© 2009

Perry L. Segal

Metadata: Legal & Ethical Challenges

Avoiding Information Risks –

Various File Types, Electronic Redactions, Location-Tracking, “The Cloud” and eDiscovery

Webinar – May 2, 2013

© 2013 by the respective presenters and their firms

Robert D. Brownstone

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

Agenda

INTRODUCTION

I. Day-to-Day Issues for Lawyers and Others

• A. Basics/Definitions

• B. Demos of file-system data & embedded data

• C. Track Changes

• D. Mitigation – scrubbing/cleaning . . . mining

• E. Redactions

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

Agenda

II. Newer, Evolving Threats

A. The “Mobile Gap” – Smartphones,

Tablets and Email-Via-Web-Access

B. Trails Left by Social-Media

and Webmail Accounts

C. Mobile Devices and Wi-Fi-Networks

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

Agenda

III. Lawyer Ethics of Inadvertent Disclosures

• A. Day-to-Day

• B. In Litigation

IV. eDiscovery – Client-Created Native Format Files

• A. Overview of Substantive Law

• B. Procedural Law – Waivers/Clawbacks

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

INTRODUCTION To Scrub or Not To Scrub?

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

What is Metadata?

• Data About Data Contents

• Dates and People

Associated w./ Documents

• A pointer

• Can be Helpful or Damaging

Examples . . .

I. Day-to-Day Issues – A. Basics/Definitions

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

I(A). What is Metadata? (c’t’d) – What You See:

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

I(A). What is Metadata? (c’t’d) – What We See:

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

File system data

Embedded data

I. Day-to-Day – B. Demos Recap

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

The Problem • Embedded data can track/capture

changes made, reviewers’ name and order in which changes made

• Especially in Word when creator/modifier did not accept/ reject tracked changes

• Embedded data’s biggest threat – "90[%] of documents in circulation began as something else"

<http://news.com.com/2102-7344_3-5170073.html?tag=st.util.print> (citing Vanson Bourne study, "Cost of Sharing“)

I. Day-to-Day Threats – C. Tracked Changes

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

I(C). Tracked Changes (c’t’d)

Hot button issue because recipient can manipulate files to peel back onion layers by using either:

• 1) low-tech

basic tools (drop-down-menus & tabs) in Word, Excel, PowerPoint and/or Adobe Acrobat

• 2) higher-tech

scrubbing/cleaning software, by clicking on “analyze” or “content risk”

• 3) highest-tech

eDiscovery software to extract – from one file or a batch of files – metadata in searchable form

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

LAWYER-created files . . . concerns:

• Documents drafted by one side

• Documents drafted by both sides

Proposed Order e-mailed to Judge in Word or WordPerfect format

Written discovery and/or discovery responses might (HAVE TO BE) be exchanged in Word or WordPerfect

I(C). Tracked Changes – Lawyers (c’t’d)

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

E-mail attachment to client • Draft of pleading or agreement

• Bill for services rendered Confidentiality Concerns

for Legal and Sales: • Identity of other client/buyer/seller

• Fees charged other client/buyer

Municipalities • Publicly posted Agenda,

Minutes or Ordinance

I(C). Tracked Changes – Lawyers (c’t’d)

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

I(C). Tracked Changes (c’t’d) – Cautionary Tales

UN (Lebanese PM assassination), British PM’s Office ("Downing Street Memo"), Republican Social Security Administration, Democratic National Committee, California AG’s Office, MPAA, SCO Group and Zynga. . .

Gene Koprowski, Networking: Not-so-secret documents, UPI (2/6/06) <http://www.physorg.com/news10567.html>

Brian Bergstein, Bigger efforts made against embarrassing 'metadata', AP (2/3/06)

Dennis Kennedy, et al., Mining the Value from Metadata, (1/1/06) <www.discoveryresources.org/featured-articles/from-the-experts/thinking-e-discovery-mining-the-value-from-metadata/print/>

Tom Zeller Jr., "Beware Your Trail of Digital Fingerprints," NYT (11/7/05) <nytimes.com/2005/11/07/business/07link.html?pagewanted=all> (quoting <http://www.un.org/news/dh/docs/mehlisreport>)

Stephen Shankland, Hidden text shows SCO prepped lawsuit against BofA (c/net 3/18/04)

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

I(C). Tracked Changes (c’t’d) – Mitigating Risks

DO any or all of these steps: • properly accept/reject tracked

changes one by one or all at once

• use metadata scrubbing software

• scrub before or during conversion to portable document format (.pdf)

