
01%ofnewinformationiscreatedinpaperform.
n4n1AmyLongoandDaleCendaliarepartnersinO'Melveny&Myers'LosAngelesandNewYorkoffices,respectively,andcanbereachedatalongo@omm.
comanddcendali@omm.
com.
BrianNeachandJuliaBerman,associatesinO'Melveny&Myers'NewportBeachoffice,assistedinpreparingthisarticle.
n2TheSedonaPrinciples:BestPractices,Recommendations&PrinciplesforAddressingElectronicDocumentProduction,4(TheSedonaConference,July2005)[hereinafterSedonaPrinciples].
n3DavidIsom,ElectronicDiscoveryPrimerforJudges,2005Fed.
Cts.
L.
Rev.
1(Feb.
2005)(citingPeterLymanandHalR.
Varian,HowMuchInformation2003,athttp://www.
sims.
berkeley.
edu/research/projects/how-much-info-2003/).
n4PeterLymanandHalR.
Varian,HowMuchInformation2003,athttp://www.
sims.
berkeley.
edu/research/projects/how-much-info-2003/(lastvisitedMarch30,2006).
Theproliferationofelectronicinformationhasforeveralteredthewaythatpartiesconductlitigation,particularlydiscovery.
Electronicdataplaysaroleinnearlyeverylawsuit,and,moreoftenthannot,itsroleiscritical.
Recenthigh-profilecasesfromSiliconValleytoCapitolHilltoWallStreethavecenteredonparties'e-mailsandotherelectronicrecords,andhowthoserecordshavebeenmaintainedordestroyed.
n5n5Forexample,MorganStanleyrecentlyagreedtopay$15milliontosettlechargesthatitfailedtoproducetensofthousandsofemailsduringtheSecuritiesandExchangeCommission(SEC)investigationofconflictsofinterestinWallStreetbrokeragehouses.
AssociatedPress,MorganStanleyPaying$15MforE-Mails,N.
Y.
Times,May10,2006,availableathttp://www.
nytimes.
com/aponline/business/AP-Morgan-Stanley-Fined.
html.
TheSECchargedthat,inadditiontofailingtoproduceemails,MorganStanleymademisstatementsaboutthepreservationandproductionofitsemail.
Id.
Thiswasnotthefirsttimeelectronicdiscoverypresentedaproblemforthecompany-inMarch2005,ajuryawarded$1.
45billionagainstMorganStanley,relyinglargelyonaninstructionfromthecourtthatthejuryshouldconsiderthecompany'selectronicdiscoveryabuseswhenassessingliability.
JonathanW.
HughesandSimonJ.
Frankel,E-Discovery:Pre-LitigationConsiderationsforIn-HouseCounsel(Nov.
22,2005)(citingColeman(Parent)Holdings,Inc.
v.
MorganStanley&Co.
Inc.
,No.
CA03-5045,2005WL679071(Fla.
Cir.
Ct.
,Mar.
1,2005),2005WL674885(Mar.
23,2005))athttp://www.
law.
com/special/supplement/edd/trends06.
shtml.
ThetrialcourtorderedthisadverseinferenceinstructionuponfindingthatMorganStanleyhadfailedtoimplementalitigationholdtohaltdestructionofevidence,failedtodisclosetheexistenceofrelevantelectronicinformation,andfalselycertifiedthatithadproducedallevidenceitwasrequiredtoproduce.
Id.
Now,aspartofitssettlementwiththeSEC,MorganStanleywillimprovethewayithandlesemailbyimplementingpoliciesandtrainingpracticesaboutitspreservationandproduction,andwillengageanindependentconsultanttoevaluateitsreforms.
Reuters,MorganStanleytoPay$15MlnOverE-mailRequests,N.
Y.
Times,May10,2006,availableathttp://www.
nytimes.
com/reuters/business/business-financial-morganstanley-sec.
html.
Whilemanyoftheexistingtechniquesforconductingdiscoveryandmarshallingevidencewillcontinuetoapply,thereareseveralfacetsofthisburgeoningareawherelitigantscanbenefitfromparticularstrategiesdirectedtoelectronicinformation.
Thisoutlineaddresses(1)thescopeofelectronicdiscovery;(2)howtorequestandrespondtoelectronicdiscoveryrequests;(3)theproductionofelectronicinformation-includinglimitsonproduction,cost-shifting,andspecialconsiderationsinvolved;and(4)spoliation.
II.
TheScopeofDiscoverableElectronicInformationMoresothanordinarydiscovery,electronicdiscoveryrequirespractitionerstoconsiderstrategicallythevariedpotentialsourcesofdiscoverableinformation.
Athresholdissueiswhattypesofelectronicinformationarediscoverableundertheapplicableproceduralrules.
A.
ProceduralRules1.
FederalRulesofCivilProcedureUntilabouttwomothsago,theFederalRulesofCivilProceduredidnotdirectlyaddressthescopeofdiscoverableelectronicinformation.
n6However,regulatorsrecognizedthegrowingimportanceofelectronicdiscovery--inSeptember2005,theJudicialConferenceapprovedchangestotheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure"aimedatdiscoveryofelectronicallystoredinformation.
"n7OnApril12,2006,theSupremeCourtapprovedtheproposedchanges,and,onDecember1,2006,theRuleamendmentstookeffect.
n8n6PriortotheDecember1,2006amendments,theRuleswerelastamendedtocomportwithchangesintechnologyin1970whenreferencesto"datacompilations"wereaddedtotheRules.
ReportoftheJudicialConferenceCommitteeonRulesofPracticeandProcedure(Sept.
2005)athttp://www.
uscourts.
gov/rules/Reports/ST09-2005.
pdf[hereinafterJCCReport];seeFed.
R.
Civ.
P.
26(a)(1)(B);andFed.
R.
Civ.
P.
34(a).
n7SeeJCCReport,supranote6.
Forexample,theamendedtitleofRule34is"ProductionofDocuments,ElectronicallyStoredInformation,andThings,andEntryUponLandforInspectionandOtherPurposes,"anditpermitsapartytoservearequestthatseeksto"inspect,copy,test,orsampleanydesignatedelectronicallystoredinformationoranydesignateddocuments"including"dataordatacompilationsinanymedium.
"n8CourtRules,AppliedDiscoveryCourtRulesathttp://www.
lexisnexis.
com/applieddiscovery/lawLibrary/courtRules.
asp(lastvisitedMay15,2006).
Withrespecttothescopeofdiscoverableinformation,thechangestotheRulesclarifythescopeofdiscoverybyexplicitlyincludingelectronicinformation.
n9Thechangesalsooutlinea"two-tiered"discoveryprocessforelectronicallystoredinformation,makingrelevantandnon-privilegedinformationthatis"reasonablyaccessible"discoverableasamatterofright.
n10Furthermore,toaddresstheburdensofprivilegereviewinlargeelectronicproductions,thechangessuggestprocedurespartiescanfollowtohelpavoidwaiverofprivilegethroughinadvertentdisclosure.
n11n9SeeJCCReport,supranote6;KennethJ.
Withers,TwoTiersandaSafeHarbor:TheElectronicDiscoveryAmendmentstotheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,(August25,2004,updatedMay1,2005)[Hereinafter"Withers"].
n10Id.
n11SeeJCCReport,supranote6.
Asamended,Rule26(f)(4)andRule16(b)6)nowaddressprivilegeissues.
Withtheincreaseinprevalenceofelectronicdata,severaldistrictcourts'localrulesnowexplicitlyaddresselectronicdiscovery.
n12Inaddition,theNinthCircuitJudicialCouncilannouncedin2004thatitwillbecirculatingforreviewproposedmodelrulesforelectronicdiscoveryforthedistrictcourtswithintheNinthCircuit.
n13n12Seee.
g.
E.
D.
Ark.
L.
R.
26.
1;D.
N.
J.
L.
R.
26.
1(d);seealsoUnitedStatesv.
BoeingCo.
,No.
Civ.
A.
05-1073-WEB,2005WL2105972(D.
Kan.
Aug.
31,2005)(decliningtoissueapreservationorderdirectingdefendanttopreserveelectronicandotherevidence,findingthatitwouldbesufficientforthepartiestodevelopadiscoveryplan"inaccordancewith[the]court'sElectronicDiscoveryGuidelines").
n13CourtRules,supranote8.
2.
FederalRulesofEvidenceOnApril25,2006,theAdvisoryCommitteeontheFederalRulesofEvidenceapprovedanewruleaddressingthewaiverofprivilegethroughinadvertentdisclosure,recognizingtheburdenpresentedbyprivilegereviewinlargeelectronicproductions.
n14WhiletherecentchangestotheFederalRulesofCivilProcedureoffersuggestionstohelpavoidinadvertentwaiver,thecommentstotheRulesnotethatwhetherawaiverhasactuallyoccurredwoulddependontheunderlyingsubstantiveprivilegelaw.
n15ProposedFederalRuleofEvidence502goesfurtherandchangesthesubstantivelawtopreventawaiver:iftheholderofaprivilege"tookreasonableprecautionstopreventdisclosure"andacteddiligentlyoncetheinadvertentdisclosurebecame(orshouldhavebecome)known,therewillbenowaiverunderthenewrule.
n16AtitsJunemeeting,theCommitteeonRulesofPracticeandProcedureapprovedthepublicationforpubliccommentofProposedRule502.
TheProposedRulehassincebeenpublishedforpubliccomment,andtheCommitteewillbeacceptingcommentsuntilFebruary15,2007.
n14SeeFollowingMini-Conference,AdvisoryCommitteeApprovesProposedNewFRE502forPublication,http://www.
ediscoverylaw.
com(May5,2006);CourtRules,supranote8.
n15SeeJCCReport,supranote6.
SeealsoHopsonv.
MayorofBaltimore,232F.
R.
D.
228,233-34(D.
Md.
2005)(emphasizingthatthoughtheproposedrulechangesofferproceduresthatdecreasethelikelihoodofafindingofinadvertentwaiver,thecommentsmakeitclearthatthesubstantivelawwillultimatelydeterminewhetherawaiveroccurred).
n16SeeAdvisoryCommitteeonFederalEvidenceRulestoConsiderNewRuleCodifyingWaiverofPrivilegebyDisclosure,http://www.
ediscoverylaw.
com(Mar.
1,2006).
3.
StateProceduralRulesMoststates'procedurallawsdonotexpresslyaddressthescopeofdiscoverableelectronicinformation.
n17However,thereareseveralnotableexceptions.
OnJanuary17,2006,NewYorkamendeditsUniformCommercialCourtRulestoaddressthediscoveryofelectronicinformation.
n18California'sCodeofCivilProcedurealreadyexplicitlyreferstoelectronicinformation,including"electronicmail"and"every.
.
.
meansofrecordinguponanytangiblething"withinitsdefinitionof"document"or"writing.
"n19Texas's,Illinois's,Maryland'sandMississippi'sproceduralrulesalsoexplicitlyprovideforthediscoveryofcomputerizedinformation.
n20n17See,e.
g.
,N.
Y.
C.
P.
L.
R.
3101(Consol.
2006)(requiring"fulldisclosureofallmattermaterialandnecessaryintheprosecutionordefenseofanaction").
n18http://www.
courts.
state.
ny.
us/rules/UniformRulesofCommercialDivision.
pdfn19Cal.
Civ.
Proc.
Code2016.
020(c)(referringtoCal.
Evid.
Code250).
n20Tex.
R.
Civ.
P.
192.
3(b);Ill.
Sup.
Ct.
R.
201(b)(1),214;Md.
R.
Civ.
P.
Rule2-504.
3;Miss.
Sup.
Ct.
R.
26(b)(5).
B.
CivilPracticeStandardsSignifyingtheimportanceoftheissuesraisedbyelectronicdiscovery,severalpractitioners'groupshavepreparedsetsofguidelinesdesignedtoassistlitigantsandthecourtswithdifferentaspectsofelectronicdiscovery.
1.
TheSedonaPrinciplesIn2002,agroupofpractitionersformedtheSedonaConferenceWorkingGrouponElectronicDocumentProduction.
TheSedonaConferencefirstpublisheditsBestPractices,RecommendationsandPrinciplesForAddressingElectronicDocumentProductioninMarch2003.
n21Aftersolicitingpubliccomment,theSedonaConferencepublishedarevisedversioninJanuary2004.
n22Mostrecently,theSedonaConferencepublishedarevisedversioninJuly2005.
n23n21TheSedonaPrinciples:BestPractices,Recommendations,andPrinciplesforAddressingElectronicDocumentProduction(TheSedonaConference,Mar.
2003).
n22TheSedonaPrinciples:BestPractices,Recommendations,andPrinciplesforAddressingElectronicDocumentProduction(TheSedonaConference,Jan.
2004).
n23SedonaPrinciples,supranote2.
ThePrinciples,whicharemeantto"complementtheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,"setforth,incomprehensivefashion,thebasicconceptsofelectronicdiscovery.
ThePrinciplesestablishrecommendedstandardsforelectronicdocumentproduction,andprovidecommentaryonthosestandards.
n24Topicscoveredinclude,amongothers,thedifferenttypesofelectronicdocuments,thedifferencesbetweenelectronicandhardcopydocuments,burdenandcost-shifting,preservation,privilege,andspoliation.
n25n24Id.
ativ.
n25TheSedonaConferencealsoreleasedaglossarycoveringusefulelectronicdiscoveryterminology.
TheSedonaConferenceGlossaryForE-DiscoveryandDigitalInformationManagement(TheSedonaConference,May2005).
Thatglossarywasrecentlycitedbyafederalcourtinresponsetoaparty'sobjectionthatcertaintermsintheopposingside'srequestsforproductionwerevagueandambiguous--overrulingtheobjection,thecourtnotedthatthetermsatissueweredefinedintheSedonaConferenceglossary.
SeeJohnsonv.
KraftFoodsN.
Am.
,Inc.
,No.
05-2093-JWL-DJW,2006WL3302684,at*6(D.
Kan.
Nov.
14,2006).
2.
TheABASectionofLitigationElectronicDiscoveryStandardsTheAmericanBarAssociationhasalsodevotedspecialattentiontoelectronicdiscovery.
In2004,theABAamendeditsCivilDiscoveryStandardstoincludenewandrevisedguidelinesthatmorespecificallyaddressissuesarisinginelectronicdiscovery,includingdiscoveryconferences,meetandconferrequirements,preservingandproducingelectronicdata,theuseoftechnologytofacilitatediscovery,cost-shifting,andprivilege.
n26n26SeeABADRAFTELECTRONICDISCOVERYSTANDARDS(2004),availableathttp://www.
abanet.
org/litigation/taskforces/electronic/home.
html.
SeealsoGregoryP.
Joseph,ElectronicDiscoveryStandards,2004.
Inaddition,theABASectionofLitigationwasalsoactivelyinvolvedintheamendmentprocessfortheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,submittingformalcommentstotheAdvisoryCommitteeontherecentchanges.
n27n27SeeHenryR.
Chalmers,ProposedElectronicDiscoveryRulesPromptCommentsfromSectionLeaders,30LitigationNews4(May2005).
C.
FormsofElectronicDataElectronicdataexistsinmanyforms.
Understandingthedifferentkindsofelectronicinformationavailableinagivencaseisessentialtobothoffensiveanddefensiveelectronicdiscovery.
ActiveorOnlineData.
Thisiselectronicinformationreadilyavailableandaccessibletotheuser-forexample,wordprocessingdocuments,spreadsheets,databases,e-mails,electroniccalendarsandcontactmanagers,systemfiles,andsoftwarefiles.
n28n28See,e.
g.
,JoanE.
Feldman,EssentialsofElectronicDiscovery:FindingandUsingCyberEvidence2-5(GlasserLegalWorks2003)[hereinafterFeldman];DaleM.
Cendali,SusanRodihanandEmilyDorsett,ElectronicDiscovery,inPatents,Copyrights,TrademarksandLiteraryPropertyCourseHandbookSeries621(PractisingLawInstituteJuly2003)[hereinafterCendali,Rodihan&Dorsett].
Near-lineData.
Thisconsistsofaroboticstoragelibrarythatusesroboticarmstoaccessthemedia,forexample,onopticaldisks.
n29n29See,e.
g.
,Zubulakev.
UBSWarburgLLC,217F.
R.
D.
309,319n.
52(S.
D.
N.
Y.
2003)[hereinafterZubulakeI](describingnear-linedata).
EmbeddedDataorMetadata.
Thisiscomputer-generated"dataaboutthedata"(e.
g.
,lastaccessdate,creationdate,identityofauthorandsubsequenteditors,etc.
),including"hiddentext.
"n30n30SeeWilliamsv.
Sprint/UnitedMgmt.
Co.
,230F.
R.
D.
640(D.
Kan.
2005)(holdingthatwhenacourtordersthatelectronicdatabeproducedinthemannerinwhichitisregularlymaintained,theproductionmustincludemetadataunlessthepartiesagreethatmetadataisnotincluded,theproducingpartyobjects,ortheproducingpartyseeksaprotectiveorder);seealso,e.
g.
,Rodriguezv.
CityofFresno,No.
1:05cv1017OWWDLB,2006WL903675(E.
D.
Cal.
Apr.
7,2006)(orderingdefendantstoproduceelectronicdocuments,includingmetadata,pertainingtotheplaintiffs'arrestsanddetentions,inalawsuitconcerningallegedcivilrightsabusesinconnectiontherewith;notingplaintiffswereentitledtoknowwhatchangeshadbeenmadetothedocumentsthatwereproducedtothem).
ReplicantDataorFileClones.
Thesearecopiesautomaticallymadeandsavedtoauser'sharddrive;forexample,whenaword-processingprogramperiodicallysavescopiesofanopendocumentasaprecautionagainstasystemfailure.
Replicantdatafilesaretypicallystoredinadifferentdirectorythanactivedata,andhavefilenameswithextensionssuchas.
TMPor.
BK!
ResidualData.
Thesearedeletedfilesthathavenotyetbeenoverwritten.
Whenafileisdeleted,thefileisnoterased;rather,thecomputerhasjustremovedthereferencetothefileandmadetheformerlyoccupiedmemoryavailabletostorenewinformation.
Ifthedeletedfileisnotyetoverwritten,orifthenewfilesrequireasmalleramountofmemory,thenthedeletedfilemaystillexistontheharddriveinwholeorinpart.
Commandssuchas"undelete"or"salvage"maybenecessarytoaccessresidualdata.
BackupData.
Thisisinformationthatiscopiedandstoredtonon-networkmedia,onaroutineorindividualbasis,incaseofasystemfailure.
Commonly,networkbackupsarestoredontomagnetictapes,andindividualbackupsontodiskette.
Networkbackupsaretypicallyrunonaregularschedule,oftenrecyclingthetapestostorenewbackupdata.
n31Networkbackupsmaybeeitherofthefullsystem,ofselectivefilesanddirectories,orofonlythosefilesthathavechangedsincethepriorbackup(knownasincrementalbackup).
n32n31Toaccessdatastoredonbackuptapes,itisoftennecessarytodecompressthedataandrestoreittoahostdrive.
SeeFeldman,supranote28,at2-7.
n32SeeLesleyFriedmanRosenthal,"ElectronicDiscoveryCanUnearthaTreasureTroveofInformationorPotentialLandMines,"75N.
Y.
St.
B.
A.
J.
32,33(Sept.
2003).
LegacyData.
Thisreferstoinformationstoredinanoutdatedformatthatcannotbereadbycurrentsoftware.
TherearealsoseveraltypesofelectronicdataassociatedwiththeInternet,includingbookmarks,cachefiles,andcookies.
D.
SourcesofElectronicDataThemanyformsofelectronicdataderivefromamultitudeofsources.
Acompany'snetworkserver-awideorlocalareanetwork(WANorLAN)-typicallyconstitutesthemostfruitfulsourceofelectronicdatabecauseitisthestoragerepositoryforallofthecomputersonthenetwork.
Networkfilestypicallyincludewordprocessingdocuments,e-mails,databasesandspreadsheets.
Dependingontheirpracticesforsavinginformation,individuals'workstationsmaycontainwordprocessingdocuments,e-mails,orotherdatadifferentthanthatontheWANorLAN.
Inaddition,relevantinformationmaybestoredonpalmpilots,punchcards,closedcircuitTVmonitoringsystems,homecomputers,laptops,voice-mailsystems,accountingsystems,cellphones,pagers,anddigitalcameras.
Individualsmayalsotransmitdatatohomecomputersorlaptopsviadiskettes,CDs,andZIPdisks.
Thirdpartiesmayalsopossesselectronicdataoriginatedbycompaniesorindividuals.
n33Forexample,somebusinessesstoretheirfilesonthird-partywebsites;othersmayshareelectronicfileswithsubcontractorsorconsultants.
Computerizedinformationmayevenbecollectedbyretailers,cableproviders,andmachinesorapplianceswithmemorycapabilitiesintheircentralprocessingunits.
n34n33See,e.
g.
,Pub.
RelationsSoc'yofAm.
,Inc.
v.
RoadRunnerHighSpeedOnline,116210/04,2005N.
Y.
slipop.
25227(May27,2005)(whereapartyintendingtofileadefamationlawsuitagainsttheauthorofcertaine-mailsusedpreactiondisclosurerulestoobtaindiscoveryofthosee-mailsfromaninternetserviceprovider).
n34SeeWhitneyAdams,AGuideThroughtheMinefieldofElectronicDiscoveryfortheExperiencedTrialLawyer2(CricketTechnologiesJun.
2003).
E.
OverviewofComputerSystemsWhetherrequestingorrespondingtorequestsforelectronicdiscovery,litigantsmustbefamiliarwithboththeirownandtheopposingparty'scomputersystems.
Familiaritywiththesesystemsrequiresknowledgeofcertainfoundationalinformation:SystemConfiguration.
Thisincludesthetypesofcomputersandotherhardwareusedbyacompany'ssystem;networkanddesktopoperatingsystems;andthetypesofnetworkandcommunicationssoftwareandhardwareused.
ApplicationSoftwareandUtilities.
Thisincludesthenamesandversionsofallapplicationsoftware,andallutilitiesused.
Theseapplicationsmaybeofthecommercialvarietyorcustom-made.
BackupProcedure.
Thisincludesthenameandversionofthebackupsoftwareused;themediumforstorageofbackupinformation;theretentionofbackupdata;andinformationastohowsuchdataisstored.
OtherInformation.
Otherhelpfulinformationincludesusernames,logons,passwords,andinformationaboutanyencryptionprogramsused.
III.
FormulatingandAnsweringElectronicDiscoveryRequestsBeforeembarkingontherequestfororproductionofelectronicdiscovery,practitionersmaywishtoformulateanelectronicdiscoveryplan,whichcanidentifytherelevantissues,tasksandcostsupfront.
TheManualforComplexLitigationsuggeststhatelectronicdiscoveryplansshouldaddressissuessuchas"thesearchfor.
