July 27, 2016 · Proprietary and Confidential. Unauthorized disclosure is prohibited Explosion of eDocuments • 2004 90% of docs are electronic • Typical ﬂash drive – 600,000

Proprietary and Confidential. Unauthorized disclosure is prohibited

1

July 27, 2016

Proprietary and Confidential. Unauthorized disclosure is prohibited 2

About LexisNexis and our Presenter

AboutLexisNexisLi-ga-onSolu-onsTheLexisNexisLi*ga*onSolu*onspor4oliohelpslawfirmsandlegaldepartmentsstreamlineallphasesoftheli*ga*onprocess.ForeDiscovery,ConcordanceDesktophandlesprocessingandreviewing.Forcasemanagement,theCaseMapsuitehelpswithfactmanagement,*melinesandpresenta*ons.

AboutMichaelMallory,CEDSMikeMalloryisaneDiscoveryandli*ga*ontechnologyconsultantworkingwithindustryleadersandli*ga*onprofessionalstoraiseawarenessofchangingtechnologies,workflows,markettrends,andBestPrac*ces.Mikewasali*gatorfor16yearsinNewOrleansbeforemovingtoWashingtonDCin2005,andpassingthePatentBar.MikeachievedaJ.D.fromGeorgetownUniversityLawCenterandaB.S.inComputerSciencefromtheUniversityofLouisianainLafayeSe,LAf/k/atheUniversityofSouthwesternLouisiana.


Ten Don’ts of eDiscovery | Agenda

Ø SomeoftheTopicsWeWillCover:

ReasonstoPayAEen-ontoeDiscovery

TheLi-ga-onHold/Collec-onProcess

MeetandConfer

GeJngHelp/Hos-ng/Culling

SocialMedia

Ø Ques-ons


Explosion of eDocuments •  200490%ofdocsareelectronic

•  Typicalflashdrive–600,000to9.6Mpages(8to128GB)

•  Typicaldesktopcomputer–18.8Mto48Mpages(250to640GB)

•  2.6billionemailusersin2015

•  205billionemailssent/receiveddaily(approx2.4million/second)

•  6%-7%peryearincreaseinemailaccountsworldwidethru2019

Ten Don’ts of eDiscovery


Explosion of eDocuments

Transi-oningfrompapertodigital“form”hasresultedintheprolifera-onofESI,doublingyourclient’sdataeverythreeyears.MichaelR.Arkfeld,“Prolifera*onof“ElectronicallyStoredInforma*on(ESI)andReimbursablePrivateCloudCompu*ngCosts”(2011)(emphasisadded)





1 - DON’T

Ignore eDiscovery



Behind the Learning Curve

Request for Production:

Produce a forensic copy of all near line, residual and off-line data, in their native format, including the slack space and legacy data.

Produce any and all devices used to place information on loose or removable storage media, including but not limited to hard drives, floppy drives, CD-Rom drives, tape drives, recordable DVD-Rom drives, and removable drives.

Don’t | Ignore eDiscovery


“To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology . . . “ (emphasis added).

Amended Comment 8 to Model Rule 1.1 (Competency)

The claim that counsel was so computer illiterate that he could not comply with production “is frankly ludicrous.” Martin v. Northwestern Mutual, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2866 (M.D.Fla. 2006) (sanctions for failing to comply with discovery requests)

Outside counsel “simply did not understand the technical depths to which electronic

discovery can sometimes go.” GFI v. Am. Federated Title 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 1217 (Bankr. SDNY 2010) (sanctions for failing to supervise collection and preservation of ESI)





Contempt

If electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery, the court: (1) upon finding prejudice to another party from loss of the information, may order measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice; or (2) only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation may: (A) presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party; (B) instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable

to the party; or (C) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment.

Defendant’s pervasive and willful violation of serial Court orders to preserve and produce electronic evidence constitute the single most egregious example of spoliation I have encountered in nearly fourteen years on the bench and shall be treated as contempt of court. Defendant shall be imprisoned for a period not to exceed two years, unless and until he pays to Plaintiff the attorney’s fees and costs awarded. Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93644 (D. Md. Sept. 9, 2010) (Hon. Paul W. Grimm, Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge) (emphasis added)

New Rule 37(e) Failure to Preserve Electronically Stored Information

Don’t | Ignore eDiscovery – Sanctions


Contempt

If electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery, the court: (1) upon finding prejudice to another party from loss of the information, may order measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice; or (2) only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation may: (A) presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party; (B) instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable

to the party; or (C) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment.

