E-Discovery Best Practices

As anyone faced with discovery requests knows, one of the most important parts of producing documents is determining what documents are subject to attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine and must therefore be redacted or withheld. Failing to conduct an effective privilege review can have dire consequences -- from exposure of highly confidential information to even waiver of the privilege. In Part One of this blog post, we discussed how difficult it can be in a corporate context to determine whether an individual document should be withheld or redacted as privileged.  In this Part Two, we discuss how employing technology in our privilege review reduces risk and makes this process easier and more efficient.

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?

As the amount of electronically stored information (“ESI”) continues to grow at an exponential rate, basic E-Discovery knowledge becomes increasingly essential for litigators and legal professionals alike across a variety of practice areas. And yet, it does not appear that law schools are keeping up with E-Discovery’s ever-growing consequence. While a handful of law schools do offer standalone E-Discovery courses, it is far from the norm. Mere passing references to E-Discovery in higher education are inadequate to prepare future lawyers for the realities of the legal profession in this digital age.

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. 

A motion for an adverse inference was denied in Pratt v. Robbins, et al. where Defendants failed to preserve or produce a video that might have contained pivotal evidence going to the heart Plaintiff’s civil rights claim for excessive force.  Plaintiff argued that Defendants spoliated evidence by failing to produce the video footage that may have recorded the use of force at issue.   A party seeking spoliation sanctions bears the burden of proving all of the elements of Rule 37(e), and under Fourth Circuit precedent is generally held to a clear and convincing standard. Plaintiff’s decision to suddenly cry foul on the eve of trial did not go over well with the Court.

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.