Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Electronic discovery in today’s quickly changing litigation environment presents many new demands and dangers for counsel and risk management executives. Dire warnings are being issued about the consequences of e-discovery, and with good reason. In cases such as Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 13574 (S.D.N.Y) ( Zubulake V), companies have been punished for failing, in the court’s eyes, to preserve electronic evidence properly. The penalties range from the severe — attorney fees — to the extreme — the entry of default judgment. There are, however, steps you can take now — before a lawsuit is filed — that may improve your company’s ability to preserve electronic evidence without unduly burdening day-to-day operations. SPOLIATION PRINCIPLES AND EXPLOSION OF DATA FORMS Common law forbids “spoliation,” generally defined as the destruction or alteration of “material” evidence in pending or foreseeable litigation. Spoliation is recognized as a separate tort in some jurisdictions. In general, if a court finds that spoliation has occurred and that sanctions are warranted, it will attempt to “level the playing field” by imposing one or more of the following sanctions: � Monetary sanctions; � Preclusion of evidence beneficial to the spoliator; � An adverse inference to the jury that the spoliated evidence would have been unfavorable to the spoliator; and � “Termination sanctions,” such as the entry of default or dismissal against the spoliator. Courts tend to apply common law principles to spoliation of e-discovery, as well as to traditional “paper” forms of discovery. While the application of common law principles has facial appeal (at least in part because the court considers them comfortable), it overlooks the fact that technological advances have exponentially increased the amount of available information. Today, one must keep track of: � The many types of data that companies are able to keep; � The wide variety of electronic devices used over the years; � The perpetual enhancements made to technology; and � How technology is implemented to maintain the type of information relevant to an individual company. General counsel — through information technology (IT) or legal colleagues, outside counsel and outside vendors — are faced with the daunting tasks of understanding and applying changing legal requirements for information “preservation” to all of the technological apparatuses that a company may use to maintain its data. UNIQUE PROBLEMS FROM MULTIPLE E-INFO FORMS Some examples of these new forms of electronic information and associated difficulties are: � E-mail messages; � Instant messages; � Text messages; and � Other forms of written electronic communication. These all have greatly increased the volume of electronic information available for discovery. In 2000, an estimated 1.4 trillion e-mail messages were sent in North America alone, about 35 times as many as were sent only 5 years before that. To manage this enormous volume of e-data, it must be routinely destroyed from time to time, often automatically. Failure to stop these processes can result in spoliation, possibly on a massive scale. At the same time, electronic information is far more persistent than paper data. This persistence not only contributes to the huge volume of electronically stored information, but it can lead to unpleasant surprises in discovery. Information thought to have been destroyed can turn up on backup servers, laptops and disaster-recovery tapes; supposedly deleted information may also persist for a long time before finally being overwritten. Even worse, electronic data leaves evidence of its existence, so even if it cannot be recovered, its contents can be surmised or reconstructed from other sources (e.g., an e-mail message that quotes earlier messages in its “thread”). Electronic information is stored on a bewildering variety of devices, some of which a company can’t easily control, such as servers maintained by third parties and individual employees’ desktop computers, laptop computers, archival files and mobile devices like personal digital assistants (PDAs) such as BlackBerry devices and Palm Pilots, or cellular telephones. Electronic information can be spoliated in ways paper-based information cannot. For example, metadata — information about a computer file, such as last-modified and last-accessed dates — and temporary files are routinely and unknowingly altered and destroyed by booting a computer, accessing a file or changing a file’s format, such as saving a Word document in PDF. ‘ZUBULAKE’ AND COST-SHIFTING PRINCIPLES The “poster child” case for electronic discovery is Zubulake v. UBS Warburg (Zubulake V). The judge and parties continue to grapple with pretrial discovery disputes. In a widely reported e-discovery ruling in mid-2004, the federal district court concluded that the defendant willfully spoliated evidence. The court not only levied monetary sanctions, but also granted an adverse-instruction sanction — even though the court acknowledged that the defendant’s inside and outside counsel had taken substantive steps to manage discovery. Some of the steps taken by inside and outside counsel in Zubulake to preserve data underscore the need for your immediate action: � Counsel sent multiple litigation hold instructions to employees likely to be involved in the litigation — but managed to overlook one key employee. By the time the litigation hold was communicated to that employee, many e-mail messages had been destroyed and the rest were produced two years after the relevant discovery requests. � Counsel interviewed the employees who received a litigation hold in order to understand what electronically stored information they had and how best to preserve it. Despite these interviews, counsel misunderstood how one employee maintained computer files and came away with the mistaken belief that the employee did not have discoverable documents. � Counsel collected discoverable documents from most employees who received the litigation hold, but failed to collect documents from two such employees, including the employee whose system for maintaining computer files was misunderstood by counsel. � Counsel monitored the employees’ compliance with the litigation hold, but not well enough to prevent several employees from deleting many discoverable, possibly important (from the plaintiff’s perspective), e-mail messages, including an allegedly crucial e-mail