Defendant’s pervasive and willful violation of serial Court orders to preserve and produce electronic evidence constitute the single most egregious example of spoliation I have encountered in nearly fourteen years on the bench and shall be treated as contempt of court. Defendant shall be imprisoned for a period not to exceed two years, unless and until he pays to Plaintiff the attorney’s fees and costs awarded. Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93644 (D. Md. Sept. 9, 2010) (Hon. Paul W. Grimm, Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge) (emphasis added)

New Rule 37(e) Failure to Preserve Electronically Stored Information

Don’t | Ignore eDiscovery – Sanctions




What’s At Risk?

Reputation and Market Competition

  Dissatisfied Clients   Sanctions, Disciplinary actions, Malpractice   Bad Press





What’s At Risk?

Reputation and Market Competition


2 - DON’T Go It Alone


Discovery Counsel 87 of AmLaw 200

Client LawFirm

Consultants/Service Providers

Don’t | Go It Alone



3 - DON’T

Neglect Litigation Hold


Pro-Active Compliance �  Identify key witnesses/custodians and IT personnel �  Instruct them to preserve (in writing)

-  confirm litigation hold letter has been received and understood -  periodically reissue

�  Review document retention policies �  Review computing infrastructure �  Create data map �  Document your actions – don’t rely on face value of client statements that

discovery is complete and accurate

Don’t | Neglect the Litigation Hold In Writing

Gross negligence and sanctions for failing to issue written litigation hold Pension Comm. v. Banc of Am., 685 F.Supp.2d 456 (SDNY 2010); Crown Castle USA Inc. v. Fred A. Nudd Corp. (SDNY 2010); but see Chin v. Port Authority, 685 F.3d 135 (2nd Cir. 2012) (not gross negligence per se)


Pro-Active Compliance �  Identify key witnesses/custodians and IT personnel �  Instruct them to preserve (in writing)

-  confirm litigation hold letter has been received and understood -  periodically reissue

�  Review document retention policies �  Review computing infrastructure �  Create data map �  Document your actions – don’t rely on face value of client statements that

discovery is complete and accurate

Don’t | Neglect the Litigation Hold In Writing

Gross negligence and sanctions for failing to issue written litigation hold Pension Comm. v. Banc of Am., 685 F.Supp.2d 456 (SDNY 2010); Crown Castle USA Inc. v. Fred A. Nudd Corp. (SDNY 2010); but see Chin v. Port Authority, 685 F.3d 135 (2nd Cir. 2012) (not gross negligence per se)



4 - DON’T

Rely on Client/Vendor


Corpora-ons/Clients  Only85%oforganiza*onshaveaformalrecordsmgmtprogram

-20%don’tincludeelectronicrecords-32%don’tincludeemail/IM(47%don’tarchiveemail)-76%don’tincludevoicemail-86%don’tincludesocialmedia

  30%oforganiza*onsdon’thaveaformallegalholdprogram  Only12%areconfidentthatifchallengedtheycoulddemonstratetheir

ESImanagementis“accurate,accessible,completeandtrustworthy”

Explosion of Electronic Documents


Don’t | Rely on Client/Vendor

CohassetAssocsElectronicRecordsManagementSurvey(2011/2012)ForresterResearch&ARMAInt’lRecordsMgmentSurvey(Q32012)


Sanctions for failing to adequately monitor, oversee, and supervise the collection and preservation

Pension Comm. v. Banc of Am., 685 F.Supp.2d 456 (SDNY 2010); Crown Castle USA Inc. v. Fred A. Nudd Corp. (SDNY 2010); GFI v. Am. Federated Title (In re A&M Florida Properties II, LLC) 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 1217 (Bankr. SDNY 2010); Bray & Gillespie v. Lexington Ins. Co. (MDFI 2009) (MDFl 2010); Harkabi v. SanDisk Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87483 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2010)

Qualcomm v. Broadcom – (S.D.Cal. 2010) Outside Counsel and client sanctioned for failing to oversee document production. Sanctions against counsel later set aside because they “made significant efforts to comply with their discovery obligations” but there was a lack of candor, pervasive miscommunications, and incomplete document searches by Qualcomm employees.