.
.
location,retrieval,formofproduction,inspection,preservation,anduseattrial"ofelectronicinformation.
n35n35ManualforComplexLitigation(Fourth)11.
446(2004)[hereinafterMCL].
A.
DiscoveryRequestsTargetedatElectronicInformationPriortotheDecember1,2006amendments,thediscoveryRuleswerecouchedintermsofdiscovering"documents"and"tangiblethings.
"n36Withtheadventofelectronicinformation,however,theterm"document"wasstretchedtoincludemicrofiche,CDsandothermediausedtomanifestsuchelectronicdata.
n37Thus,whiletheunamendedRuleshadbeenfoundtocontemplatethatresponsiveinformationshouldbeproducedwhetherstoredinelectronicornon-electronicform,thesaferpracticewastoexplicitlyrequestelectronicdatalikee-mails,datacompilationsandotherelectronicallystoreddocuments.
n38Indeed,evennow,aftertheRuleamendmentshavetakeneffect,thesaferpracticecontinuestobetospecificallyincludeelectronicdata.
And,whenelectronicdataisexplicitlyidentifiedindocumentrequests,specifictypesofelectronicdatamayberequested,suchasbackuptapes,imagecopiesofharddrives,anddataonPDAs.
n39However,therequestingpartyshouldgivethoughttothenatureofelectronicdiscoverythatwillbeuseful-forexample,whetherresidualorreplicantdataisactuallynecessary.
n40Onewaytonarrowthescopeofelectronicinformationrequestedistolimitthepersonnelordepartmentswhoseelectronicfilesaresought,orthetimeperiodcoveredbytherequest.
n41Partiesmayalsoagreetolimitdiscoverybyagreeingtoaspecificsearchmethodology.
n42n36SeeFed.
R.
Civ.
P.
34(a).
n37Withers,supra,note9.
n38TheABAFinalRevisedElectronicDiscoveryStandardssuggestthatpartiesconsidernotonlytheformatofinformationtorequest,butwhetherthepartyseeksancillaryelectronicinformationand/orthesoftwarenecessarytointerpretsuchinformation.
ABAFINALREVISEDELECTRONICDISCOVERYSTANDARDS,Standard29(b).
n39See,e.
g.
,Feldman,supranote28,at6-10-6-11.
n40SeeDort&Spatz,DiscoveryintheDigitalEra:ConsiderationsforCorporateCounsel,9ComputerandInternetLawyer11,14(Sept.
2003)[hereinafterDort&Spatz];SedonaPrinciples,supranote2,at22(suggestingthatratherthanrequesting"all"ofanyformofelectronicrecord,requestsshould"targetparticularelectronicdatathattherequestingpartycontendsisimportanttoresolvethecase").
n41SeeFeldman,supranote28,at6-14to6-15.
n42SeeTreppelv.
BiovalCorp.
,233F.
R.
D.
363(S.
D.
N.
Y.
2006).
Aftertheplaintiffpropoundeddiscoveryrequests,thedefendantproposedthatthepartiescooperateanddefinethescopeofthesearch,includingthefilestobesearchedandthetermstobeused.
Theplaintiffrefusedtostipulatetoadiscoverymethodology,andthedefendantthereforerefusedtoproduceanydocuments.
Thecourtcriticizedbothparties,sayingthattheplaintiffmissedan"opportunity"bynotparticipatingindefiningthesearch,butindicatingthe"theplaintiff'srecalcitrance[did]notexcuse[thedefendant's]failuretoproduceanyresponsivedocumentswhatsoever.
"B.
PreliminaryDiscoverytoAssessProductionofElectronicEvidenceTodeterminethesufficiencyoftheelectronicdataproduced,partiesmayconductaFederalRuleofCivilProcedure30(b)(6)depositionofthepersonorpersonswithknowledgeabouttheopposingparty'scomputersystem.
n43Areasonwhichthedepositionmayfocusincludethecomputersystems'configuration,applicationsoftwareandutilities,backupandretentionschedules,maintenanceandaccess(includinglogonandpasswords),personnel,chainofcustody(includingthirdpartycustodians),andauthentication.
n44Inmanyinstances,thistypeofdepositionwilloccurearlyonindiscovery,topermitsubsequentrequestsforproductionofelectronicdata.
n43Seee.
g.
,InreATMFeeAntitrustLitig.
,No.
C04-2676VRW(JL),2005U.
S.
Dist.
LEXIS36195(N.
D.
Cal.
Dec.
5,2005)(orderingdefendantsto,interalia,respondtoplaintiffs'requestsfor30(b)(6)depositionsregarding"documentandelectronicdatastorageandmanagementissues");Pamlab,L.
L.
C.
v.
RiteAidCorp.
,C.
A.
No.
04-1115Section:"J"(1),2005U.
S.
Dist.
LEIS3824(E.
D.
La.
Mar.
1,2005)(orderingthatdefendantproducearepresentativetotestifyaboutdefendant'scomputersystemsandsoftwarepursuanttoplaintiff's30(b)(6)noticeofdeposition).
n44SeeFeldman,supranote28,at6-7;Dort&Spatz,supranote40,at14n.
54.
Interrogatoryresponsescanalsoshedlightonthesufficiencyofaparty'sproductionofelectronicinformation.
Likethe30(b)(6)deposition,suchinterrogatoriesmayfocusontheopposingparty'ssystemconfiguration,backupandretentionschedules,software,personnelandsystemaccess.
n45Again,suchinterrogatoriesaremostusefultheearlierindiscoverythattheyareserved.
Dependingontheimportanceandextentofelectronicdatainagivencase,apartymaywishtoretainanoutsideconsultanttoassistwiththepreparationofdiscoveryrequests.
n46n45SeeFeldman,supranote28,at6-2.
n46SeeDort&Spatz,supranote40,at14.
C.
ScopeofRequestedInformationRelativetoCostTheissueofcostpermeatesnearlyeveryaspectofelectronicdiscovery,includingthescopeofdiscoveryrequests.
Giventhevolumeofelectronicdata,broadly-draftedrequestsmayresultintheproductionofextensiverecords,whichmaybeexpensivetoproduceandtime-consumingforthereceivingpartytoreview.
Somecost-benefitanalysis,perhapswiththeassistanceofaparty'sexpert,maybeappropriateindeterminingwhatformsofelectronicdiscoverytorequest.
Thefederalrulesexplicitlyallowcourtstomodifydiscoveryrequestsbasedonacost-benefitratio.
n47Overbroadrequestswilllikelyraiseobjectionsbasedonburdenorexpense.
Thedemonstratedrelevanceoftherequestedelectronicinformationfiguressignificantlyincourts'cost-benefitanalysis.
n47SeeFed.
R.
Civ.
P.
26(b)(2)(iii).
-J.
C.
Assocs.
v.
Fidelity&GuarantyIns.
Co.
,No.
01-2437(RJL/JMF),2006WL1445173(D.
D.
C.
May25,2006).
Inthisinsurancecoverageaction,thecourtdevisedastrategytoaddressitsconcernsaboutthepotentialcostofthediscoverysought.
Asaninitialmatter,thecourtindicatedthatrelevancewasnotatissue;therequestedinformationwas"clearlyrelevant.
"Rather,becausetheunderlyingclaimshadsettledfor$124,000,thecourtwasconcernedabouttheburdenofproducingtherequesteddocuments,notingthat"thecostofanyfuturediscoverymustbeconsideredinlightoftheamountincontroversy.
"Toaddressthisissue,thecourtorderedthatdefendantsrandomlysamplethedocumentsatissue.
Basedontheresultsofthatsampling,thecourtwoulddeterminewhetheradditionalsearcheswouldbenecessary.
-Galvinv.
GilletteCo.
,19Mass.
L.
Rep.
380(2005).
Galvin,theSecretaryoftheCommonwealthofMassachusetts,wasinvestigatingtwocompaniesforfraudpossiblycommittedagainstGillette.
Inthiscontext,Galvinsoughtdiscoveryof"alle-mail,servers,archives,discs,back-uptapes,harddrives(ofallcomputersofGilletteandGillettepersonnel),andallback-upsystemsthereof.
"Thecourtnotedthatthisrequestwasso"daunting"thatitwouldbe"nearlyimpossibletocomplywith,"giventhenumberofemployeesatGilletteandthevolumeofe-mailtrafficatthecompany.
IndenyingGalvin'srequest,thecourtalsoemphasizedthatGillettewastheallegedvictim,nottheallegedperpetratorofthefraud.
-InrePriceline.
comInc.
,Sec.
Litig.
,No.
3:00CV01884(DJS),2005U.
S.
Dist.
LEXIS33636(D.
Conn.
Dec.
8,2005).
Plaintiffsoughtdiscoveryofinformationcontainedondefendants'backuptapes.
Producingthatinformationwouldveryexpensivebecausethefileswouldneedtoberestoredtonativeformatandthenreviewedbeforeproduction.
Notingthatrestorationofallofthebackuptapescouldbe"acolossalwasteofresources,"thecourtheldthatthepartiesmustbeabletodemonstratethatrelevantinformationwouldbecontainedinthetapesbeforethecourtwouldorderthatanytapesberestoredandproduced.
Thecourtmadeitclearthatthecourt"[wouldnot]compelrestorationofthebackuptapes,regardlessofwhichparty[wouldbepaying]forrestoration,unlesstheeffort[was]justified.
"-Chenv.
Hewlett-PackardCo.
,C.
A.
No.
04-03878,2005U.
S.
Dist.
LEXIS11284(E.
D.
Penn.
June8,2005).
PlaintiffcustomersuedHewlett-Packardafterheencounteredproblemswitha$1,731.
60computerhepurchasedfromthecompany.
Thecourtnotedthatplaintiff'sdamageswouldbelimitedtothepricehepaidforthecomputerandrefusedtocompeldefendantcompanytoanswerplaintiff'soverbroadinterrogatoryaskingthecompanyto"Listanddescribeallemails,senders,andrecipientsofemailcurrentlyknowntoberelevanttothislegalmatter.
"-BGRealEstateServs.
,Inc.
v.
Am.
EquityIns.
Co.
,No.
Civ.
A.
04-3408,2005WL1309048(E.
D.
La.
May18,2005).
Whereplaintiffsinaninsurancedisputerequestedproductionofawholecomputerharddrive,thecourthelddefendantswouldnothavetoproducethewholeharddrivebecausetherequestwas"overlybroadand[sought]muchthat[was]irrelevantandnotlikelytoleadtothediscoveryofadmissibleevidence.
"However,thecourtheldthatthedefendantswouldbeobligatedtoproduceinformationontheharddrive,insofarasitwasresponsivetoother,narrower,requests.
Notingthatsuchinformationwouldneedtobeproducedin"areasonablyusableform,"thecourtsuggestedthatthedefendantscouldprintouttheresponsiveinformation.
-Theofelv.
Farey-Jones,359F.
3d1066(9thCir.
2004).
Defendantsinacommercialsuitsubpoenaedtheplaintiffs'internetserviceprovider,requesting"allcopiesofe-mailssentorreceivedbyanyone"attheplaintiffs'company.
Theinternetserviceproviderpostedhundredsofthee-mailsonawebsitewheredefendantswereabletoaccessthem.
Plaintiffsmovedtoquashthesubpoenaandwereawarded$9000insanctionsfromdefendants.
PlaintiffsthensueddefendantsforviolationsoftheStoredCommunicationsAct,18U.
S.
C.
2701,etseq.
,andtheComputerFraudandAbuseAct,18U.
S.
C.
1010,amongotherclaims.
Followingthedistrictcourt'sdismissalofallclaims,theNinthCircuitreversed.
Findingthatthesubpoenawas"patentlyunlawful"duetoitsoverbreadth,thecourtheldthatthedefendants'accessingoftheplaintiffs'e-mailsstatedaclaimforviolationoftheStoredCommunicationsActandtheComputerFraudandAbuseAct,becausedefendantsobtainedtheinternetserviceprovider'sconsentthroughdeceitconcerningthelegalityofthesubpoena.
n48n48ForanothercaseinvolvingtheStoredCommunicationsAct,18U.
S.
C.
2701etseq.
,andelectronicdiscovery,seeKonopv.
HawaiianAirlines,Inc.
,302F.
3d868(9thCir.
2002).
There,theplaintiff,anairlinepilot,suedhisemployer,allegingthathisemployer'saccessingofapassword-protectedsecurewebsitetheplaintiffhadcreated,whichcontainedbulletinscriticaloftheemployer,violated,amongotherthings,theWiretapAct,18U.
S.
C.
Ё2510-2522andtheStoredCommunicationsAct.
Anemployeewhohadreceivedapasswordpermittedtheemployertologonusinghissign-oninformation.
Thedistrictcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentinfavoroftheemployer.
Afterinitiallyreversingthedistrictcourt'sopinion,theNinthCircuitonreconsiderationaffirmed,concludingthattheaccessingofelectroniccommunicationsstoredonawebsitedoesnotfallwithinthedefinitionofan"interception"undertheWiretapAct,andthatbecauseanauthorizedusergavetheemployeraccess,theemployerdidnotviolatetheStoredCommunicationsAct.
-Convolve,Inc.
v.
CompaqComputerCorp.
,223F.
R.
D.
162(S.
D.
N.
Y.
2004).
Inapatentinfringementandtradesecretsaction,plaintiffaccuseddefendantsofincorporatingitsproprietarysystem,whichpermitsacomputerusertochoosebetweenquieterandfastermodesofoperation,intotwodiskdrivesusedbydefendants.
Plaintiffssoughtdiscoveryofonedefendant'sbillsofmaterialsconcerningallofitsdiskdrivesthatincorporatedtheproprietarytechnology,notjustthetwodrivesnamedinthesuit.
Thecourtheldthatrequiringdefendanttoproduceallsuchinformation"wouldrequireanexpenditureoftimeandresourcesfaroutofproportiontothemarginalvalueofthematerialstothislitigation.
"Thecourtfoundthiswouldbesoeveniftheplaintiffcouldlinktheinformationineachbillofmaterialstoinformationcontainedindefendant'sprocurementsystem,becauseplaintiffhadfailedtoshowthatthisinformationwouldgobeyondthatalreadyprovidedbydefendant.
-PamLab,L.
L.
C.
v.
RiteAidCorporation,No.
Civ.
A-04-1115,2004WL2358106(E.
D.
La.
Oct.
13,2004).
Plaintiffsoughttocompeldefendant'sresponsetoaninterrogatoryseekinginformationoneachinstanceoneofitspharmacistsdispensedacertainproduct.
Thecourtfoundthattotheextentdefendantcouldproducesuchinformationfromitscomputersystemitshoulddoso,butfoundmanualretrievalwouldbeundulyburdensome.
Thecourtorderedplaintifftoeitherinformallyorthroughadepositionofdefendantdeterminewhatinformationcouldberetrievedfromdefendant'scomputersystemandwhatinformationcouldberetrievedmanually.
Defendantwastoproduceallinformationfromitscomputer,butworkwithplaintifftoidentifyasamplingprocessforallinformationsubjecttomanualretrieval.
n49n49SeealsoInre:Lowe'sCompanies,Inc,134S.
W.
3d876(Tex.
App.
May18,2004).
UnderTexas'srulesofcivilprocedure,thecourtheldthatplaintiffsrequestforaccesstodefendant'sdatabase,consistingofinformationonaccidentsandinjuriesinallofitsstores,withoutlimitationastotime,placeorsubjectmatterwasoverbroad.
-InrePlasticsAdditivesAntitrustLitigation,No.
Civ.
A-03-2038,2004WL2743591(E.
D.
Pa.
Nov.
29,2004).
Plaintiffssoughtaschedulingorderrequiringdefendantstoproduceitstransactionaldatainanelectronicformatandmakeavailableitsdocumentationandcomputerpersonneltohelpplaintiffs'understandandusethisdata.
Defendantsobjectedonthebasisthatanidenticalburdenwasnotimposedonplaintiffs.
Thecourtagreed;itorderedthatbothpartiesproducetheirtransactionaldatainelectronicformat,totheextentreasonablyfeasible.
Inaddition,inlightoftheadversarialnatureofantitrustlitigation,thecourtdeniedplaintiffs'requestthatdefendantsmakeitspersonnelavailabletohelpplaintiffsunderstandthedata.
-Wrightv.
AmSouthBancorp.
,320F.
3d1198(11thCir.
2003).
Plaintiffinanemploymentdiscriminationactionrequested,inelectronicform,"allwordprocessingfilescreated,modifiedand/oraccessedby"fiveotheremployeesduringatwoandone-halfyearperiod.
Affirmingthelowercourt'sdenialoftheplaintiffs'motiontocompel,theEleventhCircuitfoundthattherequestwasexcessivelybroadandundulyburdensome,andthattheplaintiffhadfailedtoshowthattheinformationwas"reasonablyrelevant.
"-Giardinav.
LockheedMartinCorp.
,No.
Civ.
A.
2-1030,2003WL1338826(E.
D.
La.
March14,2003).
Plaintiffinanemploymentdiscriminationsuitobtainedanorderfromthemagistratejudgerequiringthedefendanttoprovidealistofnon-workrelatedinternetsitesaccessedonsixteencomputersinthreeareasoverthecourseoftwentymonths.
Adoptingtherecommendationofthemagistratejudge,thetrialcourtrejectedthedefendant'sargumentthattheburden,estimatedatoverfiftyhoursofwork,wasexcessive.
D.
MeetandConferNegotiationsCourtsmaydirectpartiestomeetandconferonthescopeofrequestedelectronicdiscovery.
Indeed,theamendmentstoRule26(f)requirethepartiestodiscussthepreservationofdiscoverableinformation,aswellasdevelopadiscoveryplanthataddressesanyissuesrelatedtothediscoveryofelectronicallystoredinformation,includingformofproduction.
n50Furthermore,theamendedRule16permitsthecourttoenteraschedulingorderthatincludesprovisionsforthediscoveryofelectronicallystoredinformationandadoptsapartiesagreementforprotectionagainstinadvertentwaiversofprivilege.
n51Intheabsenceofanyaffirmativeobligationofthepartiestodevelopadiscoveryplan,however,courtsmayorderthepartiestodoso.
n52n50Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
26.
n51Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
16.
n52See,e.
g.
,ZurichAm.
Ins.
Co.
v.
AceAm.
ReinsuranceCo.
,No.
05Civ.
9170RMBJCF,2006WL3771090(S.
D.
N.
Y.
Dec.
22,2006)(requiringthatpartiesworktogethertodevelopsearchprotocolsforextractingrelevantdatafromdefendantinsurer'scomputersystem);DelCampov.
Kennedy,No.
C-01-21151JW(PVT),2006WL2586633(N.
D.
Cal.
Sept.
8,2006)(notingthattheparties'disagreementsmadetheneedforameetandconfer"obvious,"andorderingthepartiestomeetandconfertodevelopadocumentpreservationplan);Thompsonv.
JiffyLubeInt'l,Inc.
,No.
05-1203-WEB,2006WL1174040(D.
Kan.
May1,2006)(orderingthepartiestomeetandconferregardingelectronicdiscoveryissuesafterbothpartiesassertedunrealisticestimatesregardingtheburdenassociatedwiththeproductionsought;thecourtfound"equallyunpersuasive"therequestingparty'sclaimthatthefilescouldbeproducedinnativeformat"atnoadditionalcost"andtheproducingparty'sassertionthatgeneratingTIFFimageswouldcosttenmilliondollars);Leibel-FlarsheimCo.
v.
Medrad,Inc.
,No.
1:04-CV-607,2006WL33846(Feb.
14,2006)(S.
D.
Ohio)(requiringpartiestomeetandconfer,andholdingthatanemailexchangewouldnotsatisfythemeetandconferrequirement;counselhadtoactuallyspeakwitheachother);InrePriceline.
comInc.
,Sec.
Litig.
,No.
3:00CV01884(DJS),2005U.
S.
Dist.
LEXIS33636(D.
Conn.
Dec.
8,2005)(orderingthepartiestomeetandconferregardingwhichofdefendants'223backuptapesshouldberestored);InreLivent,Inc.
NoteholdersSec.
Litig.
,No.
98Civ.
1761VMDFE,2003WL23254(S.
D.
N.
Y.
Jan.
2,2003)(denyingplaintiffs'broaddiscoveryrequest,themagistratejudgeorderedthepartiestomeetandconfer,andifunabletoreachresolution,tosubmitajointletteroutliningtheareasofdisagreement).
E.
PreservationofElectronicDataManypartieswill,attheoutsetoflitigation,serveanoticeletterinstructingtheopposingpartytotakemeasurestopreserveelectronicdata.
Anoticeletterwilltypicallysetforththetypesofinformationtobepreserved,instructingthepartytoensurethatnopotentiallydiscoverabledataisdestroyedoraltered.
Thisincludesthecessationofrecyclingofbackupmedia.
n53n53See,e.
g.
,Dort&Spatz,supranote40,at13.
ButseeFreyv.
GaineyTransp.
Serv.
,Inc.
,No.
1:05-CV-1493-JOF,2006WL2443787,at*9(N.
D.
Ga.
Aug.
22,2006)(refusingtoissuesanctionsagainstapartythathadfailedtopreservecertaindatanotwithstandingtheplaintiff'shavingsentanoticeletter,notingthattheplaintiffcouldnotdoan"endrunaroundtheFederalRulesofCivilProcedurebyfilingapreemptive'spoliation'letter").
Giventhatbothsidesmaybecontemplatingrequestsforelectronicdiscoveryfromthestart,itmaymakesenseforpartiestomeetandconferoverthescopeofelectronicdatatobepreserved.
ThisistheapproachtakenintheamendmentstoRule26.
n54Asevidencedbypertinentcaselaw,courtstendtofavorsuchcooperation.
n55n54SeeWithers,supra,note9.
WithersnotesthattheproposedamendmenttotheRules"stop[s]shortofprovidingwhatmanycommentatorsproposed-aclearstatementofthedutyofpreservation.
.
.
.
"ThisissobecausethedraftersoftheproposedamendmentsfeltsuchastatementwasbeyondthepermissiblescopeoftheRulesEnablingAct,becauseitwouldmodifysubstantivelaw.
n55See,e.
g.
,BGRealEstateServs.
,Inc.
v.
Am.
EquityIns.
Co.
,No.
Civ.
A.
04-3408,2005WL1309048(E.
D.
La.
May18,2005)(consideringane-discoverydisputeandnotingthat"'itishopedthatreasonablelawyerscancooperatetomanagediscoverywithouttheneedforjudicialintervention'")(internalcitationomitted).
Justascourtslaudparties'effortstocooperateduringdiscovery,theydisfavorpartiesbeingunnecessarilydifficult.
See,e.
g.
,ElectroluxHomeProds.
,Inc.
v.
WhitesellCorp.
,No.
3:05-MC-017,2006WL355453(S.
D.
OhioFeb.