DON’T • hide them by choosing "Final" from

Word’s "Display for Review" toolbar

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

I. Day-to-Day Threats – D. Mitigating Risks

Microsoft menus and the like are inadequate See Brownstone Bibliography, linked here, § A

So, especially for e-mail attachments, use software that works for tracked changes and other metadata. Examples:

Payne Consulting Group's (PCG's) Metadata Assistant

Workshare: Professional 7 suite; Protect 7; or Protect Server

Esq Inc.’s Iscrub 7 EP 1

Litéra’s Metadact; and Metadact-e (server-based)

See generally “A Guide to Managing Metadata in Today’s Law Firms,” Osterman (2010, 2013) (incl. fillable “Product Comparison Worksheet”)

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

Macs 3BView’s 3BClean (Server and Desktop)

Scrubbing Metadata from Word 2011 for Mac, Practice Management Tips, Oregon LPM (2/13/12)

Sharon D. Nelson, SCRUBBING A MAC'S METADATA: A BIT OF A PUZZLER, Ride the Lightning (7/23/09)

WordPerfect’s built-in features Laura Acklen, Saving WordPerfect Files Without

Metadata, Corel (last visited 2/15/13)

NOTE: WP doesn’t keep much; and can get altered/supp’d when convert to .doc

I(D). Mitigating Risks (c’t’d) – Other Soft-/Hard- ware

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

Goalkeeper Prompts – Example:

I(D). Tracked Changes – Mitigating Risks (c’t’d)

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

Caveat: At least w./ Workshare . . . scrubbing .doc more robust than.xls (below), .ppt or .pdf ...

I(D). Tracked Changes – Mitigating Risks (c’t’d)

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

Also, “Reply to All” warnings • See, e.g., <www.sperrysoftware.com/outlook/Reply-To-All-Monitor.asp>

See also ARMA, “Blind Copy” Can Reveal Too Much, ARMA

Newswire (12/1/10); AND auto-complete problem in Greg Mitchell, Email 'Oops' Ends with Gordon & Rees Being Booted from Case, LegalPad (12/29/10)

I(D). Mitigating Risks (c’t’d) – Goalie Prompts (c’t’d)

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

1. The Problem

• Some metadata migrates

• Just press Ctrl+D to see pre-conversion:

Title

Author, etc. . . . .

• For court warnings, see, e.g., Sharon D. Nelson, Court Warns Lawyers to Scrub Metadata Before PDF Conversion, Ride The Lightning (2/25/10)

I(D). Mitigating Risks (c’t’d) – Conversions into .PDF

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

I(D). Conversions Into .PDF – 2. Cautionary Tales

Zynga eFiled Counterclaim discussed at and linked from here ...

Alabama Ethics Opinion <www.alabar.org/ogc/PDF/2007-02.pdf>

Corn Growers letter <http://politechbot.com/docs/corn.growers.google.congress.061008.pdf>

• Declan McCullough, Corn farmers take anti-Google

fight to Washington, c/net (6/11/08) • Declan McCullagh, Secretive D.C. firm says corn

growers‘ anti-Google letter is legit, c/net (6/12/08) • CNET, Daily Debrief: Corn farmers vs. Google (video re:

"Farm lobbyist [sic] oppose Yahoo-Google ad deal")

See also UK Register, Greek police cuff Anonymous spokesman suspect (12/16/10)

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

I(D). Mitigating Risks (c’t’d) – .PDF Conversions (c’t’d)

Best to scrub metadata BEFORE or DURING conversion to .PDF

Or AFTER. Some help is here in Adobe Acrobat Standard or Professional: • version 8.0 or version 9.0

("Examine Document") OR • X or XI (11) (“Remove

Hidden Information”) The above links are to

instructions, videos, etc.