Peerless v. Crimson (N.D. Ill. 2013) Sanctions for taking “hands off” approach to collection and relevance determination. Defendant cannot “place the burden of compliance on an outside vendor and have no knowledge, or claim no control, over the process.”

Don’t | Rely on Client/Vendor – Duty to Supervise



5 - DON’T

Rely on Custodians


SELF-PRESERVATION IS NOT A BEST PRACTICE

Jones v. Bremen High School District - The defendant was grossly negligent in relying on employees to select and preserve responsive documents. “It 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." 2010 U.S. Dist LEXIS 51312 (N.D. Ill. May 25, 2010)

National Day Laborer v. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency – Most custodians cannot be “trusted” to run effective searches because designing legally sufficient electronic searches in the discovery or FOIA contexts is not part of their daily responsibilities. 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 97863 (SDNY July 13, 2012)

Don’t | Rely on Custodians

74% still rely on self-preservation (2015 Fulbright Study)



6 - DON’T

Neglect the Meet & Confer


  Bring expert/client rep and data map

  Agree to scope of litigation hold or an initial production no. of custodians date range search terms

  Agree to production format TIFF+ (industry standard) or native meta-data load file

  Agree to timing/phasing of production

Don’t | Neglect the Meet & Confer

Collaborative On-Going Discussion



7 - DON’T

Forget the Local Rules


U.S. District Judge Paul W. Grimm (USDC Dist. of Maryland) Discovery limited to: 15 Interrogatories and RFP 10 Custodians Not more than 5 years old Reasonably accessible sources No more than 160 hours for search and review services, including:

•  identifying, collecting •  searching (keywords, computer-assisted, etc.) and review (responsiveness,

confidentiality, and work product privilege)

For more discovery – burden on requestor: •  good cause •  proportional •  show why requestor should not pay expenses •  degree of cooperation shown (must cooperate in developing search

methodologies)

Automatic Claw-Back agreement – effective “in this proceeding, or in any other federal or state proceeding” and Fed. R. Evid. 502(b)(2) is inapplicable

Don’t | Forget the Local Rules



8 - DON’T

Forget a Claw-Back Agreement


Don’t | Forget a Claw-Back Agreement

Get a Claw-Back / Non-Waiver Agreement

NewFRCP26(f)(3)(DiscoveryPlan):

TheDiscoveryPlanresul*ngfromtheconferencemustincludewhetherthepar*esagreetoaclawbackandiftheywanttheCourttoincludetheagreementinanorderunderRule502oftheFederalRuleofEvidence



9 - DON’T

Forget Hosting & Culling


Client LawFirm

Consultants/Service Providers

Don’t | Forget Hosting & Culling


Internal Hosting (firm network)

– installed software (firm overhead)

– software/data behind your firewall

Hosted Provider (“outsourcing”)

– space (too much data)

– sharing (co-counsel)

– temporary review seats and admin

– pass along costs



• Filter docs before review - de-NISTing - de-duping - language (foreign) - “true” file types - date (other metadata) - e-mail domains - text (keywords) - custodian • Reduce: - doc set to relevant (15-20%) - time/cost to process and

review (50%-80%)



“Hash Value”

A kind of digital fingerprint of the file/document. Adding, deleting, or changing even a single character, changing the font, adding an extra space -- result in a different hash value Hashing standards: MD5 (informal industry standard) and SHA‐1 -  The chances of two different files having the same MD5 hash values are one in 340,282,366,920,938,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 -  SHA‐1 hash values are about 4 billion times less likely -  In other words, a virtual impossibility.

Richard P. Salgado, “Fourth Amendment Search And The Power Of The Hash,” 119 Harv. L. Rev. F. 38 (2005)



The National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”), an Agency of the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, publishes a list of known computer file profiles in the National Software Reference Library. Comparing this “NIST list” to your data set can remove files that are unlikely to be responsive, such as system files and executable files from known software applications. The “NIST list” can be used to reduce the volume of electronic data by eliminating files that are on the list.