15,2006)(denyingamotiontostayanorderenforcingasubpoena,andnotingthat"Respondentshavecomplainedthroughoutthisproceedingoftheburdenbeingimposedonthem.
Insteadoflesseningthatburdenbycooperatingindiscovery,theyhavefoughtaStalingraddefensecostinguntoldthousandsofdollarsinattorneyfeesandprovidingincreasedevidencethattheyhavesomethingtohide").
Ontheotherhand,wherethescopeoftherequestedpreservationistoobroad,orwhereonepartyrefusestomaintaintherequesteddocuments,partiesmayseekcourtintervention.
Courtshaveauthorityunderthefederalrulestorelievepartiesfromexcessivelybroadpreservationorders,ortoorderpartiestomaintainelectronicdata.
n56n56SeeFed.
R.
Civ.
P.
26(c);see,e.
g.
,UnitedStatesv.
MagnesiumCorp.
,No.
2:01-CV-40DB,2006WL2350155(D.
UtahAug.
11,2006)(issuingapreservationorderrequiringplaintiffanddefendantstopreservedocumentsrelevanttotheclaimsanddefensesatissue).
-Williamsv.
Mass.
MutualLifeIns.
Co.
,226F.
R.
D.
144(D.
Mass.
2005).
Thedisputebeforethecourtcenteredontheplaintiff'sallegationthatane-mailexistedshowingthatthedefendantinsurancecompanyengagedindiscriminatorypractices.
Thecompany'sforensicsexpertshadalreadyconductedasearchandhadnotfoundsuchane-mail.
Theplaintiffsoughttohaveaneutralcomputerforensicsexpertsearchthecompany'scomputersystemsforthise-mail,butthecourtdeniedthismotionbecausetherewasinsufficientevidencethatsuchane-mailexisted.
However,toprotecttheplaintiff'srighttoappeal,thecourtorderedthecompanytopreservetheharddrivesande-mailboxesthatithadsearchedforthee-mail.
-UnitedStatesv.
BoeingCo.
,No.
Civ.
A.
05-1073-WEB,2005WL2105972(D.
Kan.
Aug.
31,2005).
Plaintiffsaskedthecourttoissueapreservationorderdirectingthedefendantcompanytopreserveelectronicandotherevidence.
Thecourtrefusedtoissuesuchanorder,findingthattheregular26(f)meeting,inwhichthepartieswouldjointlydevelopadiscoveryplanconsistentwiththejurisdiction'sElectronicDiscoveryGuidelines,wouldsuffice.
-PuebloofLagunav.
UnitedStates,No.
02-24-L,2004WL542633(Fed.
Cl.
Mar.
19,2004).
Plaintifftribeinanaccountingactionsoughtpreservationorderdirectedtodefendantgovernmentagencies,inpartonthegroundsthatelectronicandotherdatahadbeendestroyedinapriorcaseinvolvinganothertribe.
UnderRCFC16(c)and26(c),thecourtgrantedplaintiff'srequestinpart,includingorderingproceduresforinspectionandretentionofavailableelectronicdata.
F.
EthicalObligationsAttorneyshaveanethicaldutytocomplywithdiscoveryobligations.
n57Whenrespondingtoadiscoveryrequest,itmaybewisetoindicatethescopeandextentofthesearchthatwasdonetocomplywiththerequest,toavoidanyaccusationsthatapartyhasdeliberatelyconcealedevidence.
Thisisparticularlyimportantwhendealingwithelectronicallystoredinformationbecauseacompanymaynotbeawareofthefullextentofretrievableinformationinitspossession.
n57SeeCardenasv.
DorelJuvenileGroup,Inc.
,C.
A.
No.
04-2478-KHV-DJW,230F.
R.
D.
611(D.
Kan.
2005)(sanctioninganattorneyfordiscoverymisconduct).
-Okoumouv.
SafeHorizon,No.
03Civ.
1606LAKHBP,2005WL2431674(S.
D.
N.
Y.
Sept.
30,2005).
Plaintiffsoughtsanctionsagainstdefendantsfortheirallegedfailuretocomplywithanorderthattheyproduceemailandotherdocuments.
However,defendantswereabletoconfirmthattheyhadproducedallresponsiveandaccessibleemail.
Thedefendantsindicatedthatemailthathadnotbeenproducedwasinanobsoleteemailsystemandthuswasnotreadilyaccessible.
Findingthedefendants'responseadequate,thecourtrefusedtograntsanctions.
Moreover,courtstodayexpectattorneystocompetentlyensurethattheirclientscomplywithdiscoveryobligationsastoelectronicaswellashardcopyinformation.
n58Infact,thiswasthefocusofthefifthopinionintheZubulakev.
UBSWarburgLLCn59("ZubulakeV")litigation.
InZubulakeV,plaintiff,seekingsanctionsforspoliationofevidence,presentedprooftothecourtthatUBSemployeeshaddeletedrelevante-mailsfromtheircomputersaftertheinstigationofalitigationhold,and,althoughsomeofthesee-mailswererecoveredfrombackuptapes,producedtheretrievede-mailsupwardsoftwoyearsafterplaintiff'sinitialdocumentrequest.
n60Inaddition,plaintiffprofferedevidencethatdefendanthadfailedtoproducenumerouse-maildocumentsthatithadretained.
n61n58See,e.
g.
,DanielL.
Rasmussen,LessonsFromtheTrenchesin2003,AppliedDiscoveryOrangePaper4,6(Dec.
2003)("Nothingisascertaintocausealawfirmtolosecredibilitywithitsclient,opposingcounsel,orthecourtasconductingelectronicdiscoveryinahaphazardmanner.
").
n592004WL1620866(S.
D.
N.
Y.
2004)[hereinafter"ZubulakeV"].
n60Id.
at*3-5.
n61Id.
at*5-6.
Indeterminingwhetherdefendant'sactionswarrantedsanctions,thecourtfirstconsideredwhetherdefendantanditscounseltook"allnecessarystepstoguaranteethatrelevantdatawaspreservedandproduced.
"Indoingso,thecourtidentifiedthefollowingtwodutiesofcounsel:tolocaterelevantinformationandtoensurepreservationofdocuments.
n62AccordingtotheZubulakeVcourt,tofulfillthedutytolocate,counselshouldbecomefullyfamiliarwiththeclient'sdocumentretentionpolicies,includingitsdataretentionarchitecture,andspeakwiththe"keyplayers"inthelitigationtounderstandhowtheystoreinformation.
n63Asforthedutytopreserve,thecourtidentifiedthreestepscounselshouldtaketofulfillthisduty:(1)issuealitigationholdattheoutsetoflitigationorwheneveritisanticipated;(2)communicatedirectlywiththekeyplayersinthelitigation,i.
e.
,thoseidentifiedintheparty'sinitialdisclosure;and(3)instructallemployeestoproduceelectroniccopiesoftheirrelevantactivefiles.
n64n62Id.
at*7-8.
n63Id.
at*8.
n64Id.
at*9-10.
AnalyzingtheconductofUBS'scounsel,thecourtfoundthatalthoughcounselhadnotmetallofthestandardssetforthbythecourt,itnonethelessactedreasonably,underthestandardsatthetime,byinstitutingalitigationhold.
AndalthoughcounselfailedtospeakwithallofthekeyplayersatUBS,thecourtnotedthatotherUBSemployeesignoredcounsel'sinstructionstopreservedata.
n65Ultimately,thecourtfoundthatthedutytopreserveandproducedocumentsrestedontheparty.
Thus,oncethepartyismadeawareofitsduties-bycourtorderorthroughitscounsel-itisonnoticeofitsobligationsandproceedsatitsownperilifitfailstofulfillthem.
n66n65Id.
at11-12.
n66Id.
at*12.
LikeZubulakeV,Cardenasv.
DorelJuvenileGroup,Inc.
,C.
A.
No.
04-2478-KHV-DJW,2006WL1537394(D.
Kan.
June1,2006),addressedtheattorney'sdutytoensurethattheclientproperlyfulfilleddiscoveryobligations.
There,theclientfailedtoidentifypossiblesourcesofinformation,andthereforemissedcertainimportantdocumentsinitsinitialproduction.
n67Thecourtfoundthattheclientwasnot"sufficientlydiligentinplanningandexecutinganeffectivesearch"fortherequesteddocuments.
n68Thecourtthenimposedmonetarysanctions,findingthattrialcounseldidnotfulfillthefollowingduties:tocommunicatewithin-housecounseltoidentifythepersonshavingresponsibilityforthemattersthatarethesubjectofthedocumentrequests.
.
.
toidentifyallemployeeslikelytohavebeenauthors,recipientsorcustodiansofdocumentsfallingwithintherequest.
.
.
[and]toreviewalldocumentsreceivedfromtheclienttoseewhethertheyindicatetheexistenceofotherdocumentsnotpreviouslyretrievedorproduced.
n69n67Cardenas,2006WL1537394,at*7.
n68Id.
n69Id.
ThecourtinPhoenixFour,Inc.
v.
StrategicRes.
Corp.
,No.
05Civ.
4837(HB),2006WL1409413(S.
D.
N.
Y.
May23,2006),alsoissuedsanctionsuponfindingthatalawfirmdidnotcomplywithitsdiscoveryobligations.
There,theclientsubjecttodocumentrequestswasacompanythathadceasedoperations.
n70Thecompany'sformerofficershadtoldthecompany'slawyersthattheelectronicinformationrelatedtothecompanynolongerexistedsincethecompanyhadceasedoperations.
n71Thelawyershadreliedupontheirclients'representationaboutelectronicdata,andfailedtofind25gigabytesofdatalaterdiscoveredinadormantportionofwhathadbeenoneofthecompany'sservers.
n72Thecourtsanctionedthedefunctcompany'slawyersforfailingtoproperlyascertainwhetheranyelectronicinformationfromthedefunctcompanystillexisted.
n73Subsequently,thecourtawardedfeesandcostsrelatedtothesanctionsmotion,orderingthattheattorneysandtheirclientseachpayhalf.
n74Whilethecourtpermittedtheattorneystouseinsurancecoverageforthepayment,thecourtprohibitedtheclientsfromdoingso.
n75n70PhoenixFour,Inc.
,2006WL1409413,at*1.
n71Id.
at*2.
n72Id.
n73Id.
at*6.
n74PhoenixFour,Inc.
v.
StrategicRes.
Corp.
,No.
05Civ.
4837(HB),2006WL2135798(S.
D.
N.
Y.
Aug.
1,2006).
n75Id.
at*3.
IV.
FormofProductionofElectronicDataA.
Electronicvs.
HardCopyProductionWhileelectronicdataisclearlydiscoverable,thequestionariseswhetherpartiesshouldormustproducedatainhardcopyorelectronicform,orboth.
FederalRuleofCivilProcedure34(a)requiresonlythatinformationbeproducedina"reasonablyusableformat.
"TheABAFinalRevisedElectronicDiscoveryStandardssuggestthataparty"ordinarilyneednot"produceinbothforms,totheextentbothformsareidentical.
n76n76SeeABAFINALREVISEDELECTRONICDISCOVERYSTANDARDS,Standard29(b).
TheamendmentstoRule34allowtherequestingpartytospecifytheforminwhichelectronicallystoredinformationisproduced,whileprovidingtherespondingpartywithanopportunitytoobjecttosuchproduction.
n77Furthermore,theamendedruleprovidesthatiftherequestingpartyfailstodesignateaformat,andabsentacourtorderoragreementbetweenthepartiesprovidingotherwise,therespondingpartymustproduceitselectronicallystoredinformationineithertheformitisordinarilymaintainedorinareasonablyusableform.
n78n77SeeJCCReport,supranote6.
n78Id.
SeealsoSedonaPrinciples,supranote2,at47(asingleformofproductionshouldgenerallybeadequate,andwhereelectronicdataisproducedinhardcopyform,itshouldbeproducedinawaythatpreservesthe"substantiveinformationcontentrelevanttotheclaimsanddefenses"intheaction;absentobjection,agreementorcourtorder,embeddeddataneednotbeproduced).
Whenmakingadecisionastowhethertorequesthardorelectroniccopiesofdata,apartyshouldrememberthatprintoutsarenotalwaysidenticalduplicatesoftheirelectronicoriginals.
Numerousexamplesillustratethatahardcopymaynotrevealalloftheinformationthatappearsonanelectroniccounterpart.
Forexample,a"bcc"orblindcopylistdoesnotappearone-mailreceived,andthereforemaynotappearonaprintout.
Inaddition,computerlogscontaininformationaboutwhoaccessedasystemandwhen,andbywhomadocumentwaslastmodified.
Similarly,manywordprocessingprogramsstoreotherinformationthatdoesnotprint.
Also,manyprogramsallowausertoinsert"hidden"ornon-printingcomments,andbackupcopiesmaybeusedtoshowthatadocumenthasbeenmanipulated.
Bycontrast,however,hardcopiesmaycontainhandwrittennotesorotherdataabsentfromtheelectronicversion.
Courtsaredividedonwhetherpartiesarerequiredtoproducedocumentsinbothhardcopyandelectronicform,orwhetherasingleformofproductionsuffices.
n79Wherepartiesappeartobeutilizingbothformsfortheirbenefit,courtstendtorequiremultipleformsofproduction.
n79SeeMcNallyTunnelingCorp.
v.
CityofEvanston,No.
00C6979,2001U.
S.
Dist.
LEXIS20394at*15(N.
D.
Ill.
Dec.
10,2001)(acknowledgingthissplit).
-Gilliamv.
AddictsRehab.
Ctr.
Fund,No.
05Civ.
3452(RJH)(RLE),2006WL228874(S.
D.
N.
Y.
Jan.
26,2006).
InaclassactionundertheFairLaborStandardsAct,thedefendantssuggestedthattheywouldproduce36,000hardcopypagesofdocumentstoaddressprivacyconcernstheyhadaboutproducingelectronicdata.
Thecourtindicatedthatsuchaformatwouldbeinefficientandorderedthattheproductionoccurinelectronicform.
-NorthernCrossarmCo.
,Inc.
v.
Chem.
Specialties,Inc.
,No.
03-C-415-C,2004WL635606(W.
D.
Wis.
Mar.
3,2004).
Defendantproduced65,000pagesofe-mailinhardcopy.
Plaintiffmovedtocompelproductioninelectronicform.
Thecourtheldthatplaintiffwasnotentitledtoareproduction,giventhattherequestdidnotspecifyelectronicformat,defendantsreceivedthee-mailsinhardcopy,andplaintiffdidnotshowbadfaithbydefendantsorsufferanyprejudice.
-Zhouv.
PittsburgStateUniv.
,No.
01-2493-KHV,2003U.
S.
Dist.
LEXIS6398(D.
Kan.
Feb.
5,2003).
Inanemploymentdiscriminationsuit,plaintiffsoughttocompelthedefendantemployertoproduceelectronicversionsofdocumentsthedefendanthadalreadyproducedinhardcopytypewrittenform.
Thecourtgrantedthemotiontocompel,notingthattheelectronicversionsofthedocumentswouldcontaininformationnotavailableinthehardcopies.
-InreHoneywellInt'l,Inc.
Sec.
Litig.
,230F.
R.
D.
293(S.
D.
N.
Y.
2003).
Inthissecuritieslitigation,non-partyauditorhadproduceditsworkpapersinhardcopyformtoplaintiffs.
Thecourtgrantedplaintiffs'motiontocompelproductionofthesameworkpapersinelectronicform,reasoningthatthedocumentsweremaintainedbytheauditorinelectronicformintheusualcourseofbusiness.
Recently,nativefileformatshavebecomethefocusofthe"formofproduction"debateinelectronicdiscovery.
n80A"nativefile"is"anelectronicdocumentintheoriginalfileformatinwhichitwascreated,includingthespecificsoftwareapplicationsusedtocreatethedocument.
"n81Producingelectronicinformationinnativefileformatcanreducetheamountofdataprocessingcosts,yetallowsalitigationteamtoreviewadocumentasitwasoriginallycreated,includingitsmetadataandtrackedchanges.
n82Whileauthoritiespositthatthedefaultformofproductionforelectronicinformationshouldbeitsnativeformat,theyalsonotethattherearelegitimateobjectionstoproducingdatainitsnativeformat.
n83Theseobjectionsincludetheinabilitytoredactprivilegedinformation,thesecurityandauthenticityofthedocumentsandtheinabilitytoBateslabelthedocumentsforproduction.
n84Technology,however,iscatchingupwithdiscoveryandnowtherearetoolsthatofferacombinationofnativefilereviewandtiffimagereview.
Suchprogramspermitalegalteamtomaintaintheinformationassociatedwiththenativefileformat,whileallowingtheteamtocontrolandmanageproductionsetsoftiffimages.
n85n80SeeTheTruthaboutNativeFileReview,TheE-DiscoveryStandard(LexisNexisAppliedDiscovery)Fall2005at1.
n81PracticePoints:RedefiningE-Discovery:NativeFileReviewandProduction,CaseLawUpdateandE-DiscoveryNews(KrollOnTrack.
com),Nov.
2004[hereinafter"PracticePoints"].
n82Id.
n83KennethJ.
Withers,ConsiderationsforSelectingaFormofProductioninElectronicDiscovery,TheE-DiscoveryStandard(LexisNexisAppliedDiscovery)Summer2004at5.
n84Id.
SeealsoPracticePoints,supra,note79.
n85SeePracticePoints,supra,note79.
B.
AnalysisofElectronicData1.
SearchToolsAssumingthatdocumentsareproducedinelectronicform-whetherinimagecopies,backuptapes,CDsorotherelectronicmedia-thequestionariseshowtomosteffectivelyutilizethedocuments.
Often,thevolumeofelectronicdataproducedwillexceedthatwhichmighthavebeenproducedinhardcopy.
However,beingabletosearchelectronicallymakessuchdataeasiertoreview.
Commonly,partiesrelyonparameterssuchastimeperiodand/orusertoconductsearches.
Searchingcanbedoneonahigh-level,whichincludesonlyactivefiles,oronalow-level,whichincludesdeletedfilesandresidualdata.
n86n86See,e.
g.
,Feldman,supranote28,at8-19.
Thereisafast-growingmarketfortechnologicaltoolstoaidlitigatorsinmanagingandutilizingelectronicinformationindiscovery.
BesideslitigationsupportdatabasesSummation(R)andConcordance(R),indexingenginescanaidlitigatorsinsearchingelectronicdata.
Oneexampleisaproprietarycomputerprogramcalleddtsearch,asoftwarethatindexesdocumentscreatedbymanydifferentapplicationsandallowsuserstoconductBooleansearches.
AnotherexampleisAskSamProfessional,whichcreatesadhocdatabasesandhasindexingandsearchingpowers.
n87n87SeegenerallyCendali,Rodihan&Dorsett,supranote28,at626.
AnothertypeofsearchingisknownasGlobalRegularExpressionProgram("GREP").
Thisisapattern-matchingoptionthatisnotlimitedtotextfiles,rather,itsearchesonabytelevel,andcanbeusefulinsearchingforpatternsofnumbersbecauseitsearchesforexactcharactermatches.
n88n88SeeFeldman,supranote28,at8-20.
2.
ForensicExpertsAnotherwaytosearchelectronicallyproduceddataiswiththeassistanceofaforensicexpert.
Thecourtmayappointaforensicexpertwheretheamountofelectronicdatatobeproducedissignificant.
Forensicexpertshavealsoplayedcriticalrolesincaseswherepartieshavefabricatedelectronicevidence.
-InreZyprexaProductsLiabilityLitig.
,MDLNo.
1596,2006WL3821491(E.
D.
N.
Y.
Dec.
28,2006).
Afterorderingthatasoon-to-be-deposedexpertpreserveallrelevantdocuments,includingelectronicdata,thecourtheldthatifanythingresponsivetoitsorderwasdeletedordestroyed,alloftherelevantcomputerswouldhavetobesubjectedtoaforensicexamination.
-AllCovered,Inc.
v.
Moore,D046485,2005Cal.
App.
Unpub.
LEXIS9704(Oct.
25,2005).
Plaintiffcompanyinatradesecretmisappropriation,breachofcontract,andunfaircompetitionsuitwasabletoobtainapreliminaryinjunctionbasedonevidenceuncoveredbyforensicexperts.
Theexpertsdiscoveredthatdefendantformeremployeeshadwipedtheirharddrivescleanbeforeleavingtheplaintiffcompany.
Theexpertsalsorecoveredane-mailauthoredbyoneofthedefendantsstatinghisintentiontoleaveplaintiffcompanywithsomeofplaintiff'semployees.
-Laurinv.
Pokoik,No.
02Civ.
1938(LMM)(DFE),2004WL2724767(S.
D.
N.
Y.
Nov.
302004).
Inanemploymentsuitallegingahostileworkenvironment,plaintiffsoughtdocumentsconcerningthedateofanentryshemadeinacomputerizedledgerkeptondefendant'scomputersystem.
Althoughthecourtdidnotcompelproductionofthesedocuments,itpermittedplaintifftoretainaforensicexpertatherownexpenseuponherinitiationofajointletterseekinganorderfromthecourtthatdefendantallowtheexpert'sinspection.
n89n89ButseeWilliamsv.
MassachusettsMutualLifeIns.
Co.
,226F.
R.
D.
144(D.
Mass.
2005),denyingtheappointmentofaneutralforensiccomputerexpertwhereplaintiffcouldnotprovideanycredibleevidencethatdefendantswereunwillingtoproducecomputer-generateddocumentssuchase-mailorhadfailedtoproducerelevantinformation.
-PremierHomes&LandCorp.
v.
Cheswell,Inc.
,240F.
Supp.
2d97(D.
Mass.
2002).
Plaintiff'sclaimwaslargelybasedonasinglee-mail.
Defendantscontestedtheauthenticityofthee-mail,andfiledanexpartemotionto"preservecertainevidenceandexpeditetheproductionofelectronicrecords.
"Thecourtordereddefendants'expertstomirror-imageplaintiff'scomputerharddrives,backuptapesandotherdatastoragedevices.
Soonthereafter,plaintiffadmittedtohisattorneythatthee-mailhadbeenfabricatedbypastingmostofaheadingfromanearlier,legitimatemessageandalteringthesubjectmatterline.
Thecourtgranteddefendants'motiontodismissandsanctionedplaintiff.
C.
Court-OrderedReliefRelatingtoFormofElectronicProductionWhereapartyseeksproductioninelectronicform,issuesemergeastothetypeofelectronicproductiontobemade.
Insomecases,partieshavesoughtcourtrelieftoobtainproductioninonetypeofelectronicforminsteadofanother;toobtaindirectaccesstotheopposingparty'scomputersorcomputersystem;ortoobtainthemeanstoreviewelectronicdata.
Courtshavebeenmixedintheirwillingnesstoaccommodatetheserequests.
1.
Court-OrderedFormatsInsomecases,courtshaveorderedpartiestodownloadinformationontoharddrivesordiskettes.
