litigation hold

The Need for Archiving and FRCP 37(e)

Bill Tolson eDiscovery, Information Governance, Uncategorized , , , ,

The December 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), specifically Rule 37, established when litigation can be reasonably anticipated, the duty of both sides is to immediately stop all alterations and deletions of all potentially relevant content and secure it – also known as a litigation hold and the duty to preserve.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court approved new amendments to the FRCP which will become effective on December 1, 2015. The new Rule 37(e) reiterates the need to preserve electronically stored information (once litigation can be reasonably anticipated) but also creates a uniform standard for spoliation (destruction of evidence) and so, they hope, will provide greater predictability around the question of loss of ESI during litigation.

The new amended Rule 37(e) allows a court to respond when one party loses electronically stored information (ESI), which then prejudices the other party. Rule 37(e) empowers a court to take reasonable action to cure the prejudice, even if the loss of ESI was inadvertent. The new twist is now the burden to prove prejudice resulting from the missing/lost evidence as a result of willful or intentional misconduct falls on the innocent party before the most severe sanctions can be imposed, and then only if the prejudice shown cannot be mitigated through other remedies, e.g. additional discovery. To complicate matters further, even in cases when there is no demonstrated prejudice to the opposing party, the court can assume the ESI was unfavorable and enter a default judgment in the case. This means that the Judge has wide latitude to respond to parties who don’t take their eDiscovery responsibilities seriously.

The need for information governance and archiving

Many believe the amended Rule 37(e) highlights the need for corporations to get more control of all of their electronic data, not just that data considered a record. Information governance programs including on-going content archiving of those types of information most sought after in eDiscovery, namely email and other forms of communication, enables an organization to quickly find all potentially relevant content, secure it under a litigation hold, and begin the review process immediately – knowing the archive is the “copy of record” repository.

Many Judges look closely at the steps taken by the responding party when eDiscovery mistakes happen. Judges want to see that reasonable actions were taken and a good faith intent was present to reduce or stop eDiscovery mishaps including, regularly updated policies, on-going employee training, and the type of technology purchased. Judges understand that there is no such thing as Perfect; that mistakes happen, and many times it inadvertent.

Keeping everything forever is a mistake

Another related eDiscovery problem many companies find themselves facing is the issue of having too much data to search and review during eDiscovery. Many companies only manage what they consider to be “business records”, which averages 5% of all corporate data,  and leave the other 95% to be managed (or not) by individual employees. This huge unmanaged store of employee data, which is a popular target in discovery, dramatically drives up the cost of eDiscovery, while also driving up the potential of problems occurring during eDiscovery. Defensibly disposing of expired or valueless data will reduce the amount of data that must be pulled into an eDiscovery action reducing the cost and risk of problems later.

A centrally managed archive that proactively captures, for example, all communications (email, IM, social communications) and applies retention/disposition policies to all captured content can insure that expired or valueless data is defensibly disposed of, reducing the size of the overall discovery data set by as much 60%. Because it’s defensibly disposed of via automation and policy, questions of spoliation cannot be raised.

In fact, archiving your most important (and requested) content provides a great deal more granular data management capability then simply relying on individual employees – so you don’t run afoul of the new FRCP Rule 37(e).

Coming to Terms with Defensible Disposal; Part 1

Bill Tolson eDiscovery, Information Management , , , , , ,

Last week at LegalTech New York 2013 I had the opportunity to moderate a panel titled: “Defensible Disposal: If it doesn’t exist, I don’t have to review it…right?” with an impressive roster of panelists. They included: Bennett Borden, Partner, Chair eDiscovery & Information Governance Section, Williams Mullen, Clifton C. Dutton, Senior Vice President, Director of Strategy and eDiscovery, American International Group and John Rosenthal, Chair, eDiscovery and Information Management Practice, Winston & Strawn and Dean Gonsowski, Associate General Counsel, Recommind Inc.

During the panel session it was agreed that organizations have been over-retaining ESI (which accounts for at least 95% of all data in organizations) even if it’s no longer needed for business or legal reasons. Other factors driving this over-retention of ESI were the fear of inadvertently deleting evidence, otherwise called spoliation. In fact an ESG survey published in December of 2012 showed that the “fear of the inability to furnish data requested as part of a legal or regulatory matter” was the highest ranked reason organizations chose not to dispose of ESI.