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

1. The Problem • When is redaction needed? Protective Order (incl.

multi-tier/AEO)

Government inquiry responses

ECF/CM . . . PERSONAL DATA IDENTIFIERS:

Now nationwide . . . via FRCP 5.2 (eff. 12/1/07)

(many ECF/CM logins require checking box)

I(E). Electronic Redactions

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

I(E). Redactions (c’t’d) – Cautionary Tales

TSA redaction gaffe • PDF Itself with black or white

removable “fill[ed]” text boxes <http://cryptome.org/tsa-screening.zip>

• Articles: <http://www.betanews.com/article/The-PDF-redaction-

problem-TSA-may-have-been-using-old-software/1260466899>

<www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9142141/Analysis_TSA_document_release_show_pitfalls_of_electronic_redaction?taxonomyName=Security&taxonomyId=17>

<www.wanderingaramean.com/search/label/Screening%20Management%20SOP> (linking to related posts)

• Satirical Video

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

I(E). Redactions – SNAFUS (c’t’d)

25 Things Facebook Couldn't Keep Secret In Court, Information Week (2/12/09)

• linking to the court-generated improperly–redacted transcript itself

GE Suffers a Redaction Disaster, Conn. L. Trib. (5/28/08) ("sensitive information easy to access behind black veil")

Error by FTC Reveals Whole Foods' Trade Secrets, AP (8/15/07)

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

AT&T leaks sensitive info in NSA suit, c/net (5/30/06)

• Linking to <www.politechbot.com/docs/att.not.redacted.brief.052606.pdf>

• IRONY . . . .

• See <www.nsa.gov/ia/_files/support/I733-028R-2008.pdf>

I(E). Redactions – SNAFUS (c’t’d)

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

I(E). Redactions – SNAFUS (c’t’d)

More PDF Blackout Follies, Slashdot (6/22/06)

• linking to this document (3 search hits for “Barry Bonds” under overlays)

Copy, Paste and Reveal, Legal Times (1/30/06) (U.S. report re: fatal shooting of Italian intelligence officer; secret details revealed re: manning of security checkpoints)

See Brownstone, et al., Exposing Redaction, 9 No. 10 E-Commerce L. Rep. 7 (West Oct. 2007)

• Expanded version – Secrets Easily Leaked by Friend or Foe In Publicly Filed .PDF Documents, 13 No. 1 Cyberspace Lawyer 1 (West Jan./Feb. 2008) – available from presenter

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

I(E). Redactions (c’t’d) – Risk Mitigation

DO’s: • High Tech:

MS Word 2003 redaction tool [2007 and 2010 tools not per MS; see <http://redaction.codeplex.com> and

<http://redaction.codeplex.com/discussions/225729/>]; OR

Acrobat Pro 8.0, 9.0, X or XI

• Low Tech: print then black-out (or vice versa)

then scan – then OCR

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

DON’T’s:

• Microsoft Word’s borders/shading

• Microsoft Word’s highlighter

[UNLESS YOU THEN PRINT, SCAN & OCR]

I(E). Redaction – Mitigating Risks (c’t’d)

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

I(E). Redaction – Mitigating Risks (c’t’d)

TO LEARN MORE: • Rick Borstein, Rick’s Acrobat X

Redaction Guide (12/27/10)

• Rick Borstein, Acrobat for Legal Professionals, Redaction segment (Acrobat 9) (last updated 6/27/10)

• Free White Paper: PDF redaction: what every business should know, DocsCorp (12/11/09)

• Rick Borstein, Summary of changes from Acrobat 7; Top Features for Legal Professionals, Adobe (9/8/08)

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

I(E). Redaction – Mitigating Risks (c’t’d)

TO LEARN MORE (c’t’d):

• Redact-It® software:

Detroit Police Department's Homicide Unit Installs Redact-It . . . (12/15/11)

• Lewis Page, Redaction FAIL: Dull nuke sub document revealed in full, Register (4/18/11)

• Greg’s Cool [Insert Clever Name] of the Day, And AGAIN a PDF Redaction gone wrong . . . When will you get the message!? (4/23/10)

• Robert McMillan, HSBC exposed sensitive bankruptcy data, ComputerWorld (12/4/09)

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

CAVEAT: "Mind the [Mobile] Gap" • Attachments created and sent

– or forwarded – via: smartphones/ PDA’s; OR web access to e-mail, e.g., Outlook Web Access (OWA)

See generally these Microsystems items: • Filling the Metadata Gap; The Next Generation

of Metadata Risks & Solutions (3/31/10)

• Cathy Brode, The Often Overlooked Mobile Security Gap, 3BView (12/15/09)

See also • Neil Squillante, Workshare Protect Server: Read Our

Exclusive Report, TechnoLawyer Blog (4/15/10)

II. Newer, Evolving Threats A. The “Mobile Gap”

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

Every device must have a

password with strong security

If the device makes use of any global

positioning system (GPS) for navigation,

GPS should be disabled except when in use

If the device makes use of Bluetooth

functionality, that feature should be

disabled when not in use

II(A). The “Mobile Gap” (c’t’d)

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

For cellular devices, turn off all “location services” when not in use and limit the device to “coarse” tracking of location only in event of 9-1-1 emergencies.