Increasingly,courtshavealsobeenorderingpartiestoproduceinnativefileformat.
-WIREdata,Inc.
v.
VillageofSussex,Nos.
2005AP1473,2006AP174,2006AP175,,2007WL10110(Wis.
App.
Jan.
3,2007).
Inresponsetoplaintiff'srequestpursuanttoopenrecordslaws,amunicipalityprovidedtoplaintiffinformationitstoredinadatabasethroughaPDF.
ThecourtheldthatthePDFwasnotcompliantwiththeopenrecordslaws,andorderedthemunicipalitytoprovideaccesstothedatabaseitself.
Insoholding,thecourtindicatedthatthelawhadtokeeppacewiththedevelopmentoftechnology,andcitedanarticlediscussingtheuseofnativeproductionformatversusTIFForPDF.
-OKIAm.
,Inc.
v.
AdvancedMicroDevices,Inc.
,No.
C04-3171CRB(JL),2006WL2547464(N.
D.
Cal.
Aug.
31,2006).
Inresponsetodiscoveryrequests,thedefendantproduceddocumentsinnon-searchabletiffformat,forcingtheplaintifftoexpendresourcestoconvertthedocumentsintoasearchableformat.
However,whentheplaintiffthenproduceddocumentsintiffformat,thedefendantmovedtocompelproductioninasearchableelectronicform.
Thecourtdeniedthemotion"because[defendantwas]asking[plaintiff]todosomething[defendant]itselfrefusedtodo.
"-Millerv.
Int'lBus.
Machs.
,No.
C02-2118MJJ(MEJ),2006WL995160(N.
D.
Cal.
Apr.
14,2006).
Aftertheplaintiffproducedemailsandattachmentsseparately,andfailedtoprovideanywaytomatchattachmentstotheemailswithwhichtheyweresent,thecourtorderedthatplaintiffeitherproducetheemailstogetherwiththeattachmentsoridentifyspecificallywhichattachmentsbelongwithwhichemails.
Thecourtindicatedthatiftheplaintifffailedtocomplywiththisorder,hewouldbeprecludedfromusinganyemailsorattachmentsnotproperlyattachedtoeachother.
-StaticControlComponents,Inc.
v.
LexmarkInt'l,Inc,No.
Civ.
A.
04-84-KSF,2006WL897218(E.
D.
Ky.
Apr.
5,2006).
Inthiscopyrightandpatentinfringementaction,thecourtorderedthedefendantcorporationtoproduceitsdatabasein"reasonablyusableform"aftertheplaintiffcorporationcomplainedthatthedefendant'sproposedproductionformatwouldnotpermit"meaningfulaccesstothedata.
"-Hagenbuchv.
3B6SistemiElettroniciIndustrialiS.
R.
L.
,No.
04C3109,2006U.
S.
Dist.
LEXIS10838(Mar.
8,2006).
WhendefendantsattemptedtoproduceTIFFimagesofelectronicdocuments,plaintiffobjectedthat,interalia,theTIFFimageslackedmetadatatowhichtheplaintiffwasentitled.
Thecourtagreed,reasoningthat"[i]tisclearthattheTIFFdocumentsdonotcontainalloftherelevant,nonprivilegedinformationcontainedinthedesignatedelectronicmedia.
"ThecourtfurtherindicatedthatthebenefitofbeingabletoBatesstampaTIFFimagedidnotjustifyusingtheformatinlightofitsdrawbacks.
-NovaMeasuringInstruments,Ltd.
v.
Nanometrics,Inc.
,No.
C05-0986MMC(BZ),2006WL524708(N.
D.
Cal.
Mar.
6,2006).
Rulingonamotiontocompelinapatentinfringementaction,thecourtorderedthedefendanttoproducedocumentsinnativeformatwithoriginalmetadata.
n90n90SeealsoInreNYSESpecialistsSec.
Litig.
,No.
03Civ.
8264(RWS),2006WL1704447(S.
D.
N.
Y.
June14,2006)(holdingthatallhardcopydocumentshadtobeproducedintiffimages,andallelectronicdocumentshadtobeproducedinnativeformat).
-Bergersenv.
ShelterMut.
Ins.
Co.
,No.
05-1044-JTM-DWB,2006WL334675(D.
Kan.
Feb.
14,2006).
Inrulingonamotiontocompel,thecourtcriticizedanelectronicproductionofdocumentswherethedefendantsproducedCDscontaining7,253documentsthatwere"notkeptinanyperceivablesequentialorder.
"Thecourtnotedthat,insimilarsituations,othercourtshadorderedpartiestolabel,organize,orindextheirdocuments.
However,thecourtrefusedtograntreliefbecausethemotiontocompelwasnottimelyfiled.
n91n91SeealsoResidentialConstructors,LLCv.
AceProp.
&CasualtyIns.
Co.
,No.
2:05-CV-01318-BES-GWF,2006WL1582122(D.
Nev.
June5,2006)(holdingthat,inadditiontothekeyword-searchableCDplaintiffhadalreadyproduced,plaintiffwasrequiredtoproduceatableofcontentsorindexofthedocumentsontheCD).
-CPSolutionsPTE,Ltd.
v.
Gen.
Elec.
Co.
,No.
3:04cv2150(JBA)(WIG),2006WL1272615(D.
Conn.
Feb.
6,2006).
Duetoa"softwareincompatibilityproblem,"defendants'productionincludedthousandsofpagesof"gibberish.
"Defensecounselindicatedthatthedocumentshadbeeninthatformatwhentheyreceivedthedocumentsfromtheirclients.
Thecourtheldthatthisdidnotexcusetheproductionof"gibberish"andorderedthatthedocumentsbeproducedina"readable,usableformat,"iftheyhadbeen"createdorreceivedbyanyoftheDefendantsinareadableformat.
"-PowerhouseMarks,L.
L.
C.
v.
ChiHsinImpex,Inc.
,No.
Civ.
A.
04CV73923DT,2006WL83477(E.
D.
Mich.
Jan.
12,2006).
Defendantrespondedtoplaintiffs'interrogatoriesbyproducinghundredsofpagesofdatabaseprintoutsshowingrawdata.
Thecourtheldthattheproductionwas"notadequatelyresponsive,"andorderedthedefendanttoproduce"amoreusableform"ofthedata.
-CSIInv.
PartnersII,L.
P.
v.
CendantCorp.
,00Civ.
1422(DAB)(DFE),2005U.
S.
Dist.
LEXIS28300(S.
D.
N.
YNov.
16,2005).
Wheredefendantsproduced175,000pagesofspreadsheetstoplaintiffs,thecourtorderedthatdefendantsproduce"adiskcontainingthespreadsheetsinsearchableandsortableform"asplaintiffsrequested.
-InreVerisign,Inc.
Sec.
Litig.
,No.
C02-02270JW,2004U.
S.
Dist.
LEXIS22467(N.
D.
Cal.
Mar.
10,2004).
Inthissecuritiesaction,thecourtorderedthatdefendantsproducedocumentsinnativeformat.
Thecourtsohelddespitedefendants'objectionthattheyhadalreadypreparedtoproducethedocumentsintiffformat,andthatconvertingthemintonativeformatwouldbeburdensome.
-UnitedStatesv.
FirstDataCorp.
,287F.
Supp.
2d69,71(D.
D.
C.
2003).
Inthisschedulingandcasemanagementorder,thecourtheldthatthepartiesmustproduceelectronicfilesinnativeformatormustmutuallyagreeuponadifferentformat.
-TulipComputersInt'lv.
DellComputerCorp.
,63U.
S.
P.
Q.
2d1527(D.
Del.
2002).
Plaintiffinapatentinfringementactionmovedtocompeldiscoveryofe-mailsofdefendant'sexecutives.
Thecourtordereddefendanttoprovideplaintiffdiskscontainingtheharddrivesofspecificindividuals,sothatplaintiff'sexpertcouldconductkeywordsearches,basedonanagreed-uponlistofsearchterms.
Aftertheexpertcompletedthewordsearch,plaintiffwastogivedefendantalistofthee-mailscontainingthoseterms,whichdefendantwouldthenproduce,subjecttoreviewforprivilegeandconfidentiality.
-Williamsv.
Saint-GobainCorp.
,No.
00-CV-0502E(SC),2002WL1477618,at*2-3(W.
D.
N.
Y.
June28,2002).
PlaintiffinanagediscriminationsuitmovedtocompeltheproductionofaCD-ROM.
Fivedaysbeforetrial,defendanthadproducedhardcopiesofe-mailsfromthepersonalcomputerofoneofitsexecutives,whohadcopiedhisentireharddriveontoaCD-ROM.
Thecourtgrantedplaintiff'srequestforaccesstotheCD-ROM.
2.
Court-OrderedInspectionofComputerSystemsCourtshesitatetogranton-siteaccesstoanopposingparty'scomputersystem,giventheriskthatdatawillbemanipulated,eveninadvertently.
Often,aneutralthirdpartysuchasaforensicexpertwillconductthesearch,andtheproducingpartywillhaveanopportunitytoreviewanyrecovereddataforprivilegeandresponsiveness.
On-siteaccessismostoftengrantedwhenapartyclaimsthatdatarequestedhasbeenpermanentlyerased,andtheotherpartywishestotestthisassertion.
-Bianchiv.
TheBureaus,Inc.
,No.
05C5769,2006WL3802758(N.
D.
Ill.
Nov.
1,2006).
Thecourtgrantedplaintiffaccesstodefendant'sdatabase,emphasizingthatitwasdoingsobecauseofthespecificprotocolsproposedbyplaintiff.
Thoseprotocolsprovidedthatthedatabasewouldbeaccessedbyathird-partyforensicexpert,thattheexpertwouldonlyaccessthedatabasetoobtainaspecificpieceofinformation,thattheplaintiffwouldbearallofthecosts,andthatallpartiesinvolvedwouldbeboundbyaconfidentialityagreement.
Thecourtindicatedthatsuchprotocolsminimizedtheburdensonthedefendant,andaddressedtheprivacyconcernsithadvoiced.
-AdvanteInt'lCorp.
v.
MintelLearningTech.
,2006WL1806151(N.
D.
Cal.
June29,2006).
Thecourtdeniedadefendant'srequestfortheforensicexaminationoftheplaintiffs'harddrives.
Thecourtindicatedthatbecausetherewasnotsufficient"concreteevidenceofconcealmentordestructionofevidence,"anintrusionintoplaintiffs'"legitimateprivacyandotherinterests"wasnotwarranted.
Instead,thecourtacceptedasolutionofferedbytheplaintiffsthemselves--theplaintiffs'attorneyswouldreviewthecomputers.
-Floeterv.
CityofOrlando,No.
6:05-cv-400-Orl-22KRS,2006WL1000306(M.
D.
Fla.
Apr.
14,2006).
Inasexualharassmentandretaliationsuit,plaintiffformeremployeepropoundedarequestforproductionofdocuments,andalsosoughttoinspecthisformeremployer'scomputerharddrives.
Thecourtdeniedtherequesttoinspectharddrives,notingthattheplaintiffhadnotshownthatthedrivescontainedanyinformationthathehadrequestedandthedefendanthadfailedtoproduce.
-AutoNationInc.
v.
Hatfield,No.
05-02037,2006WL60547(Fla.
Cir.
Ct.
Jan.
4,2006).
Whenthecourtissuedatemporaryinjunctionagainstthedefendantinatradesecretsmisappropriationcase,thecourtorderedthatapersonalcomputerbeprovidedtotheplaintiffforinspectionbyitsforensicexpert.
Thecourtpermittedtheplaintiffandthecomputer'sownertohaveanindependentexpertattendtheinspection.
-FensterFamilyPatentHoldings,Inc.
v.
SiemensMed.
SolutionsUSA,Inc.
,No.
Civ.
A.
04-0038JJF,2005WL2304190(D.
Del.
Sept.
20,2005).
Thecourtrefusedtograntplaintiffsaccesstodefendants'corporateintranetwherethedefendantsagreedthattheywouldproduceelectronicinformationtoplaintiffsinasearchableformat.
-Etzionv.
Etzion,202179/02,2005NYSlipOp25115(N.
Y.
Sup.
Ct.
Feb.
17,2005).
Formerwifesoughttoexamineherformerhusband'scomputersystemsforevidencethathehaddeprivedherofherfairshareofmaritalassetsinthedivorce.
Thecourtheldthatallowingherfullaccesstoallofherformerhusband'scomputerinformationwouldviolatehisrighttoprivacyandattorney-clientprivilege.
Instead,thecourtorderedthattherelevantharddrivesbecloned,andthatparties'expertssearchtheinformationcontainedthereinandpassdiscoverableinformationontotheparties'attorneys.
-Oved&Assocs.
Constr.
Servs.
,Inc.
v.
Super.
Ct.
,No.
B169799,2003WL23028903(Cal.
App.
Jan.
26,2004).
Defendantinamisappropriationoffundsactionobjectedtowholesaleproductionoftheharddriveofacomputercontainingfinancialandaccountinginformation,onthebasisthatconfidentialorproprietaryinformationexistedonthedrive.
Afterissuinganordertoshowcausefollowingthetrialcourt'sgrantofplaintiff'smotiontocompel,theappellatecourtdischargedtheordertoshowcause,findingthatdefendantfailedtodemonstratethattheharddrivecontainedanythingbutaccountingdata,andthatinlightoftheinadequacyandincompletenessofelectronicaccountingdataproducedbydefendantinotherforms,productionoftheharddrivewaswarranted.
-InreFordMotorCo.
,345F.
3d1315(11thCir.
2003).
Plaintiffinaproductliabilityactionhadobtainedanorderfromthelowercourtallowingaccesstothedefendant'scomputerdatabasesofcontactswithcustomers.
Findingthattheorderallowedforunlimitedaccess,withoutprotocolsfortheprotectionofconfidentialinformation,andwithoutanyfindingsthatdefendant'sconductindiscoverywarrantedsuchrelief,theEleventhCircuitreversedtheorder.
n92n92SeealsoPositiveSoftwareSolutions,Inc.
v.
NewCenturyMortgageCorp.
,259F.
Supp.
2d561(N.
D.
Tex.
2003)(plaintiffinasoftwarecopyrightinfringementactionsoughtanorderallowingittoimageallofthedefendant'sserversandpersonalcomputersthatcontainedthesoftwareindispute;held:thescopeoftherequestwasoverbroad);McCurdyGroup,LLCv.
AmericanBiomedicalGroup,Inc.
,Nos.
00-6183,00-6332,2001WL536974(10thCir.
May21,2001)(defendantinanactionforquantummeruitwhichhadresultedinajuryverdictfortheplaintiffappealedinpartonthegroundsthatthelowercourthaderredinfailingtopermitthedefendanttoinspecttheplaintiff'sharddrives;affirmed,defendanthadfailedtoprovidesufficientgroundsfor"suchadrasticdiscoverymeasure").
-Betheav.
Comcast,218F.
R.
D.
328(D.
D.
C.
2003).
Plaintiffinanemploymentdiscriminationcasedenieddirectaccesstoemployer'sharddrives,whereplaintiffhadnotdemonstratedadequatebasisforsuspicionthatdefendant'sproductionofelectronicinformationwasincomplete,andhadnotdemonstratedrelevanceofinformationonharddrives.
3.
Court-OrderedCreationofaMeansfortheOpposingPartytoReviewDataInsomecircumstances,courtswillorderapartytoproducedatainaformrequestedbytheopposingparty,eventhoughthatformofdatanolongerexists.
However,courtswillfirstconsiderwhetherthisconstitutesanundueburden.
Moreover,courtswillusuallyrequiretherequestingpartytopayfortherespondingparty'sexpensesinproducingthedata.
-AmeriwoodInd.
,Inc.
v.
Liberman,No.
4:06CV524-DJS,2006WL3825291(E.
D.
Mo.
Dec.
27,2006).
Inthissuitallegingthatdefendantformeremployeesimproperlyusedplaintiffcompany'scomputers,thecourtheldthattherewasgoodcausetomirror-imagetheformeremployees'computers.
Thecourtreasonedthatmirror-imagingwaswarrantedbecausewhetherandhowdefendantsusedcertainelectronicfileswascentraltoplaintiff'scase.
Furthermore,thecourtorderedtherecoveryofdeletedfiles,similarlyfindingthatsuchrecoverywaswarrantedbythenatureoftheallegations.
Inorderingthemirror-imaging,thecourtalsoshiftedthecostoftheproceduretotherequestingparty,andsetforthadetailedprotocolfortheimagingitself,fortherecoveryofrelevantnon-privilegedinformation,andforthedisclosureofthatinformationtotherequestingparty.
-Quinbyv.
WestLBAG,04Civ.
7406(WHP)(HBP),2005U.
S.
Dist.
LEXIS35583(S.
D.
N.
Y.
Dec.
15,2005).
Plaintiffex-employeesoughtdiscoveryofoldemailsfromdefendantcompany.
Muchoftheemailrequestedwasstoredonbackuptapesinaninaccessibleformandwasextremelycostlytorestore.
Defendantestimatedthatproductionfrombackuptapeswouldcostabout$500,000.
Inthisrelatedmotionforsanctions,thecourtnotedthatthedefendanthadmovedforcostshifting,butthatitwasunclearwhetherthismotionwouldbegranted.
However,thecourtnotedthat,eveninthe"bestcasescenariofordefendant,"onlyaportionofthecostswouldbeshifted,anddefendantwouldstillbeforcedtospendtensofthousandsofdollarsonproduction.
n93n93And,indeed,thedefendantinQuinbyultimatelyendedupbearingalmostallofthecostofrestoringthebackuptapes.
Initially,thecourtshiftedthirtypercentofthecoststhedefendanthadincurredinrestoringandsearchingtheemailofthecustodianatissue.
See2006WL2597900(S.
D.
N.
Y.
Sept.
5,2006)(relyingonthesevencostshiftingfactorssetforthbyJudgeScheindlininZubulakev.
UBSWarburgLLC,217F.
R.
D.
309(S.
D.
N.
Y.
2003)(discussedonpage27below)).
However,oncethetapeswererestored,theplaintiffarguedthatthedefendantwouldhavehadtorestorethebackuptapesanyway,regardlessoftherequestfortheemailofthecustodianatissue.
SeeNo.
04Civ.
7406(WHP)(HB),2007WL38230,at*1(S.
D.
N.
Y.
Jan.
4,2007).
Theplaintiffcontendedthatsheshouldnotberesponsibleforcoststhedefendantwouldhaveincurredanyway.
Id.
Thecourtagreedandorderedthattheplaintiffpayonly$447.
89ofthe$9187.
50defendantspentrestoringthebackuptapes.
Id.
-Anti-Monopoly,Inc.
v.
Hasbro,Inc.
,No.
94CIV2120(LMM)(AJP),1995WL649934(S.
D.
N.
Y.
Nov.
3,1995).
Plaintiffrequestedcertaincomputerizeddata.
Defendantarguedthatitwouldhavetocreateaspecialprogramtoextractthedatarequested,andthat"[n]othingintheFederalRulesrequires[apartyto]createnewdocumentsthat[are]notmaintain[ed]intheordinarycourseofbusiness.
"ThecourtfoundthattointerprettheFederalRulesinsuchawaythatwoulddenydisclosureinthesecircumstanceswoulddefeatthepurposesoftheRules.
Additionally,thecourtstatedthatithadinsufficientinformationtodetermineplaintiff'sneedforthedataortherealcosttodefendantsofcreatingtheprogram.
Thus,thecourtleftittothepartiestofurtherresolvetheissueinlightofthecourt'sruling.
Moreover,thecourtnotedthat"furthercourtrulingsmaydependonplaintiff'swillingnesstopaydefendant'scostincreatingtherequiredcomputerprogram.
"V.
LimitsonElectronicDiscoveryUnderthefederalrules,courtscanlimitthescopeofrequesteddiscoveryonthreegrounds:(1)wherethediscoveryisunreasonablycumulativeorduplicativeorisobtainablefromamoreconvenient,lessburdensomeorlessexpensivesource;(2)wheretherequestingpartyhashadampleopportunityindiscoverytoobtaintheinformation;or(3)wheretheburdenorexpenseoutweighstheunlikelybenefit,takingintoaccountthe"needsofthecase,theamountincontroversy,theparties'resources,theimportanceoftheissuesatstakeinthelitigation,andtheimportanceoftheproposeddiscovery.
"n94n94Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
26(b)(2).
TheDiscoverySubcommitteeandAdvisoryCommitteeonCivilRuleshavefashionedamendmentstoRule26thatmakediscoveryavailabletopartiesona"twotiered"basisofaccessibility.
n95UndertheamendmenttoRule26(b)(2),partiesmaytakediscoveryasamatter"ofright,andwithoutjudicialorder,intorelevantandnon-privilegedelectronicallystoredinformationthatis'reasonablyaccessible,'asdefinedbytherespondingparty.
"n96Iftherespondingpartycannotestablishthatsuchinformationisinaccessible,oriftherequestingpartyestablishesgoodcauseforitsproduction,thecourtmaythenorderfurtherdiscovery.
n97Ineffect,thetextoftheamendedRule26(b)(2)createsapresumptionforrelevantelectronicallystoredinformationthatonly"accessible"data,asdefinedbytherespondingparty,isdiscoverable.
n98n95TheproposedrulesreflecttheanalysisinZubulakev.
UBSWarburgLLC,217F.
R.
D.
309(S.
D.
N.
Y.
2003),discussedbelow.
n96Withers,supra,note9.
n97Id.
n98Id.
A.
UndueBurdenorExpense1.
UndueBurdenObjectionsbasedonundueburdenaremostlikelytosucceedinresponsetoarequestforaccesstoharddrives,orforon-siteaccess.
n99Undueburdenmayalsobefoundwhereapartycandemonstratethatithasalreadysufficientlyproducedresponsiveinformation.
n100n99SeegenerallyJosephL.
Kashi,HowtoConductOn-PremisesDiscoveryofComputerRecords(GlasserLegalWorks1998).
n100Similarcases,wherethecourtlimiteddiscoverybasedonacost-benefitanalysis,arediscussedaboveundertheheading"ScopeofDiscoverableInformationRelativetoCost.
"-Wachtelv.
GuardianLifeIns.
Co.
,Nos.
01-4183,03-1801,2006WL1286189(D.
N.
J.
May8,2006).
Inconsideringdefendants'argumentsthattheproductionofallemail,includingemailstoredonbackupsystems,wouldpresentanundueburden,thecourtnoteda"patternofnon-compliancewithdiscoveryorders"bythedefendants.
Thecourtagreedthattherequestedproductionwouldbeburdensome,butorderedthatdefendantsproducetheemail,reasoningthat"Defendants'predicament[was]duelargelytotheirownrepeatedfailurestorespondinatimelymannertodiscoveryrequestsandtocourtorders.