“DeNISTing”

http://help.lexisnexis.com/litigation/ac/law/law_6/nist(nsrl)_filter.htm



• Filter docs before review - de-NISTing - de-duping - language (foreign) - “true” file types - date (other metadata) - e-mail domains - text (keywords) - custodian

Include These Topics in Meet & Confer



By identifying duplicates and NIST files you may avoid reviewing the same document multiple times and reviewing files that the industry agrees are not relevant, thereby avoiding claims of over billing your client or presenting exaggerated claims to the Court and other counsel on the burden and time necessary for review.

Rules 1.5. (Fees) Rule 3.3 (Candor toward the Tribunal) Rule 4.1 (Truthfulness in Statements to Others)

ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct:




10 - DON’T

Forget About Social Media


Forthelastdecade,emailwasthe800poundgorillainthee-discoverycontext,ojentothedangerousexclusionofotherformsofESI.However,in2011wereacheda*ppingpointwith58%ofrespondentsexpec*ngtomanagesocialmediaaspartofe-discovery,morethandoublethe27%whodidsoin2010.Notonlyisthisamassiveincreaseinasingleyear,butitalsomovessocialmediafromafringeelementtoamainstreamsourceofESI.

37

Dean Gonsowski InsideCounsel.com Enterprise Strategy Group (ESG) survey

Don’t | Forget About Social Media – Trends


38

Dean Gonsowski InsideCounsel.com Enterprise Strategy Group (ESG) survey

Nolongerisitjustaboutemail—organiza-onsnowmustproac-velyaddresssocialmediaaspartoftheiroveralle-discoverystrategy.

Don’t | Forget About Social Media – Trends


A lawyer should advise clients about the content of their social media accounts, including privacy issues, the obligation to preserve information that may be relevant to their legal obligations, . . . and how it can affect a case or other legal dispute.

Pennsylvania Bar Association Formal Op. 2014-300

Guideline No. 1: Attorneys’ Social Media Competence A lawyer has a duty to understand the benefits and risks and ethical implications associated with social media, including its use as a mode of communication, an advertising tool and a means to research and investigate matters.

Lawyers need to appreciate that social media communications that reach across multiple jurisdictions may implicate other states’ ethics rules.

SOCIAL MEDIA ETHICS GUIDELINES, Commercial and Federal Litigation Section of the New York State Bar Association (updated June 9, 2015)

It is important that counsel become familiar with their clients’ information systems and digital data — including social media — to address these issues [of preservation]. [Emphasis added]

Advisory Notes to new Fed. Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e)

Don’t | Forget About Social Media – Rules/Ethics


Interna-onalCourts:Subs*tutedservice–whenothermethodsfailandthere’sareasonableprospectofsuccess:

2008Australia(NewZealandfollowed)2009Canada2009,2011,2012UnitedKingdom

–  defaultjudgmentonaloan–  summonsonadebtor–  cross-claimininvestmentscase–  2009UKallowedserviceof

injunc*onviaTwiEer(Blaney’sBlarneyOrder)

WillUSallow…?Issues:•  Frequencyofuse–doesrecipientusetheserviceandlikelytoreceiveactualno*ce?

•  Iden*ty–personregisteringtheaccountmightnotbepersonhe/sheclaimstobe

40

Don’t | Forget About Social Media – Service


Means of service included: •  Email •  Facebook, MySpace, or other social media •  Through information that would appear through an

internet search engine such as Google

TheRulesofCivilProcedurepermitservicebypublica-on.WhiletheCourtconsideredpublica-oninanewspaper,itisunlikelythatRespondentwouldeverseethis.ItismorelikelythatRespondentcouldreceiveno-ceontheinternet.Thetradi-onalwaytogetservicebypublica-onisan-quatedandisprohibi-velyexpensive.Technologyprovidesacheaperandhopefullymoreeffec-veway.

