Legal Updates

Companies and organizations use social media ("SoMe") to gain market advantage, shape and model their own image, market and advertise to customers, track how effective their marketing campaigns might be, understand who their customers are, test new products or services and provide a platform through which customers can provide feedback. Every post or piece of analytics could be considered a “business record,” subjecting it to discovery in both civil and criminal litigation, internal and government investigations or audits. As a result, attorneys and their IT teams should understand the best practices for preserving, processing, reviewing, and producing data from SoMe sites to acquire valuable – and usable – evidence.

“But in-house counsel was copied on the email, isn’t that enough?”

When a business faces the prospect of producing documents in litigation, determining which documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege and preventing those documents from inadvertent disclosure is of paramount importance. Such a disclosure can have serious consequences for both the attorney’s and the client’s interests, including a court finding the privilege has been waived. At the same time, if an attorney is overly restrictive or indiscriminately withholds documents, they risk losing credibility with opposing counsel and the court, which can make it more difficult to assert the privilege when necessary. 

Waiver of privilege and particularly inadvertent waiver of privilege is always a concern in e-discovery when producing documents to an outside party. Not only may your current litigation be affected but waiver may also affect your client’s future litigations and other litigation teams that had no involvement with your production. This is a particularly serious concern when producing documents to the government, given the power dynamics involved.

Life around the world has significantly changed in the last three months. From job losses, homeschooling, and working from home, daily life is not the same as it was in February. The world of E-Discovery has not been immune. Law firms and service providers have been forced to adapt to a quickly changing environment. From an E-Discovery perspective, the use of these remote working tools creates new data sources for preservation and collection. Diligent attorneys and clients would be wise to consider and discuss how these tools might impact the phases of E-Discovery moving forward.

Last fall, I had the pleasure of speaking on a panel at the 2019 Relativity Fest entitled “Why Lawyers SHOULD Be Luddites.” It was a lively discussion about whether lawyers should be luddites, whether robots would be taking attorney jobs, should attorneys learn to code, and how to future-proof yourself. Opinions were split but what struck me the most was that a majority - if not all – of the attendees wanted to learn how to future-proof themselves. In this blog I offer tips on how to take advantage of technologies to do just that.

Generally speaking, the presumption is that third parties will bear at least some of the costs of complying with proper subpoenas. That said, Courts often expect that a requesting party will negotiate in good faith the costs of compliance and, if those costs are significant, the requesting party would agree to cover at least some of the costs or limit its requests in light of the requirement of FRCP 45(d)(2)(B)(ii). As demonstrated by a recent case, though FRCP 45 provides two avenues for a third party to recover its costs for responding to a subpoena in federal litigation, such awards are the exception to the rule.