Whenever possible, turn device off or use Airplane mode.

Password should never be simple or predictable. Should contain combination of letters, numbers and symbols.

II(A). The “Mobile Gap” (c’t’d)

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

Passwords should:

• be a minimum of eight characters long

• be changed often

• never be given to anyone, except

under the strictest circumstances

II(A). “Mobile Gap” – Passwords (c’t’d)

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

A separate password should be created for sensitive data such as financial information; same for PINS

It should never contain information personal to the creator, such as father’s middle name or high school one attended

Security questions should be enabled wherever possible

II(A). “Mobile Gap” – Passwords (c’t’d)

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

Ex-CIA Director David “All In” Petraeus and his biographer Paula Broadwell

• location data • Internet Protocol (IP) addresses • email (subset of “file-system”) data

even re: DRAFT messages in web- mail (i.e., Gmail) DRAFTS folder

Perry L. Segal, eDiscovery 101: Petraeus was Done In by Gmail Metadata - Someone Else's!, e-Discovery Insights (11/12/12)

Ryan Gallagher, Instead of "Dead Dropping," Petraeus and Broadwell Should Have Used These Email Security Tricks, Slate (11/13/12)

Chris Soghoian, Surveillance and Security Lessons From the Petraeus Scandal, ACLU (11/13/12)

II. Newer, Evolving Threats B. Trails Left by . . .

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

II(B). Newer Threats – Trails Left . . . (c’t’d)

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

VIRUS/FIREWALL DATA USAGE

II. Newer, Evolving Threats C. Mobile Devices & Wi-Fi

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

Metadata ethics = subset of broader area of inadvertent disclosure in general . . .

Ethical duty of RECIPIENT attorney on receipt from opposing party of confidential information he/she knows/should-know inadvertently sent

• Ex. ABA Formal Op. No. 05-437 (10/1/05) (applying Model Rule 4.4(b)(2002))

Only duty is to notify sender

Replaced ABA Op. No. 92-368 (duty to notify sender AND to follow sender’s instructions)

III. Ethics – Inadvertent Disclosure in General

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

III. Recipient Duty (c’t’d)

≈ 19 “States” (incl. D.C.): Follow the ABA rule

≈ 8 States: Notify sender and

follow his/her

instructions

≈ 10 States: Various other

approaches

≈ 3 (e.g., Maryland): No duty to notify

≈ 10 States: Silent on this issue

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

III. Ethics – Recipient (c’t’d)

Ex. . . . California (in hardcopy context):

Notify sender upon sensing that a document received from opposing counsel contains privileged information

Do not read rest of document Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., 42 Cal. 4th

807, 68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 758 (12/13/07)

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

III. Ethics – Recipient (c’t’d)

Cal. . . . Rico Decision based on prior decision: May resolve by agreement or resort to court Even if asked, need not return/

destroy prior to court resolution State Comp. Ins. Fund v. WPS, Inc.,

70 Cal. App. 4th 644, 656 (1999)

See also COPRAC Formal Op. 2010-179 (12/16/10)

NY . . . See generally James M. Altman, Inadvertent Disclosure and Rule 4.4(b)’s Erosion of Attorney Professionalism, NYSBA J (Nov./Dec. 2010)

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

III. Sender – Potential Waiver for Client

Potential consequences . . . 3 approaches:

LENIENT

Rarely ever waives

Ex: Texas

MIDDLE

Case-by-case balancing

Most states. Ex. = CA

STRICT

Always waives

Ex: D.C.

Waiver might expand to SUBJECT-MATTER

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

III. Metadata in Lawyer- Disseminated eDocs

ABA Chart of metadata ethics opinions

See also Hans P. Sinha, THE ETHICS OF METADATA: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND A PRACTICAL SOLUTION, 63 Maine L. Rev. 176, 180 n.11 (2010) [citing some my prior Lorman webinars ]

In sum, CANNOT UN-RING BELL: • "[W]ill have learned confidential information

that cannot simply be erased from memory" Formal Op. 2003-04, 2004 WL , NYC Association of

the Bar Commission Prof. Jud. Eth. (4/9/04)

Magnified consequences of inevitable human error . . .