41

Allowed:InretheMarriageofJessicaMpafev.ClarenceMpafe(Minn.4thDist.FamilyCt.May2011)(divorce)Allowed“ServicebyPublica*on”viainternetonhusbandwhohadreturnedtoAfricaseveralyearsearlier.




ServicebyFacebookisunorthodoxtosaytheleast,andthiscourtisunawareofanyothercourtthathasauthorizedsuchservice.

Notallowed:Fortunatov.ChaseBank(SDNYJune7,2012)(creditcardfraud)

RequirednewspaperserviceinsteadofviaFaceBookoremail




Notallowed:Fortunatov.ChaseBank(SDNYJune7,2012)(creditcardfraud)

RequirednewspaperserviceinsteadofviaFaceBookoremail

Allowed:FederalTradeCommissionv.PCCare247(SDNYMarch7,2013)

FTCallowedcombinedemail/FacebookserviceStatenIslandSupportMagistrate(FamilyCourtOfficial)(Sept.12,2014)

Wheremoretradi*onalmethodsofservicehadfailedMarkv.GawkerMedia(SDNYApril2015)

UsedLinkedInandTwiSertoallowmemberstooptintoclassac*on



Backto1996–nokeywordsearch,onlywebsiteanddate

AccesstoTwiSers’Firehose

PublicandprivatecontentSnapshotsofwebsitesSojwareorArchivingService/ChainofCustody

SKIM – Deletes messages as they’re read SNAPCHAT – Photos/videos disappear once viewed

44

ANSA – “Self-destructing” messages/photos/videos VAPORSTREAM – does not create ESI; no digital footprint

Don’t | Forget About Social Media – Collection


•  SocialNetworkingcontentisnotshieldedfromdiscoverysimplybecauseit’s“locked”or“private”.

45

Mackelprangv.Fidelity(USDCNev.2007)Piccolov.Paterson(BucksCty.Pa.2011)Zimmermanv.Weis(NorthumberlandCty.Pa.2011)Tompkinsv.DetroitAirport(E.D.Mich.Jan.2012)Loporcarov.CityofNY(RichmondCtyNYApr.2012)Trailv.Lesko(AlleghenyCtyPa.July3,2012)Howellv.TheBuckeyeRanch(SDOhioOct.2012)Kellerv.Nat.FarmersUnion(DCMont.Jan2013)HollyPoSsv.DollarTree(M.D.Tenn.March2013)Salvatov.Miley(M.D.FLJune2013)Moorev.Miller(D.ColJune2013)GlaccheSov.Patch-MedfordUnion(EDNYMay2013)Smithv.HiilshireBrands(USDCKan.June2014)InreMilo'sKitchenDogTreats(WDPAApril14,2015)Silvav.Dick'sSpor*ngGoods,Inc.,(D.Conn.Mar.19,2015)

EvenwhereapartymaintainsonlyaprivateFacebookprofile,acourtcaninferfromtheverynatureofFacebookthatusersintendtotakeadvantageofitssocialnetworkingapplica-onstomakepersonalinforma-onavailabletoothers.Facebookisnotusedasameansbywhichaccountholderscarryonmonologueswiththemselves.

Don’t | Forget About Social Media – Discovery


•  SocialNetworkingcontentisnotshieldedfromdiscoverysimplybecauseit’s“locked”or“private”.

•  However,mereproofofaFacebookprofiledoesnoten*tleaccesstoallmaterialonthesite.

•  “Fishingexpedi*ons”arenotallowed.Merespecula*onisnotenough.Afactualpredicateofrelevance/needmustbeestablished(ex.,thepublicpor*onscontaininfosugges*ngrelevantinfolikelyintheprivatepor*on).