Other reasons cited included not having defined policies for managing and disposing of electronic information and adversely, organizations having defined retention policies to actually keep all data indefinitely (usually because of the fear of spoliation).

One of the principal information governance gaps most organizations haven’t yet addressed is the difference between “records” and “information”. Many organizations have “records” retention/disposition policies to manage those official company records required to be retained under regulatory or legal requirements. But those documents and files that fall under legal hold and regulatory requirements amount to approximately 6% of an organization’s retained electronic data (1% legal hold and 5% regulatory).

Another interesting survey published by Kahn Consulting in 2012 showed levels of employee understanding of their information governance-related responsibilities. In this survey only 21% of respondents had a good idea of what information needed to be retained/deleted and only 19% knew how  information should be retained or disposed of. In that same survey, only 15% of respondents had a general idea of their legal hold and eDiscovery responsibilities.

The above surveys highlight the fact that organizations aren’t disposing of information in a systematic process mainly because they aren’t managing their information, especially their electronic information and therefore don’t know what information to keep and what to dispose of.

An effective defensible disposal process is dependent on an effective information governance process. To know what can be deleted and when, an organization has to know what information needs to be kept and for how long based on regulatory, legal and business value reasons.

Over the coming weeks, I will address those defensible disposal questions and responses the LegalTech panel discussed. Stay tuned…

Defensible Disposal means never being accused of spoliation for hosting “Shred Days”

Bill Tolson eDiscovery, Information Management, records retention, Uncategorized , , , , , , , ,

U.S District Judge Ronald Whyte in San Jose reversed his own prior ruling from a 2009 case where he issued a judgment against SK Hynix, awarding Rambus Inc. $397 million in a patent infringement case. In his reversal this month, Judge Whyte ruled that Rambus Inc. had spoliated documents in bad faith when it hosted company wide “shred days” in 1998, 1999, and 2000. Judge Whyte found that Rambus could have reasonably foreseen litigation against Hynix as early as 1998, and that therefore Rambus engaged in willful spoliation during the three “shred days” (a finding of spoliation can be based on inadvertent destruction of evidence). Because of this recent spoliation ruling, the Judge reduced the prior Rambus award from $397 million to $215 million, a cost to Rambus of $182 million.

Two questions come to mind in this case; 1) why did Rambus see the need to hold “shred days”?, and 2) did they have an information governance policy and defensible disposal process? As a matter of definition, defensible disposal is the process (manual or automated) of disposing of unneeded or valueless data in a way that will standup in court as reasonable and consistent.

The obvious answer to the second question is probably not or if yes, it wasn’t being followed, otherwise why the need for the shred days? Assuming that Rambus was not destroying evidence knowingly; the term “shred-days” still has a somewhat negative connotation. I would think corporate attorneys would instruct all custodians within their companies that the term “shred” should be used sparingly or not at all in communications because of the questionable implications.

The term “Shred days” reminds many of the Arthur Andersen partner who so famously sent an email message to employees working on the Enron account, reminding them to “comply with the firm’s documentation and retention policy”. The Andersen partner never ordered the destruction or shredding of evidence but because anticipation of future litigation was potentially obvious, the implication in her email was “get rid of suspect stuff”. The timing of the email message was also suspect in that just 21 minutes separated Ms. Temple’s e-mail message to Andersen employees on the Enron account about the importance of complying with the firm’s document retention policy from an entry in a record of her current projects in which she wrote that she was working on a case involving potential violations of federal securities laws.

The Rambus case highlights the need for a true information governance process including a truly defensible disposal strategy. An information governance process would have been capturing, indexing, applying retention policies, protecting content on litigation hold and disposing of content beyond the retention schedule and not on legal hold… automatically, based on documented and approved legally defensible policies. A documented and approved process which is religiously followed, and with proper safeguards goes a long way with the courts to show good faith intent to manage content and protect that content subject to anticipated litigation.

Automatic Deletion…A Good Idea?