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

III. Metadata Examination

RECIPIENTS . . .

One view – “Anti-Mining” = Treat confidential information in metadata like "inadvertently" disclosed information – unethical to examine without consent of opposing counsel

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

Anti-Mining View

Examples: • Wash. S.B.A. Advisory Op. No. 2216 (June 2012)

<http://mcle.mywsba.org/IO/print.aspx?ID=1664>

• N.C. 2009 Formal Ethics Op. 1 (Jan. 2010) <ncbar.com/ethics/ethics.asp?page=4&from=6/2009>

• W. Va. Bar Ass’n L.E.O. 2009-01 (June 2009) (no mining only if actual knowledge of inadvertence) <http://www.wvlawyer.org/leo1.php>

• N.H. Bar Ass’n Ethics Comm. Op. 2008-2009/4 (April 2009) <nhbar.org/uploads/pdf/EthicsOpinion2008-9-4.pdf>

III. Ethical Obligations – Metadata Recipient (c’t’d)

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

Other view – Metadata can be viewed by opposing counsel; scrub it if you don't want it read. Examples:

• Wisc. Ethics Op. EF-12-01 (June 2012) (but must notify sender if sees material info.)

• Ore. Formal Op. 2011-187 (Nov. 2011) • Minn. LPRB Op. 22 (Mar. 2010)

(but a fact-specific question) • Vt. Bar Ass’n Prof’l Resp.

Section Op. 2009-1 (Aug. 2009) • Pa. Bar Ass'n Comm. on Legal Ethics

& Prof. Resp., Formal Op. 2009-100 (June 2009) (but must notify sender)

III. Ethical Obligations – Metadata Recipient (c’t’d)

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

OK to Mine (FUGHETABOUTIT!) (c’t’d)

More Examples:

• Maine Bd. of Bar Overseers Prof'l Ethics Comm'n, Op. 196 (Oct. 2008)

• Md.S.B.A. Ethics Op. No. 2007-09 (2006)

• ABA Formal Op. No. 06-442 (2006) But see ABA Resolution 105A

(Aug. 2012) and accompanying report. See also this ABA page

III. Metadata Recipient (c’t’d)

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

ALL OPINIONS AGREE . . . Example: • “[D]uty . . . to use reasonable care when

transmitting documents by e-mail to prevent the disclosure of metadata containing client confidences or secrets.”

NYSBA Op. 782, Comm. on Prof’l Ethics (12/8/04)

• “Reasonable care” factors: subject matter based on “template” used for other client multiple drafts comments from multiple sources client has commented on document Identity/ies of intended recipient/s

III. Metadata Sender

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

III. Sending – Related Rules

ABA Rule 5.1, Responsibilities Of Partners, Managers, And Supervisory Lawyers requires those with managerial authority to ensure firm and its lawyers follow Rules of Professional Conduct

• <http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/rule_5_1.html>

See also ABA Rule 5.3, Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants

• <http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/rule_5_3.html>

Sounds like law firm/dep’t must provide for lawyers and staff to acquire knowledge of metadata

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

Rule 5.1 may require firm-wide deployment of application enabling scrubbing of outgoing e-mail

"[L]awyers must either acquire sufficient understanding of the software that they use or ensure that their office employs safeguards to minimize the risk of inadvertent disclosures” (emphasis added)

• D.C. Bar Op. 341 (Sept. 2007) <dcbar.org/for_lawyers/ethics/legal_ethics/opinions/opinion341.cfm>

III. Sending (c’t’d) – Related Rules (c’t’d)

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

A. Overview of Substantive Law

• Preservation/Spoliation

• Discoverability

IV. eDiscovery of Client-Created Docs. – Metadata Disclosed

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

When needed/relevant:

• Ex: definitive eEvidence regarding alleged fabrication or back-dating Munshani v. Signal Lake Venture Fund II,

2001 Mass. Super. LEXIS 496 (10/9/01) <www.signallake.com/litigation/ma_order_munhshani.pdf>, aff’d, 2004 Mass. App. LEXIS 323 (3/26/04) <www.signallake.com/litigation/Dismissal-of-Munshani-Appeal.pdf>

Premier Homes & Land v. Cheswell, Inc., 240 F. Supp. 2d 97 (D. Mass. 2002) <http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/neiman/pdf/premierhomes%2012%2002.pdf>

