Post on 15-Aug-2020
2008 USLM Strategy Review -- November 17, 2010
Social Media and E-Discovery
November 2010
LexisNexis Confidential 1
THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL
MEDIA ON E-DISCOVERY1
LexisNexis Confidential 2
1 Out of Every 14 People Has a Facebook Account
500 Million Users
200 Million Users
65 Million Users
LexisNexis Confidential 3
Americans Spend Nearly a Quarter of Their Time on Social Websites and Blogs
6% in
2008
17% in 2009
22% in 2010
LexisNexis Confidential 44
LexisNexis Confidential 5
Challenges of Recovering Data from Social Media
5
• Crispin v. Christian Audigier, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52832 (C.D. Cal. May 26, 2010) – Defendant
subpoenaed Facebook and other social networking services, seeking all communications between Crispin and a
third party. The Court quashed the portions of the subpoenas that related to private messaging, finding that those
postings on social media sites “can constitute ['electronic communications services']” under the Stored
Communications Act.
• Romano v. Steelcase Inc., (September 24, 2010) - Court held that precluding defendant from accessing plaintiff's
private postings on Facebook and MySpace "not only would go against the liberal discovery policies of New York
favoring pretrial disclosure, but would condone Plaintiff's attempt to hide relevant information behind self-regulated
privacy settings."
– Facebook objected to having to produce the document directly under the SCA but the Court disagreed
• McMillan vs Hummingbird Speedway, Inc., No. 113-2010 CD (PA Ct of Common Please, Sept 9, 2010) - Court
held that plaintiff not only had to turn over all private and public portions of his social networking websites but also
needed to turn over his passwords. Court did not address Stored Communications Act.
LexisNexis Confidential 6
Social Media as an Electronic Discovery Tool
• Barnes v. CUS Nashville, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52263, 2-3 (M.D. Tenn. May 27, 2010) –
Magistrate Judge created a Facebook account for the parties to use to submit photos to be
reviewed in camera. On June 3, 2010, Judge Joe Brown issued the following order:
– “In order to try to expedite further discovery regarding the photographs, their captions, and
comments, the Magistrate Judge is willing to create a Facebook account. If Julie Knudsen
and Michael Vann will accept the Magistrate Judge as a “friend” on Facebook for the sole
purpose of reviewing photographs and related comments in camera, he will promptly review
and disseminate any relevant information to the parties. The Magistrate Judge will then close
this Facebook account.”
6
LexisNexis Confidential 7
Authentication of Social Media is An Emerging Issue
Griffin v. State, 2010 Md App. LEXIS 87 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. May 27, 2010) - Maryland Court of Appeals‟ case of
first impression allowed authentication of a printout of a MySpace page to be authenticated for admission into
evidence through the testimony of the police office that printed out the page. On the print of the page was the phrase:
“FREE BOOZY!!!! JUST REMEMBER SNITCHES GET SNITCHES!! U KNOW WHO YOU ARE!!”
The officer testified that account was:
Maintained by the defendant‟s girlfriend;
Had a picture on it that appeared to be the defendant and his girlfriend;
Contained the defendant‟s nickname (Boozy);
The birth date for the account matched the defendant‟s girlfriend.
The Court of Appeals noted that "both prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys are increasingly looking for
potential evidence on the expanding array of Internet blogs, message boards, and chat rooms."
7
LexisNexis Confidential 8
Impact of Social Media on Government Investigations
• Department of Homeland Security revealed in October 2010 that United States immigration agents were being
trained on how to use social networking sites to detect visa and other immigration fraud.
• Department of Homeland Security also established a special program to collect and analyze social networking
data during President Obama's inauguration.
• State v. Gurney, 2010 Me. Super. LEXIS 96 (Me. Super. Ct. July 12, 2010). During murder trial court allowed
discovery of the defendant‟s social networking websites and blackberry which were in his possession at the time of
the murder and when he was arrested.