Bill Tolson eDiscovery, Information Management, records retention , , , , ,

In my last blog, I discussed the concept of Defensible Disposal; getting rid of data which has no value to lower the cost and risk of eDiscovery as well as overall storage costs (IBM has been a leader in Defensive Disposal for several years). Custodians keep data because they might need to reuse some of the content later or they might have to produce it later for CYA reasons. I have been guilty of over the years and because of that I have a huge amount of old data on external disks that I will probably never, ever look at again. For example, I have over 500 GB of saved data, spreadsheets, presentations, PDFs, .wav files, MP3s, Word docs, URLs etc. that I have saved for whatever reason over the years. Have I ever really, reused any of the data…maybe a couple of times, but in reality they just site there. This brings up the subject of the Data Lifecycle. Fred Moore, Founder of Horison Information Strategies wrote about this concept years ago, referring to the Lifecycle of Data and the probability that the saved data will ever be re-used or even looked at again. Fred created a graphic showing this lifecycle of data.

Figure 1: The Lifecycle of data – Horison Information Systems

The above chart shows that as data ages, the probability of reuse goes down…very quickly as the amount of saved data rises. Once data has aged 90 days, its probability of reuse approaches 1% and after 1 year is well under 1%.

You’re probably asking yourself, so what!…storage is cheap, what’s the big deal? I have 500 GB of storage available to me on my new company supplied laptop. I have share drives available to me. And I have 1 TB of storage in my home office. I can buy 1TB of external disk for approximately $100, so why not keep everything forever?

For organizations, it’s a question of storage but more importantly, it’s a question of legal risk and the cost of eDiscovery. Any existing data could be a subject of litigation and therefore reviewable. You may recall in my last blog, I mentioned a recent report from the RAND Institute for Civil Justice which discussed the costs of eDiscovery including the estimate that the cost of reviewing records/files is approximately 73% of every eDiscovery dollar spent. By saving everything because you might someday need to reuse or reference it drive the cost of eDiscovery way up.

The key question to ask is; how do you get employees to delete stuff instead of keeping everything? In most organizations the culture has always been one of “save whatever you want until your hard disk and share drive is full”. This culture is extremely difficult to change…quickly. One way is to force new behavior with technology. I know of a couple of companies which only allow files to be saved to a specific folder on the users desktop. For higher level laptop users, as the user syncs to the organization’s infrastructure, all files saved to the specific folder are copied to a users sharedrive where an information management application applies retention policies to the data on the sharedrive as well as the laptop’s data folder.

In my opinion this extreme process would not work in most organizations due to culture expectations. So again we’re left with the question of how do you get employees to delete stuff?

Organizational cultures about data handling and retention have to be changed over time. This includes specific guidance during new employee orientation, employee training, and slow technology changes. An example could be reducing the amount of storage available to an employee on the share or home drive.

Another example could be some process changes to an employee’s workstation of laptop. Force the default storage target to be the “My Documents” folder. Phase 1 could be you have to save all files to the “My Documents” folder but can then be moved anywhere after that.

Phase 2 could include a 90 day time limit on the “My Documents” folder so that anything older than 90 days is automatically deleted (with litigation hold safeguards in place). This would cause files not deemed to be important enough to moved to be of little value and “disposable”. The 3rd Phase could include the inability to move files out of the “My Documents” folder (but with the ability for users to create subfolders with no time limit) thereby ensuring a single place of discoverable data.

Again, this strategy needs to be a slow progression to minimalize the perceived changes to the user population.

The point is it’s a end user problem, not necessarily an IT problem. End users have to be trained, gently pushed, and eventually forced to get rid of useless data…

Can you wipe your twitter ramblings, and should you?

Bill Tolson eDiscovery, Information Management, Technology , , , , , , ,

In December of 2011, the Library of Congress and Twitter signed an agreement that will eventually make available every public Tweet ever sent as an archive to the Library of Congress.


While writing a blog post last week, I began  to wonder how long all my twitter postings would
be available and who could look at them. For the fun of it, I went back through approximately 6 months of my old twitter postings, re-tweets and replies (yes you can do it, it’s relatively easy and you can look at anyone’s).

I’ve been pretty good about keeping my twitter posts “business-like” and have steered away from personal stuff like “I just checked in to the Ramada Inn on route 11…can’t wait for the evening to begin!”, or “does anyone know how to setup an off-shore bank account?” or “those jerks over at Company ABC are a bunch of losers”.  But many tweeters aren’t so disciplined and have posted stuff that could come back to haunt them later. I could imagine a perspective employer reviewing a candidate’s twitter history or even worse an attorney conducting research for a case using the public twitter archives to create a timeline.

