E-Discovery Best Practices

Artificial intelligence chatter on the internet seems to be everywhere in the new year.  In January, a startup announced that an artificial intelligence-powered “robot lawyer” would represent its first defendant in court over a traffic ticket this February in California. The plan, seemingly unguided by human lawyers, came to an abrupt halt in the wake of threats from multiple state bars. But no need to plan a career change just yet – the startup announced last week it was shifting its focus from legal services to consumer rights. Until A.I. replaces us outright, the following are some interesting ways A.I. is making waves in the legal profession. 

In Part Two of this blog series, I discuss a recent case regarding noncompliance with preservation provisions in an ESI protocol and provide best practices for negotiating and drafting an ESI protocol. In Part One of this series (which you can find here), I analyzed how courts have resolved ESI protocol disputes with TAR and metadata provisions.

“We are family.” If you are like many people, you can’t read those words without singing them. Unlike the joyous refrains of Sister Sledge, however, the idea of family may take on a more ominous tone when viewed in the context of familial corporate relationships and the obligation to preserve and/or produce electronically-stored documents or information in litigation. In today’s digital world, related corporate entities may share email servers or electronic databases or jointly engage agents to process or store their electronic data. The use of shared administrative or other departments may further cause the commingling of access to various corporate electronic data repositories. As technical advancements increase and further ease the flow of data between related companies, the question arises what discovery obligations a company may have to preserve or produce its affiliate’s electronic data in litigation to which the related entity is not a party.

The preservation of, or failure to preserve, ESI in a litigation context provides ample opportunities for counsel to stumble and is a fertile area of case law. In this blog we will look at Hollis v. CEVA Logistics U.S., Inc., No. 19 CV 50135, (N.D. Ill. May 19, 2022), an interesting little case in which the Court found that a curative jury instruction was warranted in a matter where the defendant CEVA failed to preserve video evidence of an altercation between the plaintiff Hollis and another employee which resulted in Hollis’s termination. This case is instructive in that it discusses in some detail the  “five threshold requirements” (Hollis, at 2) to impose remedies for failure to preserve ESI under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(e) as well as the issues of intent to deprive plaintiff of the evidence and of prejudice to the plaintiff. The case is particularly interesting, however, in that it illustrates the potential difficulties in recognizing when a duty to preserve arises, particularly with respect to short-lived, ephemeral evidence that is destroyed or overwritten well before formal litigation commences.

While requests for email communications and collections from hard drives and networks are standard in today’s litigation, a party’s text messages, and collections from mobile devices are oftentimes overlooked. A narrowly tailored motion to compel forensic exam can be a valuable discovery tool to analyze the data on a party’s mobile phone. This blog analyzes the factors that led a court in the Northern District of Illinois to order the forensic imaging and collection of a party's mobile phone.

In Part Two of this blog series, I discuss lessons learned and provide best practices for complying with discovery obligations. In Part One of this blog series, we analyzed Burris v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., et al., a case in which the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice because of Plaintiff’s “extensive misconduct and deception, without any obvious contrition or awareness of the wrongfulness of his conduct” which posed a serious risk any further proceedings would be “plagued” by a similar pattern of discovery abuse and deception that would make “it impossible for the district court to conduct a trial with any reasonable assurance that the truth would be available." As litigants and legal practitioners, we can learn from the Court's decision in Burris and ensure we don't make the same mistakes.