46

Mackelprangv.Fidelity(USDCNev.2007)Piccolov.Paterson(BucksCty.Pa.2011)Zimmermanv.Weis(NorthumberlandCty.Pa.2011)Tompkinsv.DetroitAirport(E.D.Mich.Jan.2012)Loporcarov.CityofNY(RichmondCtyNYApr.2012)Trailv.Lesko(AlleghenyCtyPa.July3,2012)Howellv.TheBuckeyeRanch(SDOhioOct.2012)Kellerv.Nat.FarmersUnion(DCMont.Jan2013)HollyPoSsv.DollarTree(M.D.Tenn.March2013)Salvatov.Miley(M.D.FLJune2013)Moorev.Miller(D.ColJune2013)GlaccheSov.Patch-MedfordUnion(EDNYMay2013)Smithv.HiilshireBrands(USDCKan.June2014)InreMilo'sKitchenDogTreats(WDPAApril14,2015)Silvav.Dick'sSpor*ngGoods,Inc.,(D.Conn.Mar.19,2015)

Don’t | Forget About Social Media – Discovery


StoredCommunica-onsAct(SCA)(18U.S.C.§2701etseq)(ElectronicCommunica*onsPrivacyAct-ECPA):

47

•  Enactedin1986(internetininfancy)

•  Generallyprohibitsknowinglydivulgingoraccessingwithoutauthoriza*onthecontentsofcommunica*onwhileinelectronicstoragebyanelectroniccommunica*onorremotecompu*ngservice.

•  Excep*ons:owner’sauthoriza*on/consentandlawenforcement

Don’t | Forget About Social Media – SCA


CompellingaParty:

•  Flaggv.CityofDetroit(DCMich.2008)Directedpar*estoserveRequestsforProduc*onfortextmessages

•  Romanov.SteelcaseInc.(NYSuffolkCty2010)Compelledplain*fftoexecuteconsent/authoriza*ontopermitDefendantaccesstoFacebookandMySpace

•  Largentv.Reed(Pa.FranklinCty.2011)SCAdoesnotapplybecauseitonlycoversinternetserviceprovidersanddiscoverywasdirectlytoplain*ff

• Nucciv.Target(4thCir.Fl.DistCtofAppealJan.7,2015)TheSCAappliesto“providers”ofcommunica*onservices,butnottoindividualswhousethecommunica*onsservicesprovided

48

CompellingaProvider:

Ledbe>erv.Wal-Mart(USDCCol.2009)Deniedplain*ff’smo*onforprotec*veorderonsubpoenasissuedtoFacebook,MySpaceandMeetUp.comsolelyongroundsofrelevance(badlaw?)

Barnesv.CUSNashville(MDTenn.2010)Facebooknotrequiredtocomplywithsubpoenaforaccountinforma*onofnon-partywitness.Courtdirectedpar*estoobtaintheinfofromthewitnessviasubpoena

Crispinv.Chris*anAudigier(CDCal.2010)-  privatemessagingquashed-  wallpos*ngsandcomments

remandedre:privacysewngs

Don’t | Forget About Social Media – SCA


•  AEorneys–AssistantPublicDefenderinIllinoislostherjobajerreferringtoJudgeas“JudgeClueless”andpos*ngcommentsonhercases:“Thisstupidkidistakingtherapforhisdrug-dealingdirtbagofanolderbrotherbecause‘he’snosnitch.’”

•  Judge–Magistrateresigns"CalledintoCourttodaytodealwiththosearrestedlastnightandheldincustody.Iguesstheywillbemostlydrunksbutyouneverknow.“

•  Jurors–Mistrial-JuroradmiSedtodoinginternetresearchonthecase-England–juroraSemptedtopollher“friends”tohelpdecideadifficultcase-Bal*more–jurorsbecame“friends”anddiscussedthecaseonFacebook

http://www.uslaw.com/library/Law_Humor/Court_Reporter_Messed.php?item=100921

Witness:MistrialPlain*ffcaughtsendingtextsduringsidebartothewitnesss*llonstand;waiveraSny-clientprivilegeforaSnytex*ngclientduringdepo

49

(Judgeasked–8others,too)

Don’t | Forget About Social Media – eMis-Behavin’


NON-PARTIES(splitofopinion)

Philadelphia/NewHampshire/MassCannot“friend”withoutdisclosingpurposeandassocia*onwithlawyer

NYCity/Oregon–Canasktobea“friend”withoutdisclosure

50

UNETHICALto“friend”(eventhruagent)-  Underfalsepretenses(fic**ousname)-  RepresentedParty(canonlyviewpublicinfo)

Don’t | Forget About Social Media – “Friending”


NON-PARTIES(splitofopinion)

Philadelphia/NewHampshire/MassCannot“friend”withoutdisclosingpurposeandassocia*onwithlawyer

NYCity/Oregon–Canasktobea“friend”withoutdisclosure

DirectlyByParty/ClientThemselves

SanDiego–GOFORIT?