With that in mind, could you delete your twitter postings and should you? Twitter does allow you to delete specific tweets one at a time but as far as I can determine, Twitter does not give you the ability to delete your entire twitter history short of deactivating your account. From the Twitter website:

How To Delete a Tweet

If you’ve posted something that you’d rather take back, you can remove it easily. When you hover over your Tweet while viewing your home or profile page, you’ll see a few options appear below the message.

To delete one of your Twitter updates:

  1. 1.       Log in to Twitter.com
  2. 2.       Visit your Profile page
  3. 3.       Locate the Tweet you want to delete
  4. 4.       Hover your mouse over the message (as shown below), and click the “Delete” option that appears

Voila! Gone forever… almost. Deleted updates sometimes hang out in Twitter search. They will clear with time.

We do not provide a way to bulk delete Tweets. If you’re looking to get a “fresh start” on your Twitter account without losing your username, the best way to do this is to create a temporary account with a temporary username, and then switch the username between your current account and the temporary account. Please see our article on How to Change Your Username for more info. 

On December 30, 2011, CNET published a story titled “How to delete all your tweets” which highlighted a product called TwitWipe. TwitWipe is a free tool that allows you to delete ALL your past tweets in one fell swoop. This may be handy because you can clean out your twitter account and start fresh without changing your username and dumping all your hard won followers.

This is an interesting capability but I think the more important question is why would you use this drastic of a step? The four most obvious reasons one would want to delete all their twitter postings and start fresh would be:

1.       You went through an unfortunate period in your life that you would rather forget

2.       You were regularly conducting criminal activities through your Twitter account

3.       You are considering a run for the presidency

4.       For whatever reason, you don’t want your twitter postings archived and available at the Library of Congress

The ability to delete ESI can be dangerous if done at the wrong time, especially if civil litigation is anticipated. Deleting a single tweet or every tweet you have ever posted can be construed as destruction of evidence if those tweets could have been relevant in litigation. ESI, no matter its format or where it’s stored, is potentially evidence  and should be at least considered when protecting ESI for litigation hold. Attorneys on both sides need to include social media content like twitter postings in their eDiscovery plans and be sure to warn all custodians about deleting/editing  social media content once litigation is anticipated.

Exchange 2010 Message Search and eDiscovery

Bill Tolson eDiscovery, Technology , , , , ,

An important aspect of the eDiscovery process is finding all potentially responsive ESI. In other words the eDiscovery auditor must perform a search on all ESI repositories which could house responsive ESI.

Key to eDiscovery search in Exchange 2010 is to choose words, date ranges, attachment file names etc to help the auditor narrow the results set to be reviewed, but not to the point of overlooking responsive ESI. The eDiscovery keyword search in Exchange 2010 will only find exact matches of those terms input. Additionally, the eDiscovery multi-mailbox search in Exchange 2010 will not reproduce the history of the email, such as when it was opened, what folders it existed in and when, if it was deleted and when etc., something which can add a great deal of context to the ESI.

Another key in this process is the effectiveness of your system’s indexing capability. Does it index everything including metadata, the entire email message and all attachments so that when you perform a search, you find all instances of the content? And… is the index reliable?

The indexing and search functionality of Exchange 2010 is considered neither accurate nor reliable by eDiscovery industry experts. In testing by a 3rd party market research firm, it was found that:

  • Custodian display name and address searches missed more than 20% of custodian email compared to last name only searches.
  • Lists of search terms became corrupt without generating warning errors.
  • When items are placed on litigation hold, the preservation system did not preserve the critical location context or other metadata properties of content.

To the opposing counsel, these deficiencies are a prime target to call into question your eDiscovery process and maybe enough to have the Judge force you to perform the eDiscovery search again using very expensive third party services.

Although improved over the search capabilities of previous versions of Exchange, several major limitations to Exchange Search remain that should be fully understood. These limitations restrict how Exchange Search is used, and limit its ability to be a primary factor for upgrade for stand-alone eDiscovery support by most organiza­tions.

