Status Of E-Discovery Law: A Judicial Perspective On The Cur

The Editor reports on comments by Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin, United States District Judge, Southern District of New York during a webinar entitled Electronic Discovery Guidance 2009: What Corporate and Outside Counsel Need To Know presented by the Practising Law Institute. To purchase the complete webinar or only Judge Scheindlin’s segment visit http://www.pli.edu/product/clenow_detail.asp?id=47794&t=DAJ0_8MCC1 .

Judge Scheindlin wrote the influential Zubulake opinions (as well as, most recently, Pension Committee v. Banc of America. that remain persuasive authority throughout the country today. She was nominated to the bench by President Bill Clinton in 1994. Before taking her seat on the bench she worked as a prosecutor, a commercial lawyer and a special master and magistrate judge in the Eastern District of New York. She was a special master in the Agent Orange Mass Tort Litigation. She has presided over a number of high-profile cases, many of which advance important new positions in the common law. She is also an adjunct professor at Brooklyn Law School and a frequent lecturer on the subject of e-discovery.

Judge Scheindlin has been a member of the Judicial Conference of the United States Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. She is also a member of the American Law Institute, where she is a member of the Advisors' Consultative Group on the Aggregate Litigation Project. She is a prolific author, including a recent case book entitled Electronic Discovery and Digital Evidence : Cases and Materials .

Judge Scheindlin began her one-hour segment of the webinar by mentioning that each time she speaks at this conference she initially considers providing a review of the most interesting cases involving ESI that have been issued during the past year. But as she reviews the cases, she quickly gives up on that idea because some topics leap out as requiring a more in-depth discussion than others. As a result, she always ends up choosing what she believes are the few topics that really deserve careful and full treatment and that this year she has selected three topics.

She began with the thorny issues raised by Federal Rule of Evidence 502, which she reviewed in some detail. Next, she discussed the duty to preserve and the adequacy of litigation holds. Her last topic was cloud computing. There is a thirst for knowledge about what cloud computing is and its potential effect on litigation issues, including cross-border discovery.

via Status Of E-Discovery Law: A Judicial Perspective On The Cur.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Elan Sues to Ban Apple Multitouch Products in U.S. — Even the iPad

Elan Microelectronics filed suit against Apple with the U.S. International Trade Commission today, alleging that certain Apple products violate a multitouch patent previously awarded to the Taiwanese company. Elan in April of last year filed a related suit with the U.S. District Court in Northern California over the same patent — No. 7,274,353 — which it calls “a fundamental patent to the detection of multi-fingers that allows for any subsequent multi-finger applications to be implemented.”

By going to the ITC in addition to filing a patent infringement suit, Elan seeks to block Apple from importing its products into the U.S. that use multitouch, including the iPhone, iPod touch, MacBook, Magic Mouse and the iPad, which is due for release on April 3. Since Apple products are designed in Cupertino but assembled outside of the U.S., Elan is courting the appropriate trade commission that has authority to stop such products from reaching America’s shores. Notably, any ITC findings will be binding regardless of the patent lawsuit outcome, thanks to a loophole in U.S. patent law. Ironically, Apple is using this same strategy to try and block HTC from importing phones that Cupertino alleges violate its patents.

via Elan Sues to Ban Apple Multitouch Products in U.S. — Even the iPad.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Revisiting ‘Zubulake’ Six Years Later | Law.com

In January, Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York, who authored the landmark electronic discovery decisions in Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, issued an opinion that she titled “Zubulake Revisited: Six Years Later.” See Pension Comm. of the Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Sec. LLC, No. 05 Civ. 9016, 2010 WL 184312, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010).

Although the case did not present any “egregious examples of litigants purposefully destroying evidence,” 13 plaintiffs were sanctioned — seven for negligence and six for gross negligence — due to their lackluster preservation, collection, search, and production efforts. Id. at *10, *15-*27. All of those plaintiffs were subject to monetary sanctions, two were to provide additional discovery, and the grossly negligent plaintiffs were subject to a carefully tailored, rebuttable spoliation instruction.

In Montreal Pension, the court analyzes levels of unacceptable discovery conduct and differing burdens of proof in establishing sanctions and potential sanctions. The case provides guidance to courts and practitioners and is likely to be widely cited in the future.

The plaintiffs in the case were investors suing to recover $550 million in losses due to the liquidation of two British Virgin Island hedge funds.

via Revisiting ‘Zubulake’ Six Years Later.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

The Internet in America: A YouTube Interview with the FCC | The White House

If you’re reading this, then you’re probably on the Internet — via your laptop, your mobile phone or other handheld device, or maybe even through your television. But even in 2010, millions of Americans do not have access to the wealth of information made available on the Web. Even though the Internet was invented in the U.S. over 20 years ago, many Americans lag behind in both access to the Internet and speed of connections, which is why the Federal Communications Commission (or the FCC, the federal agency that regulates the U.S. communications industry) is launching its much-antipated National Broadband Plan next Tuesday, to lay out its strategy for connecting all Americans to fast, affordable high-speed Internet.

via The Internet in America: A YouTube Interview with the FCC | The White House.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Step 1 for Legal Holds: Trigger Events | Law.com

This series of articles provides an overview of the steps necessary to implement a legally defensible, written litigation hold and are based on the ”Seven Steps for Legal Holds of ESI and Other Documents” (ARMA International 2009). The seven steps for legal holds are designed to help organizations tackle the seemingly daunting task of implementing written litigation holds. Although this series was conceived months ago, written litigation holds are now more important than ever in light of U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin’s Opinion and Order in The Pension Committee v. Banc of America, Case No. 05-cv-9016 (SDNY Jan. 11, 2010, as amended Jan. 15, 2010). Her introduction is a fitting opening to the series:

In an era where vast amounts of electronic information is available for review, discovery in certain cases has become increasingly complex and expensive. Courts cannot and do not expect that any party can meet a standard of perfection. Nonetheless, the courts