8
LexisNexis Confidential 9
LITIGATION HOLDS
9
LexisNexis Confidential 10
New Guidance for Litigation Holds – Make Sure Your Hold Notice is in Writing
and That You are Fully Transparent
• Pension Committee – “the failure to issue a written litigation hold constitutes gross negligence because that
failure is likely to result in the destruction of relevant information.” The overall message is that the best way to
avoid sanctions is through full transparency and disclosure, key even as to known deficiencies. This case also
raised key issue around back-up tapes and inaccessible data (discussed below). Pension Committee of the
University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4546 (S.D.N.Y.
Jan 15, 2010).
• Crown Castle – plaintiff was grossly negligent in failing to issue a written litigation hold notice, monitor collection
of responsive documents or ensure that relevant documents were not destroyed warranted sanctions. Crown
Castle USA Inc. v Fred A. Nudd Corp. No. 05 Civ 6163T, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32982 (W.D. N.Y. Mar 31, 2010).
10
LexisNexis Confidential 11
Self Identification is NOT a Best Practices for Litigation Holds
• Jones v. Bremen High School District - The Court held that the defendant was grossly negligent in relying on
employees to select and preserve responsive documents. The court stated that "[i]t is unreasonable to allow a
party's interested employees to make the decision about the relevance of such documents, especially when those
same employees have the ability to permanently delete unfavorable email from a party's system." In-house
counsel should not rely on self-identification as a best practice for litigation holds. Jones v. Bremen High School
District, 2010 U.S. Dist LEXIS 51312 (N.D. Ill. May 25, 2010)
11
LexisNexis Confidential 12
Courts are Becoming more Comfortable with Technology
• Genworth Financial v. Mcmullan - Court outlined the procedure for the outside computer forensic
specialist to follow. Genworth Financial Wealth Management Inc. vs. McMullan, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
53145 (D. Conn. June 1, 2010).
• U.S. v. Williams – Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that it “accepted that a computer search must, by
implication, authorize at least a cursory review of each file on the computer.” United States v. Williams, 2010
U.S. App. LEXIS 1347 (4th Cir Jan 21, 2010).
• Schreiber v. Schreiber – N.Y. Sup Ct. June 25, 2010 – Court provided detailed instructions on the protocol
for cloned hard drives. Court held that any request for investigation of a hard drive must contain a specific
protocol including:
– Discovery Referee
– Forensic Computer Expert
– File Analysis
– Scope of Discovery
– First Level Review
– Second Level Review
– How Discovery Disputes will be Resolved,
– Cost Sharing
– Discovery Deadline
– Retention Policy for Clone.
12
LexisNexis Confidential 13
Examples of Types of Data that are Subject to the Litigation Hold
Vagenos v. LDG Fin. Servs., LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121490 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 31, 2009)
Passlogix, Inc. v. 2FA Tech., LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44182 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2010)
Oce N. Am., Inc. v. Brazeau, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25523 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2010)
Southeaster Mech. Serv., Inc. v. Brody 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69830 (M.D. Fla. July 24, 2009)
Arteria Prop. Pty Ltd. v. Universal Funding V.T.O., Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77199 (D.N.J. Oct. 1, 2008)
13
LexisNexis Confidential 14
Copy Machines
• April 2010 - Buffalo PD IT department didn‟t scrub all data off its copy machines
• April 2010 – Affinity Health Plan had to send out a breach notification to all its clients and employees.
– Medical records for nine individuals were found on the digital copier that we purchased in a wholesale
warehouse. The copier had once been in use at the Affinity headquarters in the Bronx.
– On that same copier, we also found hundreds of pages of non-medical documents, including driver's
licenses, social security cards, W-2 forms and even a handwritten love note.
• June 2010 - New Jersey state lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require all hard drives on copy
machines be wiped clean to protect the sensitive data retained on them.
14
LexisNexis Confidential 15
ADVERSE INFERENCE
SANCTION CASES15
LexisNexis Confidential 16
Courts are Sanctioning Outside Counsel When they Fail to Adequately
Supervise Their Client‟s Collection of ESI
• Bray & Gillespie (Bray III) – Court sanctioned in-house and outside attorneys jointly for failing to produce relevant
data. The court found that the outside attorney failed to oversee or properly investigate or produce key evidence.
