LitSmart

As part of the e-discovery process, we use digital means to identify relevant information for use in a legal proceeding. The proceeding may be a large-scale medical malpractice lawsuit, a patent infringement case, a government investigation, or countless other legal actions. However, the skills and resources used in those types of matters can also be used in other areas.

Sunlight Financial L.L.C. v. Hinkle, et al., 2022 WL 17487686 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2022) highlights the importance of negotiating strong stipulation orders that protect your client's interests. In this case, the Stipulated Amended Preliminary Injunction Order was overly broad and failed to carve out information that the defense believed to be the confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information of third parties. As a result, the corporate defendant was required to produce documents for forensic examination that had questionable relevance to the specific allegations of the Plaintiff and exposed the defendant to potential future litigation.

New technologies are being created and utilized every year. The most significant developments lately are the rise of chatbots - software applications that allow for online chat conversation via text or text-to-speech, without any direct contact with a human operator. Currently, the chatbot garnering the most attention is OpenAI’s ChatGPT program. This article will focus on this technology and how it works either for or against the E-Discovery review process.

An MBA professor of mine used to be fond of saying “data drives decisions.” His point was that the more information you could get, the more informed the decision you could make. In the context of document review, daily reports can be a timely and efficient method of communicating that critical information. The first few days, and even weeks, of any document review project are full of questions and uncertainty. Does the mere mention of a term make the documents responsive? How substantive does the document have to be to be considered “hot”? Am I tagging too many documents as “not responsive”? One way to gauge whether a document review is on the right track is by having the people reviewing the documents submit daily reports describing what they are seeing and how they are coding those documents.

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.

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.