"Thecourtnotedthatthemagistratejudgeinthematterhadfoundthathadthedefendantstimelysearchedforresponsivee-mails,"thecostandexpensethattheyclaimtheymustnowincurwouldnothavebeenpresent.
"-E*TradeSec.
LLCv.
DeutscheBankAG,02-3711RHK/AJB,2005U.
S.
Dist.
LEXIS3038(D.
Minn.
Jan.
31,2005).
Whereanindividualdefendanthadalreadyconductedtwosearchesofhispersonalcomputer,thecourtheldthatthe"balanceofthefactors"weighedtowardsdenyingE*Trade'srequestthatthedefendantproducehisharddrive.
Thecourtfoundthatrequiringhimtoproducetheharddrivewouldimposeanundueburden,andnotedthatE*Tradehadnotshownthatitssearchoftheharddrivewouldyieldmorerelevantevidence.
-Nicholasv.
WyndhamInt'l,Inc.
,373F.
3d537(4thCir.
2004).
Inasuitbyplaintiffsforthemolestationoftheirminordaughteratdefendants'resort,defendantsrequested"allcomputers,documents,and/ortangibleevidence"fromplaintiffs'businessrelatedtotopicsdesignatedinthedepositionnotice,includingtheincidentatissueandplaintiffs'immigrationstatus.
Notingthattheplaintiffshadalreadyproducedaconsiderableamountofdocuments,theCourtofAppealsaffirmedthedistrictcourt'sholdingthattherequestwas"cumulativeandduplicative,undulyburdensomeandharassing.
"2.
UndueExpenseandCost-ShiftingGenerally,theproducingpartybearstheexpenseofcomplyingwithadiscoveryrequest;however,courtshavediscretiontoshiftcostsasameansofprecludingundueexpense.
n101Becauseofthepotentialcostsassociatedwithmanyrequestsforelectronicdiscovery-particularlytherestorationofbackuptapesorlegacydata-cost-shiftingisoneofelectronicdiscovery'shotbuttonissues.
n102Thereareseverallandmarkdecisionsinthisarea.
n101SeeFed.
R.
Civ.
P.
26(c);see,e.
g.
,Quinbyv.
WestLBAG,04Civ.
7406(WHP)(HBP),2005U.
S.
Dist.
LEXIS35583(S.
D.
N.
Y.
Dec.
15,2005)(discussingthepossibilityofshiftingpartofthecostofproductionfromtheproducingpartytotherequestingparty).
n102SeegenerallyHenryR.
Chalmers,E-DiscoveryRulesContinuetoEvolve,29LitigationNews3(Nov.
2003);SedonaPrinciples,supranote2,at49-52.
-RoweEntm't,Inc.
v.
WilliamMorrisAgency,Inc.
,205F.
R.
D.
421(S.
D.
N.
Y.
),aff'd,No.
98Civ.
8272,2002WL975713(S.
D.
N.
Y.
May9,2002).
Plaintiffs,concertpromotersallegingdiscriminatoryandanticompetitivepracticesonthepartofdefendantbookingagencies,soughtalldocumentsconcerninganycommunicationsbetweenanyofthedefendantsrelatingtotheselectionofconcertpromoters,bidstopromoteconcerts,andsolicitationsrelatingtoconcertpromotions.
Defendantssoughtaprotectiveordertoshiftthecosts,estimatedtototalanywherebetween$150,000andover$9million,ofplaintiffs'"sweeping"electronicdocumentdemands.
Thecourtidentifiedabalancingapproachconsistingofeightfactors:-thespecificityofthediscoveryrequests;-thelikelihoodofdiscoveringcriticalinformation;-theavailabilityofsuchinformationfromothersources;-thepurposesforwhichtherespondingpartymaintainstherequesteddata;-therelativebenefittothepartiesofobtainingtheinformation;-thetotalcostassociatedwithproduction;-therelativeabilityofeachpartytocontrolcostsanditsincentivetodoso;and-theresourcesavailabletoeachparty.
Analyzingeachfactorinconsiderabledepth,thecourtdeterminedthatcost-shiftingwaswarranted,andestablishedaprotocolfortheproduction.
n103n103BeforeRowe,afrequentlycitedprecedentoncost-shiftingwasAnti-Monopoly,Inc.
v.
Hasbro,No.
CIV.
2120LMMAJP,1996WL22976(S.
D.
N.
Y.
Jan.
23,1996).
There,plaintiffrequestedcertaincomputerizeddatathatdefendanthadtocreateaspecialprogramtoextract.
Overplaintiff'sobjectionthatitcouldnotaffordthecostofcreatingtheprogram,thecourtfoundthatcostshiftingwasappropriate.
Thecourtfoundthatthecostwasnotsubstantial,and"abilitytopay"wasnotavalidbasisfordecidingwhetherornottocostshift.
"Ifplaintiffwantsthiscomputerdata,itmustpaydefendants'reasonableprogrammingexpensetoretrievetherequesteddata.
"Bycontrast,cost-shiftingwasdeniedpre-RoweinInreBrandNamePrescriptionDrugsAntitrustLitigation,Nos.
94-C-897,MDL-997,1995WL360526(N.
D.
Ill.
Jun.
15,1995).
There,plaintiffsmadeamotiontocompelthedefendanttoproducecertainemailmessages.
Thecosttodefendantincompiling,formatting,searchingandretrievingresponsivee-mailwasestimatedtobebetween$50,000and$70,000.
Defendantarguedthatthiswasundulyburdensome,andthattheplaintiffsshouldbearthecost.
Thecourtfoundthatsubstantialexpensewasnotenough.
Instead,emphasiswasplacedondefendant'schoiceofrecord-keepingmethods.
Thecourtfoundthat"ifapartychoosesanelectronicstoragemethod,thenecessityforaretrievalprogram.
.
.
isa.
.
.
foreseeablerisk,"andplaintiffsshouldnotbearthecostwhere"thecostlinessofthediscoveryprocedureinvolvedis.
.
.
aproductofthedefendant'srecord-keepingschemeoverwhichthe[plaintiffshave]nocontrol"(citingKozlowskiv.
Sears,Roebuck&Co.
,73F.
R.
D.
73(D.
Mass.
1976)).
Althoughthecourtdidnotcostshift,itdidrequireplaintiffstonarrowtheirrequest.
Zubulakev.
UBSWarburgLLC,217F.
R.
D.
309(S.
D.
N.
Y.
2003)("ZubulakeI").
Plaintiffinagenderdiscriminationsuitmovedforanordercompellingdefendanttoproducedatafrombackuptapesandotherarchivedmediaatdefendant'sexpense.
Defendantestimatedthatthecostofrestoringthedatawouldbeapproximately$175,000,exclusiveofattorneyreviewtime.
ConsideringtheRowefactors,thecourtconcludedthatthey"generallyfavorcost-shifting.
"Statingthat"thecost-shiftinganalysismustbeneutral,"JudgeScheindlinsetforthamodifiedtestbasedonsevenfactors,"weightedmore-or-lessinthefollowingorder":-theextenttowhichtherequestisspecificallytailoredtodiscoverrelevantinformation;-theavailabilityofsuchinformationfromothersources;-thetotalcostofproduction,comparedtotheamountincontroversy;-thetotalcostofproduction,comparedtotheresourcesavailabletoeachparty;-therelativeabilityofeachpartytocontrolcostsanditsincentivetodoso;-theimportanceoftheissuesatstakeinthelitigation;and-therelativebenefitstothepartiesofobtainingtheinformation.
Applyingthesefactors,thecourtordereddefendanttoproduce,atitsownexpense,allresponsivedocumentsonitsactiveandnear-lineservers,andresponsivee-mailsfromanyfivebackuptapesselectedbyplaintiff.
Thecourtindicatedthatitwouldrevisittheappropriatenessofcost-shiftingafterthetapeswererestored.
n104n104Inasubsequentdecision,Zubulakev.
UBSWarburgLLC,216F.
R.
D.
280(S.
D.
N.
Y.
2003)("ZubulakeII"),thecourtheldthatplaintiffwasrequiredtobear25%oftheapproximately$166,000costofrestoringthetapes,whiledefendantwouldpaythebalanceaswellasforallattorneyreviewtime.
Theallocationofcostswasbasedonthedeterminationthat:(1)therequestwas"relativelylimitedandtargeted";(2)theinformationwasunavailablefromothersources;(3)theevidencewasrelevant,butnotindispensable;and(4)thelikelysuccessoffurthersearcheswas"somewhatspeculative.
"-Thompsonv.
U.
S.
Dep'tofHousingandUrbanDev.
,219F.
R.
D.
93(D.
Md.
2003).
Consideringplaintiff'smotioninliminetoobtaindiscoverysanctionsfordefendants'failuretoproduce80,000e-mailsuntilafterthediscoverycutoff,court,reviewingmajordecisionsinelectronicdiscoveryandcost-shifting,foundthatthebalancingfactorsofFederalRuleofCivilProcedure26(b)(2)maybeusedtodetermineburdensinelectronicdiscovery,andthatthekeyisaparticularizedshowingoftheburdenofproducingelectronicinformation.
-Wigintonv.
CBRichardEllis,Inc.
,No.
02C6832,2004WL1895122(N.
D.
Ill.
2004).
Inaclassactionsexualharassmentsuit,plaintiffsbroughtamotionarguingdefendantshouldbearthecostsassociatedwithrestoringandsearching94backuptapesfordocumentscontainingpornographicimagesandterms.
Indeterminingwhichpartyshouldbearthecostsofthesearch,thecourtnotedthatitsanalysisshouldbeinformedbytheproportionalitytestcontainedinRule26(b)(2)(ii),i.
e.
,whethertheburdenofdiscoveryoutweighsitslikelybenefit.
Thus,whileitagreedinprinciplewiththeseven-factorZubulaketestforcostshifting,approvingitspresumptionthattherespondingpartyshouldpayfordiscovery,thecourtaddedaneightfactoranalysisthatfocusedon"theimportanceoftherequesteddiscoveryinresolvingtheissuesofthelitigation.
"Applyingitseight-factortest,thecourtfoundthebalanceofthefactorssupportedshiftingcostandorderedtheplaintiffstopay75%ofthecostsofrestoringthebackuptapes,searchingthedataandtransferringittoanelectronicdataviewer.
B.
CasesGrantingCost-Shifting-DeltaFin.
Corp.
v.
Morrison,No.
011118/2003,2006WL2403437(N.
Y.
Sup.
Ct.
Aug.
17,2006).
Therequestingpartysoughtemailsfrombackuptapes,necessitatingrestoration,searching,de-duplication,andprivilegereviewbytheproducingparty.
Ratherthangrantingthefullrequesteddiscovery,thecourtorderedthattheproducingpartysamplethebackuptapes,indicatingthatthiswouldallowthecourttodeterminewhetherfurtherdiscoverywasnecessary.
Thecourtshiftedallofthecostsassociatedwiththesamplingontotherequestingparty.
-LockheedMartinIdahoTechs.
Co.
v.
LockheedMartinAdvancedEnv.
Sys.
,Inc.
,No.
CV-98-316-E-BLW,2006WL2095876(D.
IdahoJuly27,2006).
"Duetotheextremecomplexityof[the]case"andthevolumeofdocumentsatissue,thecourtfoundthatacostlylitigationdatabasewasnecessary.
Thus,whenawardingcoststotheprevailingparty,thecourtincluded$4.
6millionincostsincurredinconnectionwiththecreationofthatdatabase.
-Inre:Auto.
RefinishingPaintAntitrustLitig.
,229F.
R.
D.
482(E.
D.
Penn.
2005).
Thecourtgranteda"verybroad"discoveryrequestthatsoughtelectronicandotherrecordsthathadbeencreatedorreceivedbynon-partynonprofittradeassociationfrom1990through2005.
Ingrantingtherequest,thecourtorderedtherequestingpartytoreimbursetheassociationforthecostsofproduction.
-Portisv.
CityofChicago,No.
02C3139,2004U.
S.
Dist.
LEXIS24737(N.
D.
Ill.
2004).
TheplaintiffsinaclassactionlawsuitagainstthecityofChicagohad"expendedconsiderableresources"tocreateadatabaseofthevoluminousinformationthecityhadproducedinthesuit.
Inapreviousorder,whenthecityrequestedaccesstothisdatabase,thecourtgrantedthecity'srequestbutorderedthecitytoshareintheexpensesofproducingit.
Inthisproceeding,thecourtclarifiedthatorder,holdingthatthecitymustreimburseplaintiffsforhalfofthefeespaidtotheplaintiffs'consultantandparalegals,basedontheconsultant'sandparalegals'hourlybillingrates.
-HagemeyerNorthAmerica,Inc.
v.
GatewayDataSciencesCorp.
,222F.
R.
D.
594(E.
D.
Wis.
2004).
Plaintiffsoughttocompeldefendanttoconductanelectronicsearchofitsbackuptapesfore-mailsatitsowncost.
Defendantresistedthemotiononthebasisthatitwouldbetime-consumingandexpensivetoretrievetheinformationfromthebackuptapes,becauseitwouldhavetoacquirethecomputerhardwareandsoftwarenecessarytodoso.
Assessingthecost-shiftingapproachesusedinMcPeek,RoweandZubulake,thecourtendorsedtheZubulakeseven-factortest,becauseitmostcloselyresembledtheproportionalitytestoutlinedinRule26(b)(2).
Furthermore,thecourtfollowedZubulakebyorderingtherespondingpartytofirstproduceresponsivedocumentsfromasampleofitsbackuptapesbeforeitwouldconductitsfinalcost-shiftinganalysis.
-MultitechnologyServices,L.
P.
v.
VerizonSouthwest,No.
Civ.
A,4:02-CV-702-4,2004WL1553480(N.
D.
Tex.
2004).
Throughinterrogatories,plaintiffssoughtinformationconcerningdefendant'spastandpresentcustomers,whichwasavailableinelectronicformindefendant'scomputerdatabases.
TheMagistrateJudgegranteddefendant'smotionforprotectiveorderonthebasisofundueburdenandexpenseandrequiredthepartiestoevenlysplitthecostsincurredbydefendanttoanswertheinterrogatories.
PlaintiffsarguedthatunderZubulakecost-shiftingwasinappropriate.
ThecourtfoundZubulakeneitherbindingnorapplicabletothediscoveryissueathand,butneverthelessfounditsapplicationintheinstantsituationfavoredcost-shifting.
Consequently,thecourtuphelditsdecisiontosplitcostsevenlybetweentheparties,becauseitbalancedthebenefitofdiscoverytotheplaintiff,whileencouragingdefendanttokeepitscostsdowninansweringtheinterrogatories.
n105n105Kormendiv.
ComputerAssocs.
Int'l,Inc.
,No.
02CIV2996(LAK)(DFE),2002WL31385832(S.
D.
N.
Y.
Oct.
21,2002)(orderingdefendanttoproducee-mailmessageswithplaintifftobearthecostofthee-mailsearchandnotingthatplaintiffwouldbeincentivizedtodemandnarrowersearchesifitborethecostsofproduction);Byersv.
IllinoisStatePolice,No.
99C8105,2002WL1264004,at*10,12(N.
D.
Ill.
June3,2002)(concludingthat"theplaintiffsareentitledtothearchivede-mailsonlyiftheyarewillingtopayforpartofthecostoftheproduction");MurphyOilUSA,Inc.
v.
FluorDaniel,Inc.
,No.
CIVA99-3564,2002WL246439(E.
D.
La.
Feb.
19,2002)(relyingonRoweanddeterminingthatdefendants'costsofproducinge-mailsshouldbebornebyplaintiff,inpartbecausetherewasnotahighlikelihoodthatthee-mailsearcheswouldbesuccessfulandthetotalcostwasestimatedatmorethan$6million);MedtronicSofamorDanek,Inc.
v.
Michelson,No.
01-2373-M1V,2003WL21468573(W.
D.
Tenn.
May13,2003)(applyingRoweandrequiringdefendantstobearaportionofthecostsofproducing996networkbackuptapesandotherelectronicdata);AntiochCo.
v.
ScrapbookBorders,Inc.
,210F.
R.
D.
645(D.
Minn.
2002)(grantingmotiontocompeltheinspectionofdefendant'scomputersystemandfortheappointmentofaforensicsexperttoretrievestoreddata,atplaintiff'sexpense).
C.
CasesDenyingCost-Shifting-ToshibaAmericaElectronicComponents,Inc.
v.
SuperiorCourt,124Cal.
App.
4th762(2004).
Inamisappropriationoftradesecrets,breachoffiduciarydutyandunfaircompetitioncase,plaintifffiledamotiontocompeldefendanttoproduceresponsivedocumentsfrom800backuptapes,whichwouldcostbetween$1.
5and$1.
9million.
Whiledefendantsarguedforcost-shiftingduetoundueburden,plaintiffassertedcost-shiftingwasinappropriateundertheanalysisusedbyfederalcourtsandbecauseitshouldnotbepenalizedfordefendant'sdecisiontokeepitsrecordsinamannermakingthemdifficulttoretrieve.
Thetrialcourtgrantedthemotionwithoutexplanation.
Onpetitionforawritofmandate,theappellatecourtissuedthewrit,holdingthatCaliforniaCodeofCivilProcedureSection2031shiftedthecostofproductiontothedemandingpartyforthereasonableexpensesincurredbytherespondingpartyintranslatingdatacompilationsintoareasonablyusableform.
n106n106CaliforniaCodeofCivilProcedureSection2031(g)(1)specifies:Anydocumentsdemandedshalleitherbeproducedastheyarekeptintheusualcourseofbusiness,orbeorganizedandlabeledtocorrespondwiththecategoriesinthedemand.
Ifnecessary,therespondingpartyatthereasonableexpenseofthedemandingpartyshall,throughdetectiondevices,translateanydatacompilationsincludedinthedemandintoreasonablyusableform.
-LipcoElectricalCorp.
v.
ASGConsultingCorp.
,No.
8775/01,2004WL1949062(N.
Y.
Sup.
2004).
Plaintiffsoughtdiscoveryofdefendant'selectricfilesandbackuptapes.
Findingthatthedatasoughtwasdiscoverable,thecourtconsideredwhoshouldbearthecostsofdiscovery.
Afterdiscussingthecost-shiftinganalysisemployedinfederalcourts,thecourtconcludedthatcostshiftingwasnotanissueinNewYorkasundertheCPLRthepartyseekingdiscoveryincursthecostsofproduction.
Thus,thecourtdeniedplaintiffsmotiontocompeluntilitpresentedinformationregardingthecoststoextractthedataandastatementoftheirwillingnesstobearthesecosts.
-ComputerAssocs.
Int'l,Inc.
v.
QwestSoftware,Inc.
,No.
02C4721,2003WL21277129(N.
D.
Ill.
June3,2003).
Plaintiffsueddefendantsforcopyrightinfringementandtradesecretmisappropriation.
Afterdefendants,atplaintiffs'request,imagedtheworkandhomecomputerharddrivesofsixemployees,defendantssoughttocompelplaintiffstobearthecost,estimatedatbetween$28,000-$40,000,ofhavingaconsultantremoveprivilegedinformationfromthedrives.
ApplyingRowe,thecourtfoundthatcost-shiftingwasunwarranted.
-XpediorCreditorTrustv.
CreditSuisseFirstBoston(USA),Inc.
,No.
02Civ.
9149(SAS),2003WL22283835(S.
D.
N.
Y.
Oct.
2,2003).
Corporationsuedthesuccessortoitsinvestmentbanker,allegingbreachofanunderwritingagreementforaninitialpublicoffering.
Nearlyallofthedocumentsrequestedbyplaintiffconsistedoftheoriginalinvestmentbanker'selectronicrecords,whichwerestoredonapproximately1500opticaldisksandondigitallineartapes.
Followingthemerger,theopticaldisksanddigitallineartapeserverweredecommissioned,andthesuccessorspentapproximately$400,000torestorethem,followingthefilingofsuit.
Thesuccessorthensoughttoshiftthecostsoftherestorationtoplaintiff.
ApplyingZubulakeI,thecourtheldthatgiventhesignificanceoftheinformation,therelativeresourcesoftheparties,theamountincontroversy,andtheotherwiseunavailabilityoftheinformation,cost-shiftingwasnotwarranted.
VI.
SpoliationandSanctionsQuicklyemergingasaleadingissueintheelectronicdiscoveryarenaisspoliation,definedgenerallyas"thedestructionorsignificantalterationofevidence,orthefailuretopreservepropertyforanother'suseasevidenceinpendingorreasonablyforeseeablelitigation.
"n107Spoliationcanbeintentionalorunintentionaland,ineithercase,canleadtosomelevelofsanctions.
Incomparisontodatarecordedonpaper,theriskthatelectronicdatamightbedeletedunintentionallyisheightenedbecausemeredailyoperationofacomputercanresultindeletionoralterationofevidence.
n108Forexample,simplyturningonacomputercanresultinthedeletionoftemporaryfilesandclickingonafilecanchangethelastaccessdate.
Similarly,thedynamicnatureofelectronicdataaddstotheriskthatmanipulationofevidencecouldoccurbeforeoraftertheelectronicdatahavebeenproduced.
n109n107ZubulakeIV,220F.
R.
D.
at216(quotingWestv.
GoodyearTire&RubberCo.
,167F.
3d776,779(2dCir.
1999)).
n108See,e.
g.
,AntiochCo.
v.
ScrapbookBorders,Inc.
,210F.
R.
D.
645,651-52(D.
Minn.
2002)(grantingplaintiff'smotionforapreservationorder,thecourtstated:"[W]econcludethattheDefendantsmayhaverelevantinformation,ontheircomputerequipment,whichisbeinglostthroughnormaluseofthecomputer,andwhichmightberelevanttothePlaintiff'sclaims,ortheDefendants'defenses").
n109See,e.
g.
,UnitedStatesv.
Parker,133F.
3d322,326(5thCir.
1998)(affirmingtheconvictionofanadministrativejudge'slawclerkwhousedgovernmentcomputerstocreatedocumentstoaidindividualsinfraudulentlyobtainingSocialSecuritybenefits).
A.
ElementsofSpoliationLitigants,especiallylargecompanieswithmassiveamountsofelectronicdatatransferredandmodifiedonadailybasis,havetoobserveadelicatebalancebetweenensuringthatrelevantevidenceisretainedandmaintaininganefficientandcost-effectivedatastoragesystem.
n110Asamatterofgoodbusinesspractice,companieshavepoliciesrequiringongoingdeletionofcumulativeandotherwiseuselessdata,butthisroutinepracticecanruncontrarytothelitigationneedfordataretention.
Spoliation,insomeform,isthereforeboundtooccur,butmaynotalwaysbeactionable.
Theprerequisitesforaspoliationclaimn111offerbusinessessomeprotection,but,asdiscussedbelow,thethresholdisquitelowandaclaimcouldariseevenwherethereisnocourtproceeding.
n110SeeKevinF.