Moreover, the Court dismissed the plaintiff‟s claims connected to the late produced documents holding that no
other sanctions would serve as a future deterrent. Bray & Gillespie Management, LLC v. Lexington Insurance Co.,
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 400 (M.D. Fla. Jan 5, 2010).
• In Re A&M Florida Properties – although neither the client nor the outside counsel acted in bad faith, the court
still sanctioned both finding that the outside counsel had failed to properly supervise the client‟s collection and
preservation of ESI. The court stated that the outside counsel “simply did not understand the technical depths to
which electronic discovery can sometimes go.” GFI Acquisition, LLC v. Am. Federated Title Corp. (In re A&M Fla.
Props. II, LLC), 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 1217 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2010)
To Avoid Sanctions Outside Counsel Should Make Significant Efforts to Supervise its Client
• Qualcomm v. Broadcom – Finally an end to the saga of one of the most famous of outside counsel sanction
cases. In Qualcomm, the in-house and outside counsel were jointly sanctioned for failing to oversee the
corporation‟s document production. In this final holding, sanctions against outside counsel were set aside with a
holding form the court that the counsel had “made significant efforts to comply with their discovery obligations” but
were lied to by Qualcomm employees. Qualcomm, Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., No. 05-cv-1958 (S.D. Cal. April 2,
2010).
LexisNexis Confidential 17
More Circuits are Requiring Bad Faith Before Granting Adverse Inference
Sanctions
1st , Circuit – Bad Faith Required
2nd Circuit – Split Between „Gross Negligence‟ or „Bad Faith‟
3rd, 4th and 9th Circuits – No Bad Faith Required. Severe Prejudice is Enough.
5th Circuit - Bad Faith & Prejudice Required
6th Circuit - No Bad Faith Required where there is a Duty to Preserve
7th, 8th, 10th, 11th and D.C. Circuits – Bad Faith Required
17
LexisNexis Confidential 18
Examples of Court Requiring Bad Faith For Adverse Inference Sanctions
1st Circuit
US v. Laurent – 1st circuit increased requirement for adverse inference to „bad faith‟. Court held that negligent
destruction does not support a finding of adverse inference – bad faith is required. 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 12449 (1st
Cir. N.H. June 17, 2010)
2nd Circuit
Pension Committee – Zubulake Judge held that gross negligence will result in Adverse Inference Sanctions. Party
failed to preserve and collect ESI from key witnesses amounting to gross negligence. No intent needed. Pension
Comm. of the Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of Am. Secs, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4546 (S.D.N.Y. Jan.
15, 2010)
Wilson v. Thorn Energy – court imposed an adverse inference sanction for gross negligence where the defendants
had lost all data relevant to a large transaction when a USB drive was erased. Wilson v. Thorn Energy, LLC, 2010
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47032 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2010)
Crown Castle USA, Inc. v. Fred A. Nudd Corp - The court refused to enter an adverse inference in spite of the fact
that the plaintiff was grossly negligent because the plaintiff had not acted in bad faith and the defendant had not be
prejudiced by the failure to preserve relevant electronic documents. Crown Castle USA, Inc. v. Fred A Nudd Corp.,
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32982 (W.D.N.Y. Mar 31, 2010). Crown Castle does not even site Pension.
5th Circuit
Rimkus v. Cammarata – even gross negligence is not enough to warrant adverse inference sanctions absent a
showing of wilfulness there must be prejudice as well. Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. v. Cammarata, 2010 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 14573 (S.D. Tex. Feb 19. 2010)
7th Circuit
OCE North America – refusing to impose adverse inference sanction because defendant did not know he had the
option or ability to preserve instant messages until after litigation began and plaintiff had no evidence of harm. Oce N.