message deleted by the accused harasser, who may have had the greatest motivation to delete information. � Once it became clear that discoverable e-mail messages were missing, counsel ordered the preservation of disaster-recovery backup tapes that would contain the missing messages. However, several of the relevant tapes could not be found. � Despite the demonstrable actions of inside and outside counsel to preserve evidence, the district court found that, in the aggregate, the mistakes and destruction of evidence warranted serious sanctions. Difficulties in communication and in understanding the relevant technologies were substantial contributing factors to the adverse result for the employer. One of the biggest factors in e-discovery disputes is the expense of production. Traditionally, the party responding to discovery requests must bear the cost of discovery. One of the earlier decisions in the Zubulake case articulated a seven-factor balancing test to determine whether the producing or requesting party must bear the costs of a discovery request in the e-discovery arena. Other courts approach the problem differently. A recent California decision, Toshiba Am. Elec. Components, Inc. v. Lexar Media, Inc., held that the requesting party must pay for “reasonable” expenses when it is “necessary” to translate a data compilation (such as a backup tape) into a form that is usable. California courts are not alone in shifting costs of e-discovery production to the requesting party. STEPS TO TAKE NOW To preserve electronic evidence and reduce the threat of sanctions, inside counsel and others responsible for litigation management should take steps to improve counsel-employee communication, educate counsel about the relevant technologies, and prepare counsel and the company — ahead of time, before the stress of litigation takes hold — to address the need to preserve discoverable, electronically stored information. The Zubulake V court recommended that counsel: � Become familiar with the company’s document retention policies; � Become familiar with the company’s data-retention and storage architecture; and � Interview all key players about how counsel maintains and retains computer files, and instruct employees to produce relevant electronic copies, including backups. Building on the experiences in Zubulake V and many other recent e-discovery cases, your company should consider taking the following steps, now. 1. If your company doesn’t have one, create and enforce a uniform document-retention policy that covers e-data. The policy needn’t be written, but having such a policy in place and enforced will help deflect charges of arbitrary or willful destruction of documents. You must make sure, however, that such policy is followed and enforced, or it may have the opposite effect of the intended one. 2. If your company has a document-retention policy, review and update it to make sure it adequately addresses electronic data. It might also be worth assessing actual compliance with the policy, because an employee’s violation not only eviscerates the policy’s salutary effects but can be argued to show bad intent. 3. Before litigation is imminent, become familiar with the company’s data-retention and storage architecture. Assess and address where the destruction or alteration (spoliation) of e-evidence might arise. Consider cost-effective changes to minimize risk of spoliation and reduce litigation costs, such as limiting use of backup tapes for disaster-recovery only, but not for archiving. 4. Become familiar with the basics of data-storage technology, such as metadata, how deletion works and so forth. This will help reduce the sort of miscommunication between counsel and information technology specialists that plagued the defendant in Zubulake V. 5. Create and implement a comprehensive plan for gathering, retaining and securing discoverable information, before litigation becomes imminent. Such a plan should include comprehensive form litigation-hold instructions, a process for interviewing key players and for working with information technology personnel to create and store, in native formats, discoverable e-data. 6. Just as inside counsel should learn the basics of information technology, the company’s information technology personnel could benefit from learning the basics of discovery obligations and the consequences of spoliation. As Zubulake V demonstrates, the more that legal personnel and information technology personnel can speak one another’s language, the less likely spoliation is to occur. 7. Educate your company’s regular outside counsel about the company’s document-retention policies and data-retention and storage architecture. It may be beneficial for outside counsel to talk to the company’s information technology personnel directly. CIVIL RULES COMMITTEE APPROVES EDD CHANGES IN PRINCIPLE At its April 14-15 meeting, the U.S. Courts’ Advisory Committee on Civil Rules approved proposed amendments to Civil Rules 16, 26, 33, 34, 37 (in principle) and 45 dealing with the discovery of electronically stored information. The Committee also took the following action at the April 14-15 meeting. It approved proposed amendments to: � Civil Rule 5 (mandatory electronic filing); � Civil Rule 50(b) (renewing a motion for judgment as a matter of law after trial); and � New Rule G, Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims (civil forfeiture), and Supplemental Rules A, C, and E, and Civil Rules 9(h), 14, and 26(a)(1)(E)(ii) (conforming amendments).The Advisory Committee said that it will transmit the proposed new rule and amendments to the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, with a recommendation that they be approved and transmitted to the Judicial Conference for consideration. The Advisory Committee also approved for publication proposed new Civil Rule 5.2 governing privacy and security concerns arising from public access to electronic court records in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347). Source: U.S. Courts Robb Harvey is a partner at Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, Nashville, and focuses his practice on the areas of media, intellectual property, franchise, corporate and other complex litigation. Terrence Reed is a Waller Lansden associate who practices in general dispute resolution. Rick Sanders is an associate who practices in the areas of trial and appellate, and intellectual property law.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.