Brady&MatthewI.
Cohen,AchievingaUsefulLitigationHold,NAT'LL.
J.
,July25,2005,atS1(statingthat"oneofthemostdifficultissuesforthecompanytoaddressishowtodeviseandimplementaneffectivelitigationhold.
.
.
andatthesametimeallow[]thecompanytopursue,forlegitimatebusinesspurposes,thedestructionofnonrelevantactiveandarchiveddata");seealsoMartinH.
Redish,ElectronicDiscoveryandtheLitigationMatrix,51DUKEL.
J.
561,623-25(2001)(discussingtheneedtobalancelitigationholdrequirementswithbusinessefficiency).
n111Somejurisdictionsrecognizeanindependentcauseofactionforspoliation.
See,e.
g.
,Holmesv.
AmerexRent-A-Car,180F.
3d294(D.
C.
Cir.
1999),whileothersonlyrecognizeitasabasisforsanctions.
See,e.
g.
,Martino,etal.
v.
Wal-MartStores,Inc.
,908So.
2d342,347(Fla.
2005).
1.
DutytoPreserveEvidenceAspoliationclaimrequirestheexistenceofadutytoretainevidence,n112butthenatureandextentofthedutyvariesdependinguponthefactualcontextinwhichtheissuearises.
n113Thedeterminationturnsprimarilyuponwhenapartyhadnoticeoftherelevanceoftheinformationtotheimminentorcurrentlitigationathand.
Accordingly,courtshavefoundfoursourcesofthisduty:statutorynotice,priorlitigation,anticipatedlitigation,andthefilingofacomplaint.
n114StatutoryNotice.
Adutytoretainelectronicevidencemayarisebystatute.
n115Simplecompliancewiththestatute,however,doesnotnecessarilyavoidtheobligationsthatmightattachunderothersourcesofadutytopreserve.
n116PriorLitigation.
Ifallegationsmadeinalawsuitarepotentialcausesofactionforfuturelitigation,theallegationsmaytriggeradutytopreserveelectronicevidenceinanticipationofsubsequentlitigation.
UnitedStatesv.
Koch,197F.
R.
D.
463(N.
D.
Okl.
1998)(concludingthatadutytopreservearosebetweenthetimeofadepositioninonecaseandthefilingofasubsequentRICOaction).
AnticipatedLitigation.
Adutytoretainelectronicevidencemayalsoattachatthetimethelawsuitisanticipated.
ZubulakeIV,220F.
R.
D.
at217(findingthatadutytopreservecertaine-mailsande-mailbackuptapesarosewhen"almosteveryoneassociatedwithZubulakerecognizedthepossibilitythatshemightsue"forgenderdiscrimination).
n117FilingofComplaint.
Attheverylatest,apartyisonnoticeofitsdutytoretainelectronicevidenceonceacomplainthasbeenfiled.
n118n112SeeJ.
S.
SweetCo.
,Inc.
v.
SikaChem.
Corp.
,400F.
3d1028,1032(7thCir.
2005)(applyingIndianalawandstatingthataspoliationclaimexistsonlywhenthepartyallegedtohavelostorsuppressedtheevidenceowedadutytothepersonbringingthespoliationclaims);Martinov.
Wal-MartStores,Inc.
,908So.
2d342,348(Fla.
2005)(Wells,J.
,concurring)("Itisfundamentaltotheentirelegalbasisforspoliationofevidencethattheownerorpossessorofpropertyhavealegallydefineddutytomaintainorpreservetheproperty.
");Moorev.
Gen.
MotorsCorp.
,558S.
W.
2d720,734(Mo.
App.
1977)(explainingthat"[t]hereisnoevidencethatat[thetimetherecordswerediscarded,]defendanthadanyknowledgethatitwasfacinglitigationsothatitwasputonnoticethatitshouldnotpursueitscustomarypracticeofdestroying.
.
.
records").
n113SeeHirschv.
GeneralMotorsCorp.
,628A.
2d1108,1122(N.
J.
Super.
1993)(explainingthat"adutytopreserveevidence,independentfromacourtordertopreserveevidence,ariseswherethereis:(1)pendingorprobablelitigationinvolvingthedefendants;(2)knowledgebyplaintiffoftheexistenceorlikelihoodoflitigation;(3)foreseeabilityofharmtothedefendants,orinotherwords,discardingtheevidencewouldbeprejudicialtodefendants;and(4)evidencerelevanttothelitigation.
").
n114AdamI.
Cohen&DavidJ.
Lender,Pre-LitigationDutytoPreserveElectronicInformation,TheAppliedDiscoveryOrangePages,Oct.
2003,at2,7(explainingthatdutytopreserveariseswhenacorporationhasnoticethatelectronicdataisrelevanttoimminentandcurrentlitigationandidentifyingthreesituationswhennoticearises:priorlitigation,statutorynoticeandanticipatedlitigation).
Onecourthasalsorecognizedthatadutytopreservemayarisethroughagreementorcontractbetweentheparties.
Boydv.
TravelersIns.
Co.
,652N.
E.
2d267,270-71(Ill.
1995).
n115Seee.
g.
,15U.
S.
C.
A.
78q(1997);15U.
S.
C.
A.
78u-4(b)(3)(c)(i)(1997);29U.
S.
C.
A.
657(1997).
n116SeeTurnerv.
HudsonTransitLines,Inc.
,142F.
R.
D.
68,72(S.
D.
N.
Y.
1991)(holdingthatstatutoryrecordretentionperiodwasinsufficientforpurposesofdiscoverybecausepartywasonnoticethatlitigationwaslikelytocommence).
n117SeealsoBroccoliv.
EchostarCommc'nsCorp.
,908So.
2d342,510(D.
Md.
2005)(statingthatapartyhasadutytopreservewhen"thepartyshouldhaveknownthattheevidencemayberelevanttofuturelitigation)(citingSilvestriv.
Gen.
MotorsCrop.
,271F.
3d583,591(4thCir.
2001));Wm.
T.
ThompsonCo.
v.
Gen.
NutritionCorp.
,Inc.
,593F.
Supp.
1443,1445-46(C.
D.
Cal.
1984)(findingGNCwasonnoticeofitsdutytopreserveelectroniccomputerfilesthroughpre-litigationcorrespondenceofparties).
n118SeeZubulakeIV,220F.
R.
D.
at216(findingdutytopreservearose,atthelatest,whenplaintifffiledherEEOCclaim);seealsoConcordBoatCorp.
v.
BrunswickCorp.
,No.
LR-C-95-781,1997WL33352759,at*4(E.
D.
Ark.
Aug.
29,1997)(findingdutyarosewhencomplaintfiled).
Inaddition,discoveryrequestscanserveasnoticeofthedutytopreserve.
See,e.
g.
,Lombardov.
BroadwayStores,Inc.
,No.
G026581,2002WL86810,at*9(Cal.
App.
Jan.
22,2002)(findingthatdiscoveryrequestsservedinfederallawsuitputdefendantonnoticeofdutytopreserveelectronicpayrollrecords,despiteretentionofhardcopiesofdata,instatelawactionaftercaseremandedtostatecourt);Turner,142F.
R.
D.
at73.
2.
ImpactoftheDutytoPreserveonDocumentRetentionandDestructionPoliciesOncethedutytopreservearises,apartymustsuspenditsroutinedocumentretention/destructionpolicyandimplementa"litigationhold,"toensurethatrelevantdocumentsarepreserved.
n119ThecourtinZubulakeIVsetforthaparty'sbasicobligationswhenthedutytopreservearises:-althoughapartyisnotrequiredtomaintaineverydocument,itmust"preservewhatitknows,orreasonablyshouldknow,isrelevanttotheaction,isreasonablycalculatedtoleadtothediscoveryofadmissibleevidence,isreasonablylikelytoberequestedduringdiscovery,and/oristhesubjectofapendingdiscoveryrequest;"n120-thisdutyextendstothekeyindividualsinacase-thosewhoarelikelytohaverelevantinformation-andencompassesdocumentscreatedbyandpreparedfortheseindividuals;n121-althoughalitigationholdneednotapplytobackuptapesmaintainedsolelyfordisasterrecovery,thecourtstatedsuchaholdshouldapplytobackuptapesusedonaregularbasisforinformationretrieval;-totheextentapartycanidentifybackuptapescontainingdocumentsof"keyplayers,"thesetapes,bothfordisasterrecoveryandinformationretrieval,shouldbepreservediftheinformationisnototherwiseavailable;n122-thecourtsuggestedoneacceptedmethodtomanagethemultitudeofformsofelectronicdata:1)retainbackuptapesforrelevantpersonnel;2)catalogseparatelylater-createddocumentsand3)"mirror-image"thecomputersystematthetimethedutytopreservearises.
n123n119SeeZubulakeIV,220F.
R.
D.
at218.
ForathoroughdiscussionoftheZubulakeIVdecision,seeHenryR.
Chalmers,ZubulakeCourtDefinesScopeofDutytoPreserveElectronicEvidence,29LitigationNews6(March2004).
n120Id.
at217&n.
21(quotingTurner,142F.
R.
D.
at72(quotingWm.
T.
ThompsonCo.
vGen.
NutritionCorp.
,593F.
Supp.
1443,1455(C.
D.
Cal.
1984)).
n121Id.
n122Id.
at218.
n123Id.
See,e.
g.
,BalboaThreadworks,Inc.
v.
Stucky,No.
05-1157-JTM-DWB,2006WL763668(D.
Kan.
Mar.
24,2006)(orderingmirrorimagingofallofdefendants'computersandperipheralequipment,notingthatthiswasonewaytopreventthelossordestructionofthedatacontainedtherein).
B.
Sanctions1.
TheRoleofIntentPartiestolitigationmaybesubjecttosanctionsforspoliationpursuanttoFederalRuleofCivilProcedure37,asimilarstate-lawprovision,oracourt'sinherentpower.
n124Trialcourtshavewidediscretioninformulatingdiscoverysanctionsn125andwillscrutinizeverycarefullyanydestructionofrecordsafterthedutytopreservearises.
Intheabsenceofanadequateexplanation,courtsarelikelytoimposesanctions.
Thereissomeconflict,however,overthelevelofintentrequiredformoresevereevidentiarysanctions,suchasanadverseinferenceinstructionordismissal.
n124SeeShiraA.
Scheindlin&KanchanaWangkeo,ElectronicDiscoverySanctionsintheTwenty-FirstCentury,11MICH.
TELECOMM.
TECH.
L.
REV.
71,72(2004).
n125SeeResidentialFundingCorp.
v.
DegeorgeFinancialCorp.
,306F.
3d99,107(2dCir.
2002).
-CreativeSci.
Sys.
,Inc.
v.
ForexCapitalMkts.
,LLC,No.
C04-03746JF(RS),2006WL870973(N.
D.
Cal.
Apr.
4,2006).
Plaintiffsoftwarecompanysueddefendantcurrencybroker,assertingclaimsarisingfromthedefendant'sallegedlyimproperuseofplaintiff'ssoftware.
Electronicevidencerelatedtotheuseofplaintiff'ssoftwarewascrucialtotheplaintiff'scase.
However,evenafterthecourtissuedapreservationorder,defendantproceededtoreinstalltheoperatingsystemsonitsservers,makingrelevantevidenceverydifficulttoobtain.
Defendantconvincedthecourtthatthereinstallationwasmotivatedbybusinessreasons,andwasnotawillfulattempttodestroyevidence.
However,thecourtstillissuedsanctions,shiftingcertaindiscoverycoststothedefendant.
Thecourtreasonedthat"thefailureof[defendant]anditscounseltotakeaffirmativestepstocomplywiththePreservationOrder--whichwouldhavecaused[defendant]nottoreinstalltheoperatingsystemsontheserversatissue--isevidenceofatleastsomedegreeofbadfaith.
"-Morrisv.
UnionPacificR.
R.
,373F.
3d896(8thCir.
2004).
Inanappealofatrialcourt'sadverseinferenceinstructionbasedonthedefendant'srecordingoverofpotentiallyrelevantaudiotapes,theEighthCircuitclarifieditspositiononsuchinstructions.
Thecourtstatedthat"[a]nadverseinferenceinstructionisapowerfultoolinajurytrial"andthatitbrandsonepartyasabadactorand"necessarilyopensthedoortoacertaindegreeofspeculationbythejury.
"Id.
at900.
RelyingonitspreviousdecisioninStevensonv.
UnionPac.
R.
R.
Co.
,354F.
3d739(8thCir.
2004),thecourtrepeateditsholdingthat"'theremustbeafindingofintentionaldestructionindicatingadesiretosuppressthetruth'"beforeanadverseinferenceinstructionisjustified.
"Morris,373F.
3dat901(quotingStevenson,354F.
3dat746).
-ResidentialFundingCorp.
v.
DeGeorgeFinancialCorp.
,306F.
3d99,107(2dCir.
2002).
Defendantrequestedplaintifftoproducee-mail,towhichplaintiffdidnotobject.
Afterplaintiff'sin-housecounseldetermineditsinternalresourcescouldnotretrievethee-mail,heretainedanoutsideexpert.
Thisexpert,however,saiditcouldnotretrievethee-mailfrombackuptapes.
Plaintiffbroughtinanewexpert,whichwasabletosporadicallyproducelimitede-mailstodefendant.
Defendantreiterateditsrequesttoinvestigatethebackuptapes,andplaintifffinallyagreed.
Withinfourdaysofreceivingthetapes,defendant'sexpertwasabletolocate950,000e-mailsontwoofthetapes.
Defendantmovedforanadverseinferenceinstructionasasanction,butthetrialcourtdeniedthemotionbecausedefendanthadnotprovedplaintiffhadactedin"badfaith"orwith"grossnegligence.
"Onappeal,theSecondCircuitsetforththreefactorsthatmustbepresentforanadverseinstructiontobeanappropriatesanction:1)"thepartyhavingcontrolovertheevidencehadanobligationtopreserveitatthetimeitwasdestroyed;2)[]therecordsweredestroyed'withaculpablestateofmind';and3)[]thedestroyedevidencewas'relevant'totheparty'sclaimordefensesuchthatareasonabletrieroffactcouldfindthatitwouldsupportthatclaimordefense.
"Thecourtheldfurtherthatordinarynegligencecouldsufficeasthe"culpablestateofmind"andthatafindingofbadfaithwasnotrequired.
Thecourtremandedthecasetothetrialcourtwithinstructionstopermitdefendanttorenewhismotionsforsanctions.
n126n126GregoryJosephhasdiscussedtheimplicationsoftheResidentialFundingdecisiononelectronicdiscoverypractice.
Mr.
Josephsetsforthfiveobservations:1)partiesmustaddresselectronicdatapreservationattheinceptionofthecase;2)partiesmaynotsimplyrelyuponaninsideoroutsidetechnicalexpert'sstatementthatadiscoverydemandcannotbemet;3)reclamationandrelevanceofelectronicdatamaybediscoverable;4)irrelevancyofelectronicevidenceisnotnecessarilyadefensetosanctions;and5)non-productionofevidence,althoughmadewithoutaculpablestateofmind,isnotadefensetosanctions.
GregoryP.
Joseph,ElectronicSpoliation,TheComputer&InternetLawyer,July2003,at16.
-UndertherecentamendmentstoRule37,theDiscoverySubcommitteeandAdvisoryCommitteehaveprovideda"shallowsafeharbor"toapartywhotakesreasonableprecautionstopreservedocuments,butlosessomenonethelessastheresultoftheroutineoperationofitselectronicinformationsystem.
n127Butifthepartylosesinformationinviolationofacourtorderrequiringpreservation,thesafeharboroffersnoprotectionwhatsoever.
n128ThetextofamendedRule37provides:Unlessapartyviolatedanorderintheactionrequiringittopreserveelectronicallystoredinformation,acourtmaynotimposesanctionsundertheserulesonthepartyforfailingtoprovidesuchinformationif(1)thepartytookreasonablestepstopreservetheinformationafteritkneworshouldhaveknowtheinformationwasdiscoverableintheaction;and(2)thefailureresultedfromthelossoftheinformationbecauseoftheroutineoperationoftheparty'selectronicsystem.
n129n127Withers,supra,note9.
WithersnotesthatproposedamendedRule37is"notableforwhatitdoesnotdo.
"Forexample,theRule:doesnotarticulateapositivedutyofpreservation;doesnotaddressthepreservationordestructionofinformationpriortothecommencementofalawsuit;anddoesnotincludearequirementofafindingofculpabilitybeforeimposingasanction.
n128Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
37.
n129Id.
2.
DecisionsAddressingElectronicDiscoveryandSanctionsThelimitedempiricaldataregardingsanctionsforelectronicdiscoveryviolationsindicatesthatcourtswillgenerallyleantowardassessingmonetarypenalties.
Inanarticlesurveyingsanctionscasessincetheyear2000,theauthorsnotedthatattorney'sfeesandcostswereawardedin60%ofthecaseswheresanctionsweregranted.
n130Evidentiarysanctions,suchaspreclusion,adverseinferenceinstructions,anddismissalordefault,weregrantedlessfrequently.
In28%ofthecaseswheresanctionswereawarded,courtsimposedmorethanonetypeofsanction.
n131n130Scheindlin&Wangkeo,supranote124,at77.
n131Id.
Becausesanctionsdecisionsdependlargelyuponthediscretionofthetrialcourtandtheparticularfactsatissue,thefollowingcasesummariesprovidesomepointsofreferenceforsanctionsbasedonvariouselectronicdiscoveryissues.
a.
CasesWhereOnlyMonetarySanctionsWereGranted-JPMorganChaseBank,N.
A.
v.
Neovi,Inc.
,No.
2:06-CV-0095,2006WL3803152(S.
D.
OhioNov.
14,2006).
Inthiscaseinvolvingadefendantinternet-basedservice-provider,theplaintiffsoughtinformationabouttheresidencyofdefendant'scustomers.
Defendantrepeatedlytriedtocircumventtherequestonthegroundsthatitscustomerswerenotrequiredtoprovidesuchinformation.
Defendantrepeatedlyomittedthatcustomersweregiventheopportunitytovoluntarilyprovidetheiraddresses,andthatdefendantthereforedidhaveaddressinformationformanyofitscustomers.
Afterplaintiffdiscoveredthisomissioninadeposition,itrequestedtheaddressinformation.
Whendefendantfailedtotimelyrespondtotherequest,plaintifffiledamotiontocompelandamotionforsanctions.
Notingthatdefendanthadnotbehavedreasonably,thecourtorderedthatplaintiffproduceitsdatabaseofcustomerinformationsothatdefendantcouldconducttherequiredsearchforitself,andalsoordereddefendanttopaytheadditionalfeesandcostsithadcausedplaintifftoincurthroughitsunreasonableconduct.
-OmegaPatents,LLCv.
FortinAutoRadio,Inc.
,No.
6:05-cv-1113-Orl-22DAB,2006WL2038534(M.
D.
Fla.
July19,2006).
Whereadefendantdelayedinproducing2000pagesofemail,producingtheemailafterthedepositionofitsdesignatedcorporaterepresentative,thecourtawardedmonetarysanctionsagainstit.
Althoughthedefendantarguedthat"itcouldnothaveproduced[thedocuments]soonerwithoutincurring'undueburdenandexpense,'"thecourtindicatedthatthisexplanationwastoovague,andalsonotedtheabsenceofsupportingswornaffidavits.
-Velav.
Wagner&Brown,Ltd.
,203S.
W.
3d37(Tex.
App.
2006).
Theappellatecourtfoundnoabuseofdiscretionwherethetrialcourthadimposed$75,000insanctionsagainstapartyfordiscoveryabusesincludingthefailuretopreserveitsexpert'scomputerdata.
Thecourtheldthatsanctionswereappropriatewhereapartyhadattemptedtorelyonanexpert'stestimonyduringtrial,buthadfailedtopreservethecomputerdatashowinghowhereachedhisconclusions.
-InvisionMediaCommunications,Inc.
v.
Fed.
Ins.
Co.
,No.
02CIV5461(NRB)(KNF),2004WL396037(S.
D.
N.
Y.
Mar.
2,2004).
Inthiscase,defendantmovedforsanctionsbecause,amongotherwrongfulconduct,plaintiffhadfailedtodisclosedocumentsandhaddestroyedevidence.
Inarequestforproduction,defendantaskedplaintifftoproducealle-mailsforathreemonthperiod.
Plaintiff'soutsidecounselinformeddefendantthatthee-mailswereunavailableastheserveronlyarchivede-mailfortwoweeksandeffortshadprovedretrievalimpossible.
Later,plaintiff'sin-housecounselinformeddefendantthatplaintiffpossessede-mailfortherelevantperiodandthatshehadauthorizedtheharddrivesofterminatedemployeestobewiped.
Consequently,thecourtheldthatplaintiff'soutsidecounselhadliedabouttheavailabilityofe-mailforproductionandthatthisconductwassanctionable.
Althoughthecourtnotedthaterasureoftheharddrivesalsocausedspoliationofevidence,itdidnotrisetothelevelofsanctionableconductbecausedefendanthadnotshownthatthedeletedevidencewasrelevant.
Thecourtawardedsanctionsintheformofcostsandreasonableattorney'sfees.
-Cobellv.
Norton,206F.
R.
D.
324(D.
D.
C.
2002).
Thecourtgrantedplaintiffs'motionforsanctionspursuanttoFederalRuleofCivilProcedure37basedondefendants'requestforaprotectiveorder,clarifying"thatitmayproducee-mailinresponsetodiscoveryrequestsbyproducingfrompaperrecordsofe-mailmessagesratherthanfrombackuptapesandmayoverwritebackuptapesinaccordancewithDepartmentaldirectives.
"Plaintiffsarguedthatdefendantshadmadethissameargumenttwicebefore,andbothtimes,theywererejected.
Thecourtheldthatdefendants'requestforaprotectiveorderwasinappropriate,andordereddefendantstopayplaintiffs'reasonableexpenses,includingattorneys'fees,incurredbyplaintiffs'oppositiontodefendants'motionforprotectiveorder.
n132n132SeealsoLandmarkLegalFound.
v.
EPA,272F.
Supp.
2d70(D.
D.
C.
2003)(awardingplaintiff'sattorneys'feesandreasonablecostsforcontemptbasedonviolationofinjunctionprohibitingdeletionofemails,reformattingofharddrivesandreuseofemailbackuptapes);Lombardov.
BroadwayStores,Inc.
,No.
G026581,2002WL86810(Cal.
App.
Jan.
22,2002)(upholdingsanctions,findingthatdefendantshaddestroyedcomputerizedpayrolldata);RKI,Inc.
v.
Grimes,177F.
Supp.
2d859(N.
D.
Ill.
2001)(orderingthedefendanttopay$100,000incompensatorydamages,$150,000inpunitivedamages,attorney'sfeesandcourtcostsintradesecretmisappropriationactionfordefragmentinghishomecomputerinanefforttohideevidence);PennarSoftwareCorp.
v.