Am., Inc. v. Brazeau, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25523 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2010)
18
LexisNexis Confidential 19
Examples of Circuits that Do Not Require Bad Faith for Adverse Inference
Sanctions
3rd Circuit
Diocese v. Summix – No bad faith is required where the injury is clear. Plaintiff received an adverse inference jury
instruction even though there was no bad faith. The Plaintiff overwrote backup tapes for eight months after the
complaint was filed. The court held that this action alone made it “more probable than not” that the defendants had
been prejudiced justifying adverse inference. Diocese of Harrisburg v. Summix Development Co., 2010 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 49069 (M.D. Pa. May 18, 2010).
6th Circuit
Jain v. Memphis – No bad is required for an adverse inference sanction where the sanctioned party had a duty to preserve even
when it had no control over the data subject o preservation. Jain v. Memphis Shelby Country Airport Authority, 2010 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 16842 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 25, 2010).
9th Circuit
Kwon vs. Costco – imposed adverse inference sanctions because the party knew or should have known that the
destroyed data was relevant (a videotape). Kwon v. Costco Wholesale Corp, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 13614 (D. Haw.
Feb 17, 2010)
19
LexisNexis Confidential 20
RECOVERY OF EMPLOYEE’S EMAIL
AND TEXTS
20
LexisNexis Confidential 21
Courts Disagree on Whether the Attorney-Client Privilege Trumps an
Employer‟s Written Electronic Communications and Usage Policy
• Stengart v. Loving Care Agency – key decision from New Jersey Supreme Court finding that emails between
and employee and her attorney sent from her personal email on the employer‟s laptop were subject to attorney-
client privilege in spite of the company‟s use policy. Court held that company policy did not convert employee‟s
emails with her attorney into company property. Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., 201 N.J. 300 (N.J. Mar 30,
2010).
– Employer’s computer-use policy provided that the company “may review, access and disclose all matters on
the company's media systems and services at any time” and that all information on the computer was the
company’s property.
• Convertino v. United States DOJ – Court upheld the attorney-client privilege of a federal prosecutor emails on
the DOJ‟s email system to his personal attorney. In Convertino v. United States DOJ, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
115050 (D.C. Dec. 10, 2009).
– The Justice Department’s e-mail policy permitted personal use of its e-mail system
• Alamar Ranch, LLC v. County of Boise – Idaho Court held that the attorney-client privilege had been waived by
an employee who sent emails to her attorney through the company‟s email address because both had notice that
the email was on the Company‟s computer and would be accessible and stored by the Company. Alamar Ranch,
LLC v. County of Boise, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101866 (D. Idaho Nov 2, 2009).
– The Employer’s computer-use policy provided that all email was the employer’s property, the employer had
the right to monitor the email and that the employee should not assume email would be confidential.
21
LexisNexis Confidential 22
Employers Should Provide Clear Guidelines For How Employer Issued
Communication Devices May be Used and Supervised
• City of Ontario v. Quon, 130 S.Ct. 2619 (U.S., June 17, 2010) – Police Sargent claimed his
Fourth Amendment rights were violated when his supervisors read his personal text messages
that were sent on his city-issued pager while he was at work. Court held no violation had
occurred and that the search had been reasonable. Justices cautioned:
– "Prudence counsels caution before the facts in this case are used to establish far-reaching
premises that define the existence, and extent, of privacy expectations of employees using
employer-provided communication devices," the ruling states. "Rapid changes in the
dynamics of communication and information transmission are evident not just in the
technology itself but in what society accepts as proper behavior. At present, it is uncertain
how workplace norms, and the law's treatment of them, will evolve."
22
LexisNexis Confidential 23
APPENDIX
LexisNexis Confidential 24
Victor Stanley Chart
LexisNexis Confidential 25
LexisNexis Confidential 26
LexisNexis Confidential 27
LexisNexis Confidential 28
LexisNexis Confidential 29
LexisNexis Confidential 30
LexisNexis Confidential 31
LexisNexis Confidential 32
LexisNexis Confidential 33
LexisNexis Confidential 34
LexisNexis Confidential 35