The biggest drawbacks to Exchange 2010 include:

  • Default search filters limited: Standard Microsoft Office formats can be indexed by Exchange 2010 so that eDiscovery searches can find and return these record types, but there is limited support for other common formats such as the popular PDF file format as well as audio or video file formats. By default, the content of email messages with PDF attachments are unsearchable. (see the iFilter section below)
  • No public folder search: Organizations with a significant investment in public folders will find that they cannot search across public folder data using the native Exchange Search functionality.
  • Localization and language limitations: Emails written in multiple languages are not indexed by Exchange Search. In addition, queries made in a specific language must match the locale of the local computer doing the search.
  • Encrypted messages not indexed: Messages encrypted with S/MIME encryption are not able to be indexed and are subsequently not searchable.
  • Exchange 2010 effectively has 2 indexes per mailbox: One index exists on the Exchange Server and one on the local Outlook machine. Any local PST files cannot be searched from the eDiscovery search interface. Local user search syntax and search results may differ from the network eDiscovery search.
  • Broad-brush legal holds: Legal Holds are a mailbox wide setting meaning that all content in a target mailbox is placed on legal hold. You cannot place individual objects on legal hold. Users can move, forward, reply, flag and categorize items under legal hold with no record. Metadata changes such as the email folder location are not tracked.
  • No case management: eDiscovery searches have no matter folders, audit or security for all eDiscovery group users. Searches for unrelated cases will all be thrown together with no ability to set security by matter.
  • Metadata can be changed on export: According to a report, email exported from the Exchange archive mailbox could have the Creator, Last Modified, PR_Creation_Time, Conversation Index and even message size changed

A question corporate General Counsels need to ask themselves and their IT departments is; can I respond to an email discovery request quickly enough and in a defensible manner to satisfy the opposing counsel and Judge?

To answer that question, you need to consider another question. Is Exchange 2010 indexing everything in my system so that when you conduct a search it will find all relevant content?

The answer is probably not. The question of completeness of the eDiscovery search capability in Exchange 2010 is a big issue many don’t even think to question.

Can you rely on the Exchange eDiscovery search to produce the results so that 1: all potentially responsive ESI can be found and placed on a litigation hold and 2: does the results you end up with contain all potentially responsive ESI?

Litigation Hold in Exchange 2010

Bill Tolson eDiscovery, Technology , , , , , ,

Litigation hold (also known as a preservation order and legal hold) all have the same legal meaning; a stipulation requiring an individual or organization to preserve all data that could relate to a anticipated or pending legal action involving the individual or organization. The litigation hold responsibility is one of the biggest liabilities individuals and organizations have in the civil litigation process. If a litigation hold is ignored or insufficiently applied, the Judge will not tolerate excuses and the outcome can be a spoliation or destruction of evidence ruling which in turn can cause an adverse inference order be issued and loss of the case. Several third party eDiscovery applications provide for litigation hold placement on individual items to reduce over saving of non-responsive ESI.

In Exchange 2010, Microsoft suggests placing a custodian’s entire mailbox on litigation hold. In other words specifically putting a custodian’s mailbox on litigation hold ensures an indefinite retention on all content, even the content not relevant to the case at hand, in the user’s mailbox until the mailbox is removed from Legal Hold. This shotgun tactic does ensure all potentially responsive ESI is retained at the time of placement but many attorneys are leery of blindly placing a litigation hold on all content due to the possibility of over retaining ESI that is not responsive to the current case but could be in a future case.

To put a custodian’s mailbox on litigation hold in Exchange 2010, the person making that decision needs to be part of the “Discovery Management” Role in Exchange.  By default there are no approved auditors in the organization, including the Exchange Administrator, which has the right to put a user’s mailbox on litigation hold.  The Exchange Administrator can go into the Exchange Control Panel and give themselves (and others) the right to enable litigation hold for mailboxes.

Another caveat for Exchange 2010 litigation hold is that it could take upwards of 1 hour before a litigation hold takes effect on a given custodian’s mailbox. This is because the policy needs to be enacted on all messages and folders in the mailbox and be replicated through Active Directory. With litigation hold enabled, all messages, regardless of the organization’s retention policy will be retained until released.

Another aspect of placing effective litigation holds in Exchange 2010 is the question of PST files. PSTs are a long running problem area for corporate legal as well as the IT department. The problem is this; PSTs include email, attachments and metadata no longer preset within the Exchange email system. So when an auditor searches a custodian’s mailbox from Exchange 2010 for relevant emails and attachments, they aren’t able to search for any PSTs the custodian has on their local workstation.

Does Exchange 2010 have eDiscovery Defensibility?