Fortune500Sys.
Ltd.
,No.
01-01734EDL,2001WL1319162(N.
D.
Cal.
Oct.
25,2001)(imposingsanctionsuponthedefendantintheformofattorney'sfeesforfailuretopresentamaintenancepolicy,logfilesorbackuptapesthatwouldtrackwebsitemaintenanceanddeletionprocedures;whentheevidencewasproduced,thecourtfoundthatthedefendanttamperedwithanddeletedevidenceinordertoevadepersonaljurisdiction);Procter&GambleCo.
v.
Haugen,179F.
R.
D.
622(D.
Utah1998)(imposingmonetarysanctionsintheamountof$10,000fordeletionofandfailuretopreserveemails),aff'dinpart,rev'dinpart,222F.
3d1262(10thCir.
2000).
b.
CasesWhereNon-MonetarySanctionsWereGranted-ExactSoftwareN.
Am.
,Inc.
v.
Infocon,Inc.
,No.
3:03CV7183,2006WL3499992(N.
D.
OhioDec.
5,2006).
Inthisscathingopinion,thecourtdelineatedalonglistofdiscovery-relatedmisconduct,includingfailuretocomplywithnumerouscourtorderstoproducedocumentsandfailuretopreserverelevantbackuptapescoveredbydefendant'sdiscoveryrequests.
Thecourtnotedthatinformationhadbeendestroyedevenafterthelawsuithadcommenced,andpossiblyevenaftertherequestsforthatinformationhadbeenpropounded.
Thecourtalsonotedthat,inthefaceofanaccusationofspoliation,theplaintiffofferednoexplanationforwhythedatawasdestroyed.
Notably,thecourtalsofoundthattheplaintiff'sapproachtothesearchesithadperformedwas"inappropriate.
"Inresponsetoallegationsthattheplaintiff'ssearcheshadnotbeenproductive,theplaintiffblamedthedefendantfornotspecifyingthesearchparameterscorrectly.
Thecourtindicatedthatthatwasthewrongapproachtohavetaken,andthat"[i]fthepartyfromwhomdiscoveryissoughtcancomprehendwithreasonablecertaintywhatisbeingaskedfor,itisuptoittoaccessitsstoragesystemtoretrievethedocument.
"Thecourtreasonedthat,justasapartyrequestingdiscoveryofphysicaldocumentswasnotrequiredtospecifythefilecabinetfromwhichthedocumentsshouldberetrieved,neithershouldapartyrequestingproductionofelectronicdocumentsberequiredto"plotthesearchwithexactitude.
"Thecourtheldthatduetoplaintiff's"persistentandegregiousnoncompliancewithaseriesofdiscoveryorders,sanctionsarefullywarranted,"andorderedhearingstodeterminewhetherthefaultforthenoncompliancelaywithcounselorclient,sothatsanctionscouldbeleviedagainstthecorrectparty.
Amongthepotentialsanctionswasdismissalwithprejudiceoftheplaintiff'scomplaintandtheentryofadefaultjudgmentagainstitonthedefendant'scounterclaims.
-OptowaveCo.
v.
Nikitin,No.
6:05-cv-1083-Orl-22DAB,2006WL3231422(M.
D.
Fla.
Nov.
7,2006).
Inthiscontractdispute,thecourtgrantedanadverseinferenceinstructionbecausethedefendanthadallowedrelevantelectronicdatatobedestroyedaftertheplaintiff'scounselhadsentademandletterandnon-destructionnoticetothedefendant.
Therelevantdocumentshadbeendestroyedwhenallofdefendant'scomputerswerereformatted.
Thecourtcitedthedefendant'slevelofexpertiseinthecomputerfield,indicatingthatthedefendantmusthaveknownthatdocumentsrelevanttothelitigationwouldbedestroyedinthereformatting.
Thedefendanttriedtorespondbycontestingthecredibilityofakeycustodianwhoseemailhadbeenlost,arguingthatthatcustodianhadbeenbiasedagainstthedefendant.
Thecourtrejectedthatargumentasadefensetothespoliationchargesandorderedthatanadverseinferenceinstructionbegivenagainstthedefendant.
-InreQuintusCorp.
,353B.
R.
77(Bankr.
D.
Del.
2006).
Inthisdisputearisingfromthedefendant'spurchaseoftheassetsandliabilitiesofdebtorsinbankruptcy,thecourtenteredajudgmentofalmost$1.
9millionagainstthedefendantbecauseofitsdestructionofcrucialdocuments.
Intheassetpurchaseagreement,defendanthadagreedtoassumecertainofthedebtor'sliabilities.
Subsequently,thebankruptcytrusteefiledasuit,claimingthatthedefendantwasnotpayingliabilitiesithadassumed.
However,defendanthaddeletedcrucialfinancialrecordsthatshowedwhichclaims,amongthoseithadassumed,remainedtobepaid.
Thedefendanthaddeletedtherecords,allegedlytocreatemorespaceonthecomputersystems,eventhoughithadacontractualobligationtomaintaintherecordsforsevenyears.
Thisdeletionhadoccurredwellbeforethecommencementofthelitigation,andevenbeforethebankruptcytrusteebringingthesuithadbeenappointed.
Thecourtrejectedthedefendant'sargumentthatitcouldnotbesanctionedforspoliationbecauseithadnotanticipatedlitigationatthetimeitdestroyedtherecords.
Thecourtreasonedthat,whenthedefendanthaddestroyedthefinancialrecords,itknewthatithadnotpaidalloftheclaimsitwasobligatedtopayunderitsassetpurchaseagreement.
Thus,thecourtconcluded,thedefendantshouldhaveanticipatedlitigationarisingfromtheunpaidclaims.
Inreachingitsconclusion,thecourtindicatedthat"[thedefendant's]conduct[was]exacerbatedbythefactthatatthetimetherecordsweredestroyed,[thedefendant]hadacontractualdutytomaintainthem.
"-Plassev.
TycoElec.
Corp.
,No.
04-30056-MAP,2006WL2623441(D.
Mass.
Sept.
7,2006).
Citingtheplaintiff's"extensiveandegregiousmisconduct,"thecourtdismissedtheplaintiff'scomplaint.
Theplaintiffhadallegedwrongfultermination,andthedisputecenteredaroundwhethertheplaintiffhadfalselyclaimedthathehadearnedanMBAontheresumehehadsubmittedtothedefendantcompany.
Theplaintiffmaintainedthathehadnevermadesuchaclaim,andthatalloftheversionsofhisresumeindicatedthathewasanMBAcandidate.
However,aforensicexaminationoftheplaintiff'selectronicdatarevealedthatplaintiffhaddeletedatleastoneresumethatclaimedheheldanMBAafterhehadadutytopreservesuchdata;detectedotheroverwrittenorunrecoverableresumes;andindicatedthattheplaintiffhadtriedtomanipulatethedateonhiscomputersystemtoconcealthedatesonwhichhewasaccessingrelevantdata.
Theforensicsearchalsorevealedthattheplaintiffhadrecentlyaccesseddocumentsincludingthewords"resume"or"coverletter,"thoughthesearchwasnotabletorecoverthosedocuments.
n133Incriticizingtheplaintiff'smisconduct,thecourtnoted"[f]irstandforemost"thattheplaintiffhad"deletedorotherwisefailedtoproducedocumentsthatwerepotentiallyrelevanttothislitigation.
"n133Inasubsequentdecision,thecourtorderedplaintifftopayovertwentythousanddollarsinfeesfortheforensicexperts,findingthattheexpertswere"particularlynecessarytouncoverPlaintiff'sskullduggery.
"No.
Civ.
A.
0430056MAP,2006WL3445610,at*1(D.
Mass.
Nov.
8,2006).
-Covucciv.
KeaneConsultingGroup,Inc.
,No.
033584,2006WL2004215(Mass.
Super.
Ct.
May31,2006).
Theconductoftheplaintiffinthisagediscriminationcaseledthecourttodismisshiscomplaint.
Hisdiscoveryabusesincluded,interalia,usingaproducttowipedatafromhiscomputersothatevenaforensicsexpertcouldnotretrieveit;lyingtohisownattorneyabouttheexistenceofanemailthatwouldhavebeencrucialtohiscase;andhidingtheexistenceofacomputerthatwassubjecttoadiscoveryrequestuntilhecouldwipethedatafromthatcomputer.
Indismissingplaintiff'scomplaint,thecourtnotedthattheplaintiff'sconductcouldbedescribed"persistentbad-faithrepudiationofdiscoveryobligations,""theintentionalspoliationofevidence,"and"afraudonthecourt.
"-DaimlerChryslerMotorsv.
BillDavisRacing,Inc.
,2005WL3502172(E.
D.
Mich.
Dec.
22,2005).
Inthiscontractaction,plaintiffDaimlerChryslersoughtsanctionsfordefendant'sfailuretopreservecertainemailsthatweredeletedpursuanttoanautomatedfeatureofitscomputersystem.
Statingthatsuchnormalproceduresfordestructionofdocumentsmustbesuspendedwhenapartyisonnoticethattheymayberelevanttolitigation,themagistrateindicatedthatthefailuretomakeanadequatesearchofsuchdocumentsbeforetheirdestructionmaybeevidenceofbadfaith.
Themagistratealsoexpressednumerous"concerns"aboutthelossofmessagestoandfromakeyplayerwhotestifiedthathewasneveraskedaboutcertainrelevantcorrespondence,evenafterthelawsuitandthelossofnumerousemailsexchangedinternallybydefendant'semployeesandrelatingtothecontractatissue.
Despitenotbeingpersuadedthatdefendant'sfailuretopreserveelectronicdatawastheresultofbadfaith,themagistratestatedthat"[e]venthenegligentdestructionofevidenceisprejudicialtoanopposingparty,andunderminesthelegalprocess.
"Themagistrateconcludedthatthefollowingsanctionswereappropriate:(a)anorderallowingplaintifftopresentevidenceofthedefendant'sfailuretopreserveelectronicdata;(b)aninstructiontothejurythatitmaypresume,baseduponthespoliation,thattheevidencedestroyedwouldhavebeenfavorabletoplaintiff;and(c)anorderpermittingcounselforDaimlerChryslerMotorstoargueinfavorofthenegativeinference.
Themagistratealsorecommendedthatplaintiffrecoveritsreasonableattorneys'feesandcostsassociatedwiththemotionforsanctions.
-Elec.
FundsSolutionsv.
Murphy,2005WL3408372(Cal.
Ct.
App.
Dec.
14,2005).
Inalawsuitbetweenformerbusinesspartnersinvolvingallegationsofbreachoffiduciaryduty,intentionalinterferencewitheconomicrelations,unfaircompetition,andrelatedtorts,thetrialcourtfoundthatthedefendantscommittednumerousdiscoveryabuses,including:failingtoproduceresponsiveemailandelectronicdata,failingtocomplywithdiscoveryorders,intentionallydestroyingdatathroughtheuseof"DataEraser"softwareafterthecourtorderedproductionofharddrives,andmakingfalserepresentationstothecourtregardingtheircompliancewithdiscoveryrequestsandorders.
Forsanctions,thetrialcourtstruckthedefendants'answerandeventuallyordereddefaultjudgmentagainstdefendantsandawardedcompensatorydamagesof$8,040,272andpunitivedamagesof$16million(basedonastatementofdamages).
Onappeal,thecourtremandedthecaseafterdeterminingthat,althoughtheentryofdefaultjudgmentagainstthedefendantswasproper,theamountofdamagesassessedbythecourtcouldnotstandbecausethecomplaintonlycalledfordamages"inanamountinexcessof$50,000"andthereforefailedtoprovidedefendantsnoticeoftheirmaximumpotentialliability.
-InreOldBancOneShareholdersSec.
Litig.
,2005WL3372783(N.
D.
Ill.
Dec.
8,2005).
Adoptinginfullthemagistrate'srecommendationsregardingplaintiffs'motionforsanctionsbaseduponthedefendant'sfailuretopreserverelevantdocuments,theDistrictCourtexplainedthat,insecuritiescases,corporationshaveadutytopreservedocumentspursuanttoboththeFederalRulesofCivilProcedureandthePublicSecuritiesLitigationReformAct.
Thecourtfoundthatthedefendantwasonnoticeandhadadutytopreserveavarietyofdocumentsthathadbeenrequestedbyplaintiffs,includingtheunderlyingdataforseveralcalculationsusedinconnectionwithamerger.
ThecourtnotedthatBankOneneededtocreatea"comprehensivedocumentretentionpolicytoensurethatrelevantdocumentswereretainedandneededtodisseminatethatpolicytoitsemployees.
"BecauseBankOnewasunabletoproducetherequesteddocuments,thecourtconcludedthatBankOnehadbreacheditsdutytoretainorpreservethedocuments.
Thecourtconcludedthatalthoughthelossofseveralcategoriesofdocumentsreflected"poorjudgment,"andthatthefailuretocreateanddisseminateawrittenlitigationholdpolicywasnegligent,therewasnoevidencethatBankOnewillfullydestroyedanydocuments.
Thecourtthereforedeniedplaintiffs'requestforsanctionsintheformofdefaultjudgment,or,alternatively,thestrikingofaffirmativedefensesortheissuanceofanadversejuryinstruction.
Instead,thecourtagreedwiththemagistrate'srecommendationforalessersanction:thatBankOnebepreventedfromcross-examiningplaintiffs'expert,andthatthejurybeinstructedastothislimitationandthereasonforit.
Thecourtdeferredtheplaintiffs'requestforattorneys'feesuntilthecourtwouldbeinabetterpositiontoevaluatetheimpactofBankOne'sfailuretopreservethedocumentsatissue.
-Coleman(Parent)Holdings,Inc.
v.
MorganStanley&Co.
,Inc.
,2005WL679071(Fla.
Cir.
Ct.
Mar.
1,2005)("ColemanI").
Inafraudactionagainstaninvestmentfirmarisingoutofastockacquisitiontransaction,plaintiffdemonstratedthatdefendant,amongotherthings:(1)continuedoverwritingemailsfor12monthsafterthecasewasfiled;(2)afteragreeingtoacourtorderrequiringtheproductionofemailsandclientcertificationsregardingtheproductionofsame,becameawareofthousandsofadditionalbackuptapescontainingemails,butfailedtoproducethem,falselycertifyingthatithadcompliedwiththecourtorder;(3)replacedtheclientrepresentativeinchargeofdocumentcollectionfor"integrityissues,"butfailedtoinformthesuccessorofthewithheldemails;and(4)sixmonthsafterlocatingtheadditionalbackuptapesandinformingplaintiff,locatedyetadditionalbackuptapesthathadnotbeenproduced.
Thecourtgrantedanadverseinferenceinstruction,shiftingtheburdenontheissueoffraud.
-Coleman(Parent)Holdings,Inc.
v.
MorganStanley&Co.
,Inc.
,2005WL674885(Fla.
Cir.
Ct.
Mar.
23,2005)("ColemanII").
Followingonitspreviousorder,thecourtconcludedthatbothMorganStanleyanditscounsel,Kirkland&Ellis,participatedindiscoveryabusesrelatedtodelaysandattemptstoavoidproducingemailsonbackuptapes.
Thecourtstressedthattheprejudicetotheplaintiffscouldnotbecuredandthat"[t]hejudicialsystemcannotfunctionthisway.
"Thecourtdescribed23itemsthathadcometolightsincetheFebruary2005hearingthatindicatedthatMorganStanley's"wrongfulconducthascontinuedunabated.
"OneitemreferredtoadeclarationoftheExecutiveDirectorofMorganStanley'sLawDivisionthathedidnotlearnofunsearchedbackuptapesuntilOctober2004.
Accordingtothecourt,MorganStanleysoughtthroughthatdeclarationtocreatetheimplicationthatnooneintheLawDivisionknewabouttheadditionalbackuptapesbeforeOctober,despitethefactthatanassociateoftheExecutiveDirectorandtheExecutiveDirector'ssuperiorknewoftheadditionaltapesnolaterthanJune7,2004.
ThecourtgrantedColeman'srenewedmotionforentryofadefaultjudgmentinpart.
AredactedcopyofColeman'scomplaintwouldbereadtothejuryandthejurywouldbeinstructedthatthefactsinthecomplaint"aredeemedestablishedforallpurposesinthisaction.
"ThecourtwouldalsoreadastatementtothejuryconcerningMorganStanley'sdiscoverypracticesandinstructthejury"thatitmayconsiderthosefactsindeterminingwhether[MorganStanley]soughttoconcealitsoffensiveconductwhendeterminingwhetheranawardofpunitivedamagesisappropriate.
"Inaddition,thecourtrevokedtheprohacvicestatusofMorganStanley'sKirklandattorney.
-Broccoli,etal.
v.
EchostarCommunicationsCorp.
,etal.
,229F.
R.
D.
506(D.
Md.
2005).
Broccolisueddefendantsinconnectionwithemploymentdiscrimination.
BroccoliprevailedonclaimsofbreachofcontractandviolationoftheMarylandWagePaymentandCollectionAct,butnotonhisfederalclaims.
Broccolisoughtattorneys'feesandEchostarfiledabillofcostsassertingthatithadprevailed.
Inaddressingthesematters,thecourtalsoprovidedexplanationforitsearlierordergrantingofBroccoli'smotionfordiscoverysanctions,whichresultedinanadversespoliationofevidencejuryinstructionandlimitsonEchostar'sabilitytopresentcertainevidence.
ThecourtfoundEchostar'semail/documentretentionpolicy"extraordinary.
"Allitemsinthe"sentitems"folderwhichweremorethansevendaysoldwereautomaticallyroutedtothe"deleteditems"folder.
Allitemsinthe"deleteditems"folderwhichweremorethan14daysoldwereautomaticallypurgedandbecameirretrievable.
Electronicfilesbelongingtoformeremployeeswerecompletelydeleted30daysafteranemployee'sdeparture.
Thecourtfoundthispracticetobe"risky,"butnotedthatitwas"arguably"adefensiblebusinesspracticeandnotsanctionable.
Thecourtconcluded,however,thatEchostarclearlyactedinbadfaithbyfailingtosuspenddocumentdestructionandpreserveessentialdocumentsafterbeingputonnoticeofpotentiallitigation.
NoticebecameeffectiveasearlyasJanuary2001,whenBroccoli'ssuperiorstestifiedthattheybeganreceivingcomplaintsofsexualharassment.
Echostaradmittedthatitneverissuedacompany-wideinstructiontosuspendthedestructionofrelevantdocumentsandthatitdidnotpreserveBroccoli'semailforthe30dayspriortohistermination(aftertheyhadreceivedacomplaintletterfromhim).
Also,thelackofapapertraildocumentingBroccoli'sinteractionwithhissupervisorsandco-workershelpedEchostarwithitsimpeachmentofBroccoli'sformersupervisorsandwasprejudicial.
ThecourtfoundthatEchostarhadactedinbadfaith"initsfailuretosuspenditsemailanddatadestructionpolicyorpreserveessentialpersonneldocumentsinordertofulfillitsdutytopreservetherelevantdocumentationforpurposesofpotentiallitigation.
"-CommunicationsCenter,Inc.
v.
MatthewHewitt,etal.
,2005WL3277983(E.
D.
Cal.
Apr.
5,2005).
Inthissuitbroughtbyplaintiffseekingrecoverybasedonmultipleclaims,thecourthadordereddefendanttoprovidemirrorimagesofanyharddrivesindefendant'spossessionthatcontaineddocumentsresponsivetoplaintiff'srequestsforproduction.
Defensecounselindicatedthatnothingwouldbewithheld,butelectronicevidencewasdestroyedandplaintifffiledamotionforsanctions.
Defendanthadproducedelectronicdata,butnotthemirrorimagesthathadbeenrequired.
Defendantdideventuallyproducemirrorimagesoffourdrives,butnotbeforerunningEvidenceEliminatoronthreeandre-installinganoperatingsystemonthefourth.
Defendantclaimedthatheranaprogramcalled"EvidenceEliminator"toeraseevidenceofanextramaritalaffairandembarrassingvisitstowebsitesuponlearningthatmirrorimageswouldrevealinformationnotreadilyapparenttotheuser.
Headmittedthathere-installedanoperatingsystemontheonedriveknowingthatthiswoulddestroydata.
Themagistratefounddefendant'sexplanationcontradictoryandnotcredible.
ThelogcreatedwhenheranEvidenceEliminatorindicatedthaterasedfileslikelycontainedresponsivematerial.
Althoughtheplaintiffconcededthatthespoliatedevidencewasprobablyirrelevanttothefraudandbreachofemploymentcontractclaims,themagistratepresumedthattheerasedevidencedemonstratedthemeritoftheotherclaims,andrecommendeddefaultontheseclaims.
Themagistratealsoawardedfeesandcostsinconnectionwiththemotionforsanctionsintheamountof$145,811.
75.
-E*TradeSecuritiesLLCv.
DeutscheBankAG,etal.
,230F.
R.
D.
582(D.
Minn.
2005).
Inthisdecision,amagistratejudgeaddressedissuesregardingseveralelectronicdiscoverydisputesarisinginacasewhereplaintiffsclaimedthatdefendantsengagedinafraudulentsecuritieslendingscheme.
Plaintiffsmovedforsanctionsbasedoncertaindefendants'allegedspoliationofevidenceandfailuretoconductareasonableinquiryinresponsetodiscoveryrequests.
Thedefendantsopposedthesanctionsmotionandmovedforanawardofattorneys'feesandcosts.
Themagistraterecommendedthattheplaintiffs'motionsforsanctionsbegrantedandthatdefendants'motionbedeniedbasedontheconclusionthatthedefendantshadwrongfullydestroyedthreecategoriesofevidenceafterthey"clearlyknewaboutthepotentialforlitigation.
"Thethreecategorieswere:(1)ComputerHardDrives:Onedefendantpermanentlyerasedallthecompany'sharddrivesinmid-2002,approximatelysixmonthsafteritsdutytopreservewastriggered;thecourtrejecteddefendant'sbusinessreasonsassertions,includingthatthecompanywasshuttingdownbusinessandtheCEOdidnotwantconfidentialinformationgoingtodepartingemployees(whowerereceivingthecomputers);(2)TelephoneRecordings:Thesamedefendantusedatwo-DVDsystemtorecordtradercalls.
Underthissystem,aftertwoDVDswerefilled,thefirstwouldberecordedoverautomatically.
Defendantadmittedthatitmadenochangesintherecordingsystemuntilapproximatelyninemonthsafteritsdutytopreservefirstarose.
Findingthatthetradercommunicationsregardingtheallegedlendingschemewouldhavebeenhighlyrelevant,thejudgeconcludedthatdefendant'sfailuretoretaintherecordingswasspoliationandsanctionable;and(3)Email:Nolitigationholdhadbeenputintoeffectin2001becauseallemailwouldpurportedlybepreservedonbackuptapes.
