Preserving eDiscovery Why it Matters and How to Protect Yourself

September 20, 2017

OverviewDuty to PreserveCollectionReview & Production

E-Discovery Goal No. 1

Stay Out of Trouble

ESI PreservationPractices

E-Discovery Goal No. 2

Control Costs

Minimize DocumentReview Efforts

Escalation Points

• Preservation letter

• Spoliation concerns

• Discovery about discovery

• Metadata requests

• Adverse ruling

• Elaborate protocol

• Abnormalities

OverviewDuty to PreserveCollectionReview & Production

What Triggers a Duty to Preserve?

“Reasonable anticipation of litigation arises when an organization is:

(1) on notice of a credible probability that it will become involved in litigation,

(2) seriously contemplates initiating litigation, or

(3) when it takes specific actions to commence litigation.The Sedona Conference Commentary on Legal Holds: The Trigger & The Process (2010)

What Triggers a Duty to Preserve?

• Possible triggers:– Unequivocal threat of litigation– Specific demand to preserve– Catastrophic incident– Cease & desist letter– Escalation of a dispute to legal department– Supervisors discussing an instance of harassment

• Fact-sensitive assessment

• The duty may arise before claim letter or lawsuit!

Facts & Circumstances to Consider

• The nature and specificity of the threat• The party making the claim• The business relationship between the parties• Whether the threat is direct, implied or inferred• Whether the party making the claim is known to be litigious• Whether a party who could assert a claim is aware of the claim• The strength, scope, or value of the anticipated claim• Whether the company has learned of similar claims• The experience of the industry• Knowledge of litigation involving similarly situated companies

• Email• Word Processing• PDFs• Spreadsheets• Databases• Web Pages• CAD Drawings

Types of ESI

• Audio/Video Files• Instant Messages• Voice Mail• Text messages• Mobile Device Apps• Image files• System Files• Metadata

• Servers• Desktop PCs• Home PCs• Laptops• Tablets• Phones• Flash Drives• CD-ROMs

Locations of ESI

• Web-Based Email• Archive Systems• External Hard Drives• Back-Up Tapes• Hidden or Deleted

Data• Cloud Computing• Social Media

• Ease of Creation

• Persistence of Data

• Fragility of Data

• Routine Destruction

• Forms of Production

Characteristics of ESI

• Forms of Production

• Complexity

• Potential High Costs

• Volume!!!

• Possible number of pages per GB:– Email Files 100,000– Word 65,000– Excel 165,000– Text Files 300,000– PowerPoint 17,000– Image Files 20,000

• Doubles every 18-24 months

Volume of ESI

ESI Custodians

• Primary Custodians (“Key Players”)– Named party or mentioned in pleadings or relevant docs?– Likely to be deposed?– Identified or otherwise known to opposing counsel?– Identified by other key players as being involved?– Leadership / supervisory position over other key players?– Leadership / supervisory position re subject matter?

• Secondary Custodians– Member of a department at issue– Admin staff to key players

• Third Parties: “Possession, Custody or Control”

Preservation Best Practices

• Preservation Letters

• Legal Holds

• Custodian & IT Interviews

• Understanding Retention Practices

• Preserving-in-Place

What’s At Stake?

• Monetary sanctions• Issue preclusion• Adverse inference• Disciplinary proceedings• Civil contempt

DON’T LET DISCOVERY DERAIL A SOLID CASE THAT IS OTHERWISE WINNABLE ON ITS MERITS!

• Written internal notice from counsel

• Discussion of relevant allegations

• Instructions to preserve and cease routine deletion

• Description of categories of documents to preserve

• To document “custodians” and IT personnel

Legal Holds

Preservation – Active Supervision!

• Confirm issuance of legal hold

• Identify key players and ESI locations

• Custodian & IT interviews

• Confirm suspension of routine deletion

• Monitor compliance with the legal hold

• Amend & re-issue the hold when appropriate

“A party cannot reasonably be trusted to receive the ‘litigation hold’ instruction once and to fully comply with it without the active supervisionof counsel.”

-- Hon. Shira Scheindlin

Zubulake v. UBSSDNY, 2003-2005

Custodian Interviews

• Confirm connection to relevant issues• Discuss email retention practices• Confirm ESI locations & use of network shares• Determine use of mobile devices• Confirm relevant time frame• Identify additional custodians

IT Interviews

• Determine actual retention practices• Confirm ESI locations• Confirm that routine deletion is disabled• Discuss known use of network shares• Backup tapes & archiving• Work with IT to prepare data map

“A litigation cost differential may sometimes enable plaintiffs’ attorneys to engage in practices that resemble extortion.”

– Prof. John C. Coffee, Jr. (1987)

• Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) Proportionality Factors:– Whether burden or expense of proposed discovery outweighs

benefits, considering the needs of the case – The amount in controversy– The parties' resources– The importance of the issues at stake in the action– The importance of the discovery in resolving the issues

• Preservation not addressed in the Rules

Proportionality

OverviewDuty to PreserveCollectionReview & Production

Collection Approaches

• Collect Everything– Potential greater cost– Greater defensibility

• Targeted Collection– Potential lower cost– Risk of preserving-in-place– Risk of having to repeat the process

Reducing the Scope

• Keyword Searches

• Limit Custodians

• Date Range Culling

• Sampling

• De-Duplication

• Email Threading

• Predictive Coding (“TAR”)

OverviewDuty to PreserveCollectionReview & Production

31

© 2014 Wilson Elser. All rights reserved.

Review Parameters

• Review assignment sets:– All files?– Search terms?– Select custodians?

• Depends on several factors:– Volume of data– Number of custodians– Deadlines– Agreement with counsel– Case management order

Volume & Workflow – Review Management

• Setting review parameters

• Training Reviewers

• Project supervision

• Final production

• Case-by-case assessment• Complexity of system architecture• Collection locations & number of custodians• Anticipated volume• Likelihood of challenge to process

Do You Need an E-Discovery Vendor?

Predictive Coding / Technology Assisted Review

Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, 287 F.R.D. 182, 193 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)“Computer-assisted review can now be considered judicially approvedfor use in appropriate cases.”

Rio Tinto v. Vale S.A., 306 F.R.D. 125, 127 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)“[I]t is now black letter law that where the producing party wants to utilize TAR for document review, courts will permit it.”

Hyles v. New York City, No. 10CIV3119(AT)(AJP), 2016 WL 4077114, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2016)

“[T]he Court believes that for most cases today, TAR is the best and most efficient search tool. . . . There may come a time when TAR is so widely used that it might be unreasonable for a party to decline to use TAR. We are not there yet.”

Final Production

• Tiered review

• Privilege & Confidentiality Review

• Additional custodians

• Re-define search terms

• Rolling production

• Coordinate production with counsel

Wilson Elser Offices

AlbanyAtlantaAustinBaltimoreBeaumontBoston Chicago Dallas DenverEdwardsvilleGarden CityHartfordHouston IndianaKentuckyLas Vegas LondonLos AngelesMiamiMichiganMilwaukeeNew JerseyNew OrleansNew YorkOrlandoPhiladelphiaPhoenixSan Diego San FranciscoSarasotaStamfordVirginiaWashington, DC West Palm BeachWhite Plains

Thank You!

Jason R. WatersWilson Elser8444 Westpark Dr., Suite 510McLean, Virginia703.245.9300jason.waters@wilsonelser.com

Kathleen WarinWilson Elser700 11th Street, N.W., Suite 400Washington, D.C. 20001202.626.7660kathleen.warin@wilsonelser.com