Legal Updates

In my role as a Senior E-Discovery Attorney, I often provide guidance to organizations in how to develop and implement policies governing data retention and disposition. When developing those policies, it is critical to consider both the business and legal implications of preserving or deleting data and, ideally, find a balance between the two even when the concerns and priorities may not be the same. A recent case highlights what often proves to be a fundamental tension between the perspective of business stakeholders and legal stakeholders with respect to the preservation of ESI for pending or reasonably anticipated litigation in large corporations.

As you recall, in December of 2015, the amended FRCP 26(b)(1) sought to address the escalating burdens associated with data preservation and production by emphasizing proportionality and defining the scope of discovery. As the latest proportionality rulings show, Rule 26(b)(1) is having an impact on limiting the scope of discovery based on the associated expense and some state courts are even following the federal courts’ lead in enforcing proportionality. Interestingly, while expense continues to be a factor in the proportionality argument, parties’ objections on the basis of proportionality have extended to nonmonetary factors as well, including privacy. As a result, some courts are now recognizing privacy as a consideration in determining whether the discovery sought is proportional to the needs of the case.

One of the greatest fears in any litigation matter is that you will somehow accidentally produce work product or attorney-client privileged documents to the opposing side and waive the privilege. As a result, it has become standard protocol for parties to enter into clawback agreements that protect sensitive electronically stored information (ESI). Clawback agreements allow parties to agree that the inadvertent production of privileged information will not automatically waive the privilege and provide a process for the return or destruction of that privileged material.

You may have read my colleague Starling Underwood’s post on two recent Second Circuit decisions discussing sanctions for spoliation. If you have not, I encourage you to read it here.  In this post, and continuing our music-themed sanction discussions, I narrow the focus to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 37(e), which is used to determine whether and what sanctions are appropriate when ESI spoliation occurs. A recent decision from the Minnesota District Court involving the estate of the artist Prince Rodgers Nelson (“Prince”), Paisley Park Enterprises, Inc. v. Boxill, provides a detailed review of the sanctions analysis under Rule 37(e), while dealing with a category of very common ESI data often at issue in litigation today –  mobile phone text messages.

Picture this: Your team has completed the first level and quality control reviews. Your documents have been produced, your privilege log is out the door and you have just received the incoming document production from the opposing party. Now you have a universe of documents with the potential to be used as deposition exhibits, in expert reports, and as trial exhibits. It would be nice if there was a way to take advantage of your previous work identifying hot documents during first level and quality control reviews by using them to identify documents with similar issues or themes in the opposing parties production. You and your team spent days, weeks, or even months reviewing documents for production. Leveraging this time (and costs) would be greatly appreciated by your client. But is that even possible? Yes it is! 

In traditional litigation, third party discovery subpoenas are routine and the authority of the parties or the courts to issue them is well recognized. In arbitration proceedings, however, whether you can issue such third party discovery subpoenas varies depending on the controlling law in your dispute. This article addresses the growing split in the federal circuits with respect to whether third party discovery subpoenas are allowed in arbitration proceedings.