Accordingtothedefendant'sretentionpolicy,however,backuptapesforemailmessageswereonlyretainedforthreeyears.
Themagistrateconcludedthatthelostevidencewouldhavebeenfavorabletoplaintiffsandthatitslossresultedinprejudicetoplaintiffs.
Accordingly,themagistraterecommendedthatthedistrictcourtinstructthejurythatitmayinferthattheinformationthatdefendantsfailedtopreservewouldhavebeenadvantageoustoplaintiffsanddisadvantageoustothedefendants.
Inaddition,thejudgerecommendedthatbothdefendantsbesanctioned$5,000fortheirdiscoveryviolations.
-DirecTV,Inc.
v.
Borow,2005WL43261(N.
D.
Ill.
Jan.
6,2005).
Inthiscase,thecourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentinfavorofplaintiffDirecTVonclaimsstemmingfromBorow'sunauthorizeduseofplaintiff'ssatellitetelevisionsignal.
Summaryjudgmentwaswarranted,inpart,becausedefendanthadnotofferedsufficientevidencetorebutthepresumptionthatarosefromhisdestructionofrelevantevidence.
Fivemonthsafterplaintifffileditscomplaint,defendantusedEvidenceEliminatortoeraseevidencerequestedbyplaintifffromhiscomputer.
Afterdefendant'scomputerwassurrenderedforinspection,plaintiff'sforensicsexpertwasabletorecoversomedeletedfiles,includingprogramsusedbysatellitepiratestointerceptplaintiff'sencryptedsignalandfilesthatlistedthenamesofpiracywebsitesthatdefendantvisitedortowhichhehadsubscribed.
However,otherfileswerepermanentlydeleted.
Onplaintiff'searliermotionforsanctions,thecourtconcludedthatthedefendanthadactedinbadfaithanddeliberatelydestroyedrelevantevidence.
Onsummaryjudgment,thecourtaffordedplaintiffanadverseinferencethatthedestroyeddocumentswouldnothavefavoredthedefense.
-Zubulakev.
UBSWarburgLLC,No.
02Civ.
1243(SAS),2004WL1620866(S.
D.
N.
Y.
2004)("ZubulakeV").
Seediscussioninfraat.
Toremedythelossofthepotentiallyrelevantevidence,thecourtorderedanadverseinferencejuryinstructionregardingtheloste-mails,theplaintiff'scoststoconductadditionaldepositionsconcerninglate-producede-mails,andthecostsofthemotion.
n134n134CompareGettyProps.
Corp.
v.
RacewayPetroleum,Inc.
,No.
Civ.
A.
99-CV-4395(DMC),2005WL1412134(D.
N.
J.
June14,2005)(decliningtoissuesanctionsanddistinguishingZubulakeVonthegroundthatplaintiffscomplainedthatdefendantsfailedtocreatenewfilesandnotthatdefendanthaddeletedanyfiles).
-InreTelxonCorp.
SecuritiesLitigation,2004WL3192729(N.
D.
OhioJuly16,2004).
Recommendingthatdefaultjudgmentonliabilitybeenteredagainstthirdpartydefendant,PricewaterhouseCoopers,LLP,themagistratestated"itwouldbedifficultforanyonetoarguethatPWC'sconductoverthecourseofthelitigation,particularlyitsrepeatedassurancestothecourtandtothepartiesthatithadfullydisclosedallrelevantinformation,wasnotduetowillfulness,badfaithorfault.
"ThejudgecriticizedPWCfor,amongotherthings:failingatthestartofdiscoverytocheckthoroughlyitslocalserversanditsarchivesforrelevantdocuments,failingtoproducedocumentsastheywerekeptintheordinarycourseofbusiness,failingtoreproducethoroughlyandaccuratelyalldocumentsandtheirattachments,and,priortolitigation,permittingthedestructionofdocumentsdespitecommittingtotheirpreservation.
Thecourtstatedtheonlyconclusionitcouldreach"isthatPWCand/oritscounselengagedindeliberatefraudorwassorecklesslyindifferenttotheirresponsibilitiesasapartytolitigationthattheyfailedtotakethemostbasicstepstofulfillthoseresponsibilities.
"Thecourtdeclinedtoconsiderthepenaltyofanawardofattorneys'feesinadditiontoentryofdefaultjudgment,butnotedthatattorneys'feesareawardableasdamagesinsecuritiesactionspursuanttostatute.
n135n135SeealsoMosaidTechnologiesInc.
v.
SamsungElectronicsCo.
,348F.
Supp.
2d332(D.
N.
J.
2004).
(adoptingthemagistrate'srecommendationandgrantinganadverseinferenceinstructionandattorney'sfeesagainstdefendantinahighlytechnicalpatentlitigationfordefendant'sfailuretoplacealitigationholdonitsautomatice-maildeletionpolicy;thecourtheldthatwillfulnesswasnotrequired);AdvantaCareHealthPartners,LPv.
AccessIV,2004WL1837997(N.
D.
Cal.
2004)(grantingplaintiffanevidentiarypresumptionthatdefendanthadcopiedeveryfileontheplaintiff'ssystemandmonetarysanctionsof$20,000basedondefendants'useofaprogramtowipefilesfromhishomecomputer);QZO,Inc.
v.
Moyer,358S.
C.
246(2004)(affirmingtrialcourt'sorderthatdefendant'sanswerbestruckandadefaultjudgmentbeenteredbasedondeletionofharddrivedatainviolationofaTRO);Thompsonv.
U.
S.
Dep'tofHousing&UrbanDev.
,219F.
R.
D.
93(D.
MD.
2003).
(awardingsanctionsbasedondelayedproductionofemailswherebythedefendantscouldnotcalluponanyformerorpresentemployeeofthedefendanttobeawitnessattrialunlessdefendantestablishedbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethatthewitnesshadneithergeneratednorreceivedanye-mailsresponsivetotheplaintiff'srequestsandgrantingotherlimitationsonpresentationofemails);KucalaEnters.
,Ltd.
v.
AutoWaxCo.
,Inc.
,2003WL22433095(N.
D.
Ill.
Oct.
27,2003)and2003WL21230605(N.
D.
Ill.
May27,2003)(adoptingmagistratesrecommendationforsanctionsrecommendingdismissalofplaintiff'ssuitanddefendant'sattorneys'feesandcostsincurredindefendingmotionforuseofprogramtodeletefilesonharddrive;thecourtadoptedthemagistrate'srecommendations,exceptitpermittedKucalatoproceedonitsclaimofnon-infringementandallowedittodefendagainstdefendant'sinfringementcounterclaimontheconditionthatplaintiffcomplywithdiscoverydemandsforthwith);Foustv.
McFarland,698N.
W.
2d24(Minn.
Ct.
App.
2005)(affirmingtrialcourt'sdecisioninanautoliabilitycasetoissueanadverseinferenceinstructionagainstplaintiffforhiseffortstoerasedataonhisharddrive,butaffirmingjudgmentandtrialcourt'srulingthatevidenceofchildpornographyandotherprejudicialmatter);Arndtv.
FirstUnionNationalBank,613S.
E.
2d274(N.
C.
Ct.
App.
2005)(affirmingtrialcourt'sissuanceofadverseinferenceinstructionbasedondefendant'sfailuretopreserverelevantprofitandlossstatementsandemails);NartronCorp.
v.
Gen.
MotorsCorp.
,2003WL1985261(Mich.
Ct.
App.
Apr.
29,2003)(unpublished).
(affirmingthelowercourt'sgrantingofsummarydispositiononplaintiff'sbreachofcontractclaimanddismissingplaintiff'sfiveotherclaimsasasanctionforplaintiff'sdiscoveryabuses);EssexGroup,Inc.
v.
ExpressWireServs.
,Inc.
,578S.
E.
2d705(N.
C.
App.
2003)(affirmingtrialcourt'sstrikingoftheanswerandentryofdefaultjudgmentfordeletionofrelevantemailsandwithholdingofrelevantdocuments);MetropolitanOperaAss'n,Inc.
v.
Local100HotelEmployees,212F.
R.
D.
178,230-31(S.
D.
N.
Y.
2003)(enteringjudgmentinfavorofplaintiffandorderingdefendantstopayplaintiff'sattorneysfeesassanctionsforfailuretoproduceelectronicevidence).
c.
CasesWhereSanctionsWereDenied-Quinbyv.
WestLBA.
G.
,2005WL3453908(S.
D.
N.
Y.
Dec.
15,2005).
Inthisgenderdiscriminationsuit,plaintiffsoughtsanctionsagainstdefendantanditscounselfortheirconductinconnectionwiththeproductionofemailstoredonbackuptapes.
Thecourthadearlierordereddefendanttoprovideanaffidavitaddressingthetechnicalissuesraisedbyplaintiff'sdiscoveryrequestsforemailsandotherelectroniccommunicationsanddirectedfurtherthattheaffidavitsaddressthedevicesusedbydefendanttostorethedataandthesevencost-shiftingfactorsidentifiedintheopinion.
Thecourthadfurtherordereddefendanttoproducefordepositionawitnesswhocoulddiscusstherelevante-discoveryissues,andtorestore,asasample,thebackuptapeortapesthatcontainedemailsfromaparticulartimeframeintoareadable,searchableformat.
Theaffidavitseventuallysubmittedbydefendantsprovideddetailedinformationaboutdefendant'sbackupsystem,andrevealedthattherewereapproximately3,754backuptapesthatcoveredtherelevanttimeframe.
Theaffidavitsalsodescribedthecostsandamountoftimeitwouldtaketorestorethebackuptapes.
Plaintiffdeposedthetwoaffiants,andlearnedthata"largequantity"oftheemailsrequestedwerereadilyaccessibleandstoredonactiveservers.
Shearguedthattheaffidavitsweremisleadingbecausetheyimproperlyfocusedonbackuptapesanddidnotaddressthecostsofsearchingothermorereadilyaccessiblesources.
Thecourtdeniedplaintiff'smotionforsanctions,concludingthatdefendantanditscounselactedappropriatelyinrelyingontheback-uptapes.
Thecourtfoundthat,"becausetheback-uptapescontainthemostcompletesourceofe-mails-coveringalltherelevante-mailaccountsandmost,ifnotall,ofthetimeperiodsforwhichplaintiffseekse-mails-andthealternativesourcesonlycoveranarrowtimeframe,alimitednumberofusersandthedataonthesesourcescanbeincomplete,itwaslogicalfordefendantstoconsidertheback-uptapestobetheprimarysourcefortheproductionofe-mails.
"-Whitev.
LenoxHillHosp.
,2005WL1081443(S.
D.
N.
Y.
May10,2005).
Thedistrictcourtaffirmedamagistrate'sorderdenyingplaintiff'sapplicationforadditionaldiscoveryconcerningdiscrepanciesbetweenpatientdataondefendant'scomputersystemandasystemmaintainedbyanindependentcontractorforthedefendant.
Themagistrateconcludedthatplaintifffailedtoshowthatanymissingfileswerenecessaryforherexpert'sstudytobestatisticallymeaningful,orthatthediscrepanciesresultedfromadeliberateefforttoskewthedata.
Further,thedefendanthadpresentedtestimonyexplainingthattherewasnoguaranteethatthepatientdataonthetwosystemswouldbematchbecausethedataonthecontractor'ssystemwasenteredmanually.
Thecourtalsorejectedplaintiff'srequestforsanctionsbasedonitsfindingthattherewasnoevidencethatdefendanthaddestroyedanycomputerfileswithaculpablestateofmind.
-ParamountPicturesCorp.
v.
Davis,2005WL3303861(E.
D.
Pa.
,Dec.
2,2005).
Paramountidentified"Davisasaviolatorofitsexclusiverightstoreproduceanddistributethemotionpicture"LemonySnicket's:ASeriesofUnfortunateEvents.
"DavishadallegedlyobtainedanillegalcopyofthefilmanddistributeditovertheInternetviatheeDonkeypeer-to-peerdistributionsystem.
ComcastdeterminedthatDaviswasthesubscriberusingtheIPaddressidentifiedbyParamount'santi-piracyspecialistatthetimeoftheallegedinfringementand,onMarch9,notifiedDavisofitsintentiontorevealhisidentity.
Afewweekslater,Daviswipedhisharddriveandre-installedanoperatingsystem.
Davisdeniedcommittingtheinfringement,claimedthathehaderasedhisharddrivebecausehewassellinghiscomputer,andthattheoperatingsystemonthemachinewasincompatiblewitheDonkey.
ParamountarguedthatDaviserasedthedrivetodestroyevidence,adifferentoperatingsystemmighthavebeeninstalledonthemachinepriortothespoliation,anditwasunlikelythatDaviswouldhavebeenusingtheoutdatedincompatibleoperatingsystemfoundonthemachine.
Oncross-motionsforsummaryjudgment,theCourtfoundthatDavishadadutytopreservethecomputer'smemory,Paramountsufferedprejudicefromitsdestruction,andaspoliationinferencesanctionwasappropriate.
Thecourtchosenottoconsidertheadverseinstructiononsummaryjudgmentbecausetodosowouldeffectivelygranttheseveresanctionofdismissalfortheevidencedestruction.
Thecourtchosetotaketheadverseinstructionintoconsiderationattrial(nojurytrialwasrequested).
-Liggettv.
Rumsfeld,2005WL2099782(E.
D.
Va.
Aug.
29,2005).
Liggett,aDODemployee,suedallegingdiscriminationbasedonrace,ahostileworkenvironment,andretaliationinviolationofTitleVIIoftheCivilRightsActof1964.
Inconnectionwithanunrelatedcriminalinvestigation,areviewoftheagency'sfirewallrevealedthatLiggetthadaccessedsexuallyexplicitInternetsites.
Liggett'scomputerwasexamined,andfurtherevidenceofsuchaccesswasdiscovered.
Liggettrespondedthathehadnotaccessedthesites,theinformationcouldhavegottenontohiscomputerinotherways,hispasswordwasnotsecure,andthathiscomputerwasnotnewwhenitwasassignedtohim.
Liggettwassuspendedfortendays.
Liggetttriedtogetarecordofthecomputerorthecomputeritselfforstudy,butwasunsuccessfulandrequestedanadverseinferencebasedontheemployer'sfailuretopreservetheharddrive.
Themagistratefoundthattheemployershouldhavepreservedtheevidence,butitsfailuredidnotsuggestfraudorfabrication.
Themagistratenotedthatmerenegligencewasinsufficienttomeritanadverseinferenceandthatsomeamountofculpabilityisrequired.
-Convolve,Inc.
v.
CompaqComputerCorp.
,223F.
R.
D.
162(S.
D.
N.
Y.
2004).
Inamisappropriationoftradesecretsclaim,plaintiffsoughtsanctionsarisingfromdefendant'sfailuretopreservee-mailsbetweenits30(b)(6)witnessandtheinventoroftechnologyatthecenterofplaintiff'sclaims.
Thecourtdeniedthesanctions,becauseplaintiffsfailedtoestablishthatthedestroyede-mailswerefavorabletothemorintentionallydeleted.
Furthermore,thecourtdeniedanawardofsanctionsbasedupondefendant'sfailuretopreservetemporary"waveforms"generatedfromthediskdrivetuningprocess.
Becausepreservationwouldhaverequired"heroicefforts"beyondthosecontemplatedbydefendant'sbusiness,andnobusinesspurposeeverdictatedthatsuchdataberetained,thecourtwouldnotissuesanctions.
n136n136SeealsoAeroProds.
Int'l,Inc.
v.
IntexRecreationCorp.
,2004U.
S.
Dist.
LEXIS1283(N.
D.
Ill.
Jan.
30,2004)(denyingsanctionsfordeletionofemailswhereplaintiffwaitedoversevenmonthstobringitsmotionforsanctions,withoutanyattempttoseektheappointmentofaforensicexpert);Eichmanv.
McKeon,824A.
2d305(Pa.
Super.
Ct.
2003)(affirmingdenialofsanctionsagainstdefendantfordelayinproducingacomputerlogfileevidencinginsuranceclaimsactivity);HildrethMfg.
L.
L.
C.
v.
Semco,Inc.
,785N.
E.
2d774(OhioApp.
2003)(affirmingdenialofsanctionswherepartymadenoshowingthatinformationremovedfromharddriveswasfavorable);Liafail,Inc.
v.
Learning2000,Inc.
,2002WL31954396(D.
Del.
Dec.
23,2002)(deferringadverseinferenceinstructionandprovidingplaintiffwithopportunitytoproducedatathathadbeenerasedfromharddrives);Williamsv.
Saint-GobainCorp.
,2002WL1477618(W.
D.
N.
Y.
Jun.
28,2002)(denyingcross-motionsforsanctionsafterfindingnoevidenceofbadfaithastothewithholdingordestructionofe-mails);DeLoachv.
PhilipMorrisCos.
,Inc.
,206F.
R.
D.
568(M.
D.
N.
C.
2002)(refusingtograntsanctionsbasedondatabaseinformationwithheldfromproductionbutusedforanexpert'sreport,butfindingthatthewithholdingofdataresultedinunfairnesstotheplaintiffs;thecourtallowedplaintiffstorespondtotheexpertreportandprovidednoopportunityforthedefendantstoreply);Bashirv.
Amtrak,119F.
3d929(11thCir.
1997)(afterplaintiff'ssonwasstruckandkilledbyatrain,plaintiffrequestedacopyofthetrain'sspeedrecordertape;defendantsclaimedthetapewasinadvertentlylost;courtdidnotsanctiondefendantsbecausetherewasnoprobativeevidencethatthetapehadbeendestroyedinbadfaith).
d.
SanctionsImposedonPartyWhoImproperlyMadeAllegationofSpoliation-GatesRubberCo.
v.
BandoChem.
Indus.
,Ltd.
,167F.
R.
D.
90,130(D.
Colo.
1996).
Plaintiffarguedthatthedefendantwasdestroyingevidence,andthecourtorderedamassiveon-siteinspectionofdefendant'sharddrive.
Whentheplaintiffonlyproducedminimalevidenceofspoliation,thecourtfoundthatthesanctionsproceedingshadbeenan"enormouswasteoftime,energyandmoney.
"Plaintiffwasorderedtopayasubstantialportionofdefendant'sfeesandcostsassociatedwithopposingthesanctions.
VII.
OngoingConsiderations:EmployeeEducationEmployeesmustbeclearlyinformedofandeducatedastotheiremployer'selectronicdataretentionanddestructionpolicy.
Oncetaughtthepolicy,employeesshouldbeperiodicallyremindedofitsterms,andthecompanyshouldaudittoensurethatthepolicyisbeingproperlycarriedout.
Anycomprehensivedocumentretentionanddestructionpolicyshouldalsoaddressemployees'useandretentionofe-mail.
n137Employeesneedtobetold,andremindedonaregularbasis,thatasmuchcaremustbetakenindraftingelectroniccommunicationsaswrittenmemorandaandletters.
Itispossiblethatemployeesusemorecandorine-mailsbecausetheybelievethattheycansimplyhit"delete"afteramessagehasbeensentorreceived,andthemessagewillbegoneforever.
n138Employeesneedtobeinstructed,however,that"delete"doesnotmeandeleteinthesensethatthee-mailiserased.
Similarly,employersneedtoeducatetheiremployeesaboutbackupsofvoicemail.
Manyvoicemailmessagesarestoredonbackuptapesoropticaldisks,andthuscancreatethesameproblemsase-mail.
n137SeeStevenC.
Bennett,DealingwithOfficeE-Mail,227N.
Y.
L.
J.
5(2002)(explainingthatemployersmusttakeaffirmativestepstominimizethemisuse,accumulationandpotentiallydamagingeffectsofe-mailcommunicationsbyemployees);ThomasP.
Klein,ElectronicCommunicationsintheWorkplace:LegalIssuesandPolicies,563PLI/Pat695,714(1999)(emphasizingthatemployersshouldimplementstrictpoliciesconcerningemployeeuseofemployer'se-mailsystemandtheInternet).
n138ManywillrecallhowKennethStarrfounde-mailmessagesthatMonicaLewinskyhaddeleted,andprobablythoughtwerepermanentlyerased.
SeeJuneKronholz&RebeccaQuick,TheLewinskyStoryIsaTaleSpunOutofCyberspace:AndThereinLiesaDrawbackofE-Mail:It'sDifficulttoEverReallyDeleteIt,WallSt.
J.
,Sept.
22,1998,atA1("Diamondsareforever.
E-Mailcomesclose").
Anotherimportantpointisthattheintendedtoneusedine-mailsdoesnotalwaystranslateonpaper,andthatwhatwasmeanttobehumorous,sarcasticorsilly,mayenduplookingquitedifferentinacourtroom.
Employeesshouldbeadvisedtoneversendane-mailunlesstheywouldbecomfortablewiththeirbossorajuryreadingit.
n139Employersshouldalsoinformtheiremployeesastowhethertheyshouldhaveanexpectationofprivacyinhowtheyusetheirofficecomputersorwhethertheycanbeusedatallforpersonaluse.
Manycompanieshavepoliciesprohibitingpersonaluseandissuewarningsthatthereshouldbenoexpectationofprivacywhenusingcompanycomputers.
n140n139VirginiaLlewellyn,DocumentRetention&DestructionPoliciesforDigitalData,WhatYouDon'tKnowCanHurtYou,athttp://www.
lexisnexis.
com/applieddiscovery/lawlibrary/whitePapers.
asp.
n140Enronemployeeslearnedthehardwayhowexposede-mailcanbewhentheFederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission,withEnron'spermission,madepublicapproximately1.
6millione-maildocuments,manyofwhichcontainedpersonalorconfidentialinformationofEnronemployees,theirfriendsandfamilies.
Family,FriendsofEmployeesShouldn'tHaveTheirLivesExposed,PressDemocrat,at2003WL59966402(Oct.
10,2003).
VIII.
ConclusionAscomputersnowplayacentralroleinoureverydaylives,so,too,doestheinformationstoredwithinthemfordiscoverypurposes.
Becauseofitspotentialtorecordoffhandcomments,ill-conceivedrantsandother"smokingguns,"electronicdatacanmakeorbreakacase.
Consequently,attorneyscannotignoreelectronicdata-embedded,back-up,residualorotherwise-oritssources-networkservers,personallaptops,voicemailsystems,etc.
-whencraftingdiscoveryplansandrequests.
Inaddition,attorneysmustbeawarethattheobligationsassociatedwithpaperdiscoveryalsoapplytoelectronicdiscovery:thedutytopreservedata,maintainclientconfidences,andprotectprivileges.
Clearly,astechnologychangesandadvances,thewayinwhichcourtsandattorneysaddressdiscoveryofelectronicdatawillalsoevolve.
Thus,attorneysmustkeepabreastofthelatestcourtrulingsanddiscoverytoolstoensuretheylawfullyandefficientlymanageelectronicdataintheircases.