Mobile Data

Even when the need to preserve mobile data is clear, for clients who are not technical experts or who do not have technical experts on staff, how to go about actually preserving that data may not be so obvious. As legal professionals, it is important that we understand how to help our clients preserve mobile data and what pitfalls they may encounter.

As you recall, in December of 2015, the amended FRCP 26(b)(1) sought to address the escalating burdens associated with data preservation and production by emphasizing proportionality and defining the scope of discovery. As the latest proportionality rulings show, Rule 26(b)(1) is having an impact on limiting the scope of discovery based on the associated expense and some state courts are even following the federal courts’ lead in enforcing proportionality. Interestingly, while expense continues to be a factor in the proportionality argument, parties’ objections on the basis of proportionality have extended to nonmonetary factors as well, including privacy. As a result, some courts are now recognizing privacy as a consideration in determining whether the discovery sought is proportional to the needs of the case.

You may have read my colleague Starling Underwood’s post on two recent Second Circuit decisions discussing sanctions for spoliation. If you have not, I encourage you to read it here.  In this post, and continuing our music-themed sanction discussions, I narrow the focus to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 37(e), which is used to determine whether and what sanctions are appropriate when ESI spoliation occurs. A recent decision from the Minnesota District Court involving the estate of the artist Prince Rodgers Nelson (“Prince”), Paisley Park Enterprises, Inc. v. Boxill, provides a detailed review of the sanctions analysis under Rule 37(e), while dealing with a category of very common ESI data often at issue in litigation today –  mobile phone text messages.

Mobile devices are an absolute necessity in our everyday life. When it comes to litigation (or potential litigation), our beloved devices are usually subject to discovery as they may contain information that is relevant to proving or disproving a case. As a result, when developing a data collection strategy, mobile devices must be considered. Mobile devices may now be as valuable as the more typical sources of information, namely personal computers and network locations, and with this newly-recognized discovery relevance comes a potential for trouble.

There was a time when the only data you needed to collect in response to a discovery request was corporate email. Fast forward to present day. Employees are conducting business with smartphones, via social media and with the assistance of wearable technology. As a result, responding to e-discovery requests has become increasingly challenging.