Blog

Have you ever given much thought to what constitutes a “family” of documents when producing electronically stored information (“ESI”)?  Even if you are an E-discovery attorney, you very well may not have. After all, it is pretty straight forward, isn’t it?  An email and all its attachments are a document family. Sometimes, you have a document with embedded files or images that may be split off into separate documents in the collection or processing process. That document and its embedded files are a document family. And . . . that’s pretty much it, right?  Well, not so fast. As cloud storage and collaboratively shared documents become more popular, we are seeing increasing numbers of emails that have hyperlinks to documents rather than conventional attachments.  So, are hyperlinked documents part of a family?  How are the courts handling these issues?

Sometimes, an argument or position may seem so self-evident or apparent that parties proceed on the assumption that it is correct without ever actually litigating the issue. Should a party decide to contest the issue, however, it can be difficult to find authority in support of the proposition. Such was the case in a recent decision involving an ESI protocol issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in United States ex rel. M. Frank Higgins & Co. v. Dobco, Inc., No. 22-cv-9599, 2023 WL 5302371 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2023).  The parties there disagreed as to how searches for ESI should be conducted. The Court, in resolving their dispute, examined the parties' obligations to produce ESI under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 34. 

The trend of class action cases alleging wiretap statute violations against website operators for the use of session replay software to collect information of website users continues to be a concern for companies in 2024.  While many of these cases have turned on whether website operators disclosed and obtained consent from website users prior to deploying any session replay software, a recent decision in a pending class action brought under the Pennsylvania Wiretap Act indicates that consent alone may not be the end of the story in these cases.

Sunlight Financial L.L.C. v. Hinkle, et al., 2022 WL 17487686 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2022) highlights the importance of negotiating strong stipulation orders that protect your client's interests. In this case, the Stipulated Amended Preliminary Injunction Order was overly broad and failed to carve out information that the defense believed to be the confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information of third parties. As a result, the corporate defendant was required to produce documents for forensic examination that had questionable relevance to the specific allegations of the Plaintiff and exposed the defendant to potential future litigation.