Bill Tolson eDiscovery, Technology , , , , , , , , ,

One question I get asked a lot lately at webinars and seminars is; doesn’t Microsoft Exchange have all the tools I need to respond to a Discovery request? In other words can you rely on Exchange 2010 discovery capability for defensible search and litigation hold? Depending on who you talk to the answer can be yes or no.

Now don’t get me wrong, Microsoft has made great strides on its eDiscovery capability over the last several years with Exchange 2007 and 2010. But there is at least one major question to ask yourself when considering if Exchange 2010 has the capabilities, by itself, to respond to a eDiscovery request. That question is; can I respond to a email discovery request quickly and completely enough to satisfy the opposing counsel and Judge in a defensible manner?

One potential problem I’ve run across is a question of completeness of the eDiscovery search capability in Exchange 2010. Can you rely on it to produce the search results so that 1, all potentially responsive ESI can be found and placed on a litigation hold and 2, does the results set you eventually end up with contain all potentially responsive ESI?

Exchange 2010 comes with a default package of what Microsoft terms as iFilters. These iFilters allow Exchange to index specific file types in email attachments. This default iFilter pack (a description of which can be seen here) must be installed when Exchanger server 2010 is installed. This default iFilter pack includes the following file types:

.ascx, .asm, .asp, .aspx, .bat, .c, .cmd, .cpp, .cxx, .def, .dic, .doc, .docx, .dot, .h, .hhc, .hpp, .htm, .html, .htw, .htx, .hxx, .ibq, .idl, .inc, .inf, .ini, .inx, .js, .log, .m3u, .mht, .odc, .one, .pl, .pot, .ppt, .pptx, .rc, .reg, .rtf, .stm, .txt, .url, .vbs, .wtx, .xlc, .xls, .xlsb, .xlsx, .xlt, .xml, .zip

An obvious missing file type is the Adobe Acrobat .pdf extension. Many/most eDiscovery professionals will tell you that PDF files make up a sizable share of potentially responsive ESI in discovery. What if your IT department didn’t know about this limitation and never installed a separate iFilter for Adobe Acrobat files? What if your legal department didn’t know of this missing capability?

Your discovery searches would not be returning responsive PDF files causing major risk in both litigation hold and your overall discovery response.

Another question in reference to the Exchange 2010 Abobe Acrobat search capability is the effectiveness of the search. In a WindowsITPro article from last year titled Exchange Search Indexing and the problem with PDFs, Or “Why I hate Adobe with the Burning Passion of 10,000 Suns”, Paul Robichaux writes:

“This test provided an unsatisfying result. I don’t feel like I found or fixed the problem; I just identified it more closely. Telling my users, “Sure, you can search attachments in Exchange, unless they happen to be PDFs, but then again maybe not,” isn’t what I had in mind. I hope that Adobe fixes its IFilter to work properly; it’s a shame that Adobe’s poor implementation is making Exchange search look bad.”

Corporate attorneys in organizations using Exchange 2007 and 2010 as their email system should immediately ask their IT departments about their system’s ability to index and search PDF files.

Attorneys on the other side of the table should be asking defense counsel the status of their Exchange 2007/2010 Adobe Acrobat search and litigation hold capability.

Discovering the public cloud in Outlook

Bill Tolson Cloud Storage, eDiscovery, Technology , , , , , , , , , , ,

In my blog “The coming collision of “free to the public cloud storage and eDiscovery” posted on June 23, I talked about these new free cloud storage options and how they could become a problem in the litigation/eDiscovery process. While researching that blog, I found an interesting capability with Microsoft Outlook and the various cloud storage offerings.

It is called a email folder URL redirect. Microsoft Outlook includes the capability to associate an email folder with a Web page. You can set up this association so that when you select the email folder, the Web page appears or the contents of the folder appear.

This capability can be useful when you want to include internal instructions or news about the organization. Another example would be a redirected folder pushed out to all in the organization announcing a litigation hold and answering questions about the hold, expectations, target content etc.  Although this capability provides the opportunity to create powerful public folder applications, non-approved scripts can be included on the Web page that access the Outlook object model, which exposes users to security risks so users should not be adding redirected email folders without IT’s approval.

So how does this capability, email folder URL redirection, relate to cloud storage? All four of the “free to the public cloud storage” offerings mentioned in the blog include a web page where files can be uploaded, viewed and downloaded. This means, for example, the Amazon Cloud Drive service could be a redirection target for an Outlook email folder.