51

UNETHICALto“friend”(eventhruagent)-  Underfalsepretenses(fic**ousname)-  RepresentedParty(canonlyviewpublicinfo)

NothingwouldprecludetheaEorney’sclienthimselffrommakinga“friend”requesttoanopposingpartyorapoten-alwitness,althoughitpresumablywouldberejectedsincetherecipientknowstheclientbyname.ThekindofaEorneydecep-onofwhichthecourtsdisapproveistheexploita-onofaparty’sunfamiliaritywiththeaEorney’siden-tyandadversarialrela-onshiptotherecipient.

SanDiegoCountyBarLegalEthicsCommiEeeOpinion2011-2(May24,2011)

Don’t | Forget About Social Media – “Friending”


…Youmaynotcommunicatewithanyoneaboutthecaseonyourcellphone,throughe-mail,Blackberry,iPhone,textmessaging,oronTwiEer,throughanyblogorwebsite,throughanyinternetchatroom,orbywayofanyothersocialnetworkingwebsites,includingFacebook,MySpace,LinkedIn,andYouTube….

USJudicialConferenceProposedModelJuryInstruc*ons(Dec2009)

USandStatesadop*ngsimilarInstruc*ons,(Florida,Calif,Arizona,andNY)

California(August2011)

California(Aug.2011):Lawclarifyingjudge’scontemptauthority

52

Don’t | Forget About Social Media – Juries


Proposals:- Warningincludedwithsummons- SignwriSenacknowledgment- SampleleSertofriendsfamily- Courtholdsdeviceswhileinthecourthouse(mostcurrentlyasktoturn“off”)- StopsshortofrecommendingcontemptiftheyviolateInstruc*on

(May24,2011ar*cle)

53

Don’t | Forget About Social Media – Juries NewYorkTimesar*cle(Sept.18,2011)quotesJudgeShiraScheindlin(USDistCtinNY):“Iamkeenlyawarethatthereareconvic*onssetasidealloverthecountry[asaresultofjurorslookingupinforma*onontheinternet]...Weinthejudiciaryhavebeendiscussingthis.”Shethensaidshemightwriteapledgethatjurorsarerequiredtosign,promisingtheywouldnotturntotheweb.ThosewhosignedthepledgewouldbesubjecttoPERJURYchargesiftheybroketheagreement.


•  Missouri(2010)Mistrialwherejuror(falsely)deniedpriorli*ga*onhistory

•  TrialCourtcri*cizedcounselforfailingtoperforminternetresearchonthejuror

•  Passivemonitoringofpublicinfo•  No“friending”(nodecep*on)•  Wherethejurorcanbecome

awareofthemonitoring?

NYCountyOp.743(2011)NYCityOp.2012-2ABAOp.466(2014)

AkerTrialLessstrict

regula*on

DuringJurySelec-on/Trial

TwiEerconveysamessagetotheaccountholderwhenanewpersonstartsto“follow”theaccount

LinkedInprovidesafunc-onthatallowsausertoseewhohasrecentlyviewedtheuser’sprofile.

54



Casey Anthony: Monitored 40,000 sites to react to negative comments and weave public sentiment into

courtroom strategy

55



10 Don’ts of eDiscovery 1.  Don’tIgnoreeDiscovery2.  Don’tGoItAlone3.  Don’tNeglecttheLi*ga*onHold4.  Don’tRelyonClient/Vendor5.  Don’tRelyonCustodians6.  Don’tNeglecttheMeet&Confer7.  Don’tForgettheLocalRules8.  Don’tForgetaClaw-BackAgreement9.  Don’tForgetHos*ngandCulling10.  Don’tForgetAboutSocialMedia


Contact Information

BillyBurnetMarke*ngManager,[email protected],CEDSeDiscoveryConsultantLinkedIn:linkedin.com/in/michael-mallory-a1589b1MoreonLexisNexisLi-ga-onSolu-onsVisitlexisnexis.com/li*ga*on