IV(A). Discoverability (c’t’d) – Older Case Law

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

FRCP Vague

NEED to show NEED as to particular:

• eDocument(s)

• format(s), e.g., spreadsheets

Williams v. Sprint/United Mgmt., 230 F.R.D. 640 (D. Kan. 9/29/05) (analyzing 12/1/06 version of FRCP; contrasting FRCP 26(b)(2)(B))

Typically, NO DO-OVERS

IV(A). Discoverability (c’t’d) – Later Decisions

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

TO LEARN MORE • Separate Brownstone slide deck available on request

• Libraries/Newsletters:

<applieddiscovery.com/ws_display.asp?filter=Native%20Production%20Required>

<www.krollontrack.com/case-summaries/>

<https://extranet1.klgates.com/ediscovery/>

• Compare these Developments

IRS Office of Chief Counsel, Summonses for Electronic Records, Memorandum No. 201146017, (11/18/11)

New Legal Metadata Standard: European Case Law Identifier (ECLI), Legal Informatics Blog (11/30/10)

For EU Comm. pages re: ECLI, click here and here

IV(A). Discoverability (c’t’d) – Case Law Developing

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

FRCP & States’ Clawback Procedures

FRE 502, including collateral estoppel

Three ways to exert best efforts to try to avoid a waiver finding:

• Stipulated Protective Orders

• QC/QA

• Claw-Backs

IV. B. Procedural Law – Waivers/ Clawbacks

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

IV(B). Waivers/ Clawbacks (c’t’d)

“Other . . . waiver doctrines may result in a finding of waiver even where there is no disclosure of privileged information or work product – reliance on an advice of counsel, defense; allegation of lawyer malpractice, etc.”

• <http://delchaum.com/files/255_e-discovery_class_2010_--_class_seven.ppt>, at slide 23

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

FRCP Rules Committee in ‘07: • Initially addressed it. But punted, except for

sending Congress a draft provision . . .

See Committee Report, at 65-69

Congress: • Did not address the issue when passed FRE 502

• But HR 4326 pending for years

Case-law still almost all negative. • See, e.g., In re Pacific Pictures Corp., 679 F.3d

1121 (9th Cir. 5/10/12), as discussed here

IV(B). Waivers (c’t’d) – “Selective Waiver”

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

To Do’s for litigant & litigation-counsel

• Stipulate up-front as to claw-

backs and (lack of) waivers

• GET IT IN A COURT ORDER!!

Cf. FRE 502(d) vs. FRE 502(e)

IV(B). Waivers (c’t’d) – Practical Tips

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

To Do’s (c’t’d)

• Throughout eDiscovery memorialize steps taken as to:

search methodology for culling how and why some ESI not produced

privilege logs – use care

• If an inadvertent disclosure occurs, promptly: notify other side promptly; and if need be, seek court intervention

IV(B). Waivers (c’t’d) – Practical Tips

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

IV(B). FRE 502 (c’t’d) – Tips (c’t’d)

For analysis and sample stips, see: • Allan B. Moore, et al., ‘Oops, I Want That Back:’

Clawing Back Privileged Documents And New Federal Rule Of Evidence 502, 23 MEALEY’S LITIGATION REPORT: Ins., #20 (3/26/09), available – w./ Sample Stipulated Order

• Gregory P. Joseph, The Impact of Rule 502(d) on Protective Orders, Nat’l L.J. (11/17/08)

• M.D. La. Example at this link

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

IV(B). FRE 502 (c’t’d) – Tips (c’t’d)

11 states have 502 analogues For commentary, see:

• <michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article1452.pdf> • <http://uclalawreview.org/pdf/56-6-4.pdf>

For case law, see: • In re Coventry Healthcare, Inc. ERISA Litig.,

2013 WL 1187909 (D. Md. 3/21/13) • Chevron Corp. v. Weinberg Group,

286 F.R.D. 95 (D.D.C. Sep. 26, 2012) • this up-to-date online-library subset

re: the 502/clawback topic

EIM

GR

OU

P

©

© ©

Conclusion/ Q&A/Contact-Info.

Robert D. Brownstone, Esq.

Fenwick & West LLP

<rbrownstone@fenwick.com>

<fenwick.com/professionals/pages/ bobbrownstone.aspx>

Perry L. Segal, Esq.

Charon Solutions, Inc.

<perry.segal@thecharonshield.com>

<ediscoverycalifornia.com/about>