Use the following steps to create and associate an e-mail folder with a Web view:

  • If you don’t already have a folder list showing in your Outlook front end, click on the View menu, then click Folder List.
  • Create a new folder in the folder list called Amazon Cloud by right clicking on the top most folders where you want to create the Cloud folder under. Then type in the new folder name Amazon Cloud

Figure 1: Create a new email folder called “Amazon Cloud”

  • In the Folder List, right-click the folder that you want to associate with a Web page, and then click Properties on the shortcut menu.
  • In the Property dialog box, click the Home Page tab.
  • In the Address box, type the URL for the Amazon Cloud drive web page.
  • Click to select the Show home page by default for this folder check box if you want the Web view active.

Figure 2: Input the URL address of the Amazon Cloud drive webpage

  • Click OK.

Now, by clicking on the new email folder, you will see the Amazon Cloud drive sigh in webpage.

Figure 3: Access and sign in to your Amazon Cloud drive webpage

Figure 4: You now have full access to your cloud storage from within Outlook

Some things you can now do include being able to open files from within your Amazon Cloud Drive. Once opened, data can be copied and pasted to a new email you might be creating.

Some things you can’t do directly include saving an email attachment directly to your cloud drive, dragging a file in your cloud to an email. For both these capabilities, an interim step is required. Namely coping files to your desktop first.

If that’s the case, is this capability useful? That depends… If you utilize a “free to the public cloud storage” service then you may want a more direct capability to view content in your cloud from within Outlook. This is somewhat of a stretch but you never know.

The main reason I’ve highlighted this capability is to illustrate how difficult the eDiscovery collection and litigation hold processes are getting when custodians have all these different options for storing (hiding) potentially responsive ESI.

Placing a “Computer Illiterate” in charge of eDiscovery is not a winning strategy for the defense

Bill Tolson eDiscovery , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A case that had been decided for the plaintiff years earlier was reopened due to eDiscovery process questions. In the case of Green v. Blitz U.S.A., No. 2:07-CV-372 (TJW), 2011 WL 806011 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2011), the original attorney for the plaintiff was a plaintiff’s attorney on another case against the same defendant. During discovery for this other trial, the plaintiff’s attorney found out that evidence that should have been turned over for the previous plaintiff’s trial had not been. Because of this fact, the original lawsuit was reopened. In this second trial it was revealed the defendant had placed a single person in charge of electronic discovery for several ongoing cases. The problem with this was the person put in charge of eDiscovery was less than experienced. In fact, it was revealed that the employee “solely responsible for searching for and collecting ESI relevant to litigation between 2004 and 2007 issued no litigation hold, conducted no electronic word searches for emails, and made no effort to speak with defendant’s IT department regarding how to search for electronic documents.  In fact, the employee himself stated that he was “about as computer illiterate as they get.”

Making matters worse, some of the information discovered after the close of plaintiff’s case would have easily been identified with a simple word search, as the target words were in the subject line of one of the undisclosed emails specifically discussed by the court.  Also of note, as to the specific email discussed by the court, was the fact that the employee tasked with discovery was a recipient of the email and still failed to disclose it in discovery.  Despite failing to produce relevant material, the defendant made the certification that “full and complete disclosure ha[d] been made in accordance with the Federal Rule’s of Civil Procedure and the Court’s orders.”

The court also discussed defendant’s failure to issue a litigation hold to its employees and its failure to cease rotation of its backup tapes, two other actions expected when litigation is reasonable anticipated.  Accordingly, the court concluded that “it will never be known how much prejudice against the plaintiff was actually caused by the defendant’s failure to preserve documents” and found that sanctions were warranted.

Given the context and type of documents not disclosed, the court found that defendant’s conduct was a willful violation of the Court’s Discovery Order and that plaintiff had been prejudiced as a result. In other words, the original award would have been much higher if the ESI was found and turned over.

I don’t know if the defendant’s counsel choose a totally inexperienced person to run the eDiscovery process was just stupid or was part of a strategy to insure responsive ESI was not found. I think, minus proof of the second, we will have to go with the first explanation.

That being said, litigation hold and eDiscovery is a serious business and should never be taken lightly. Having control of your organization’s ESI is an important responsibility expected by the courts.

Case summary from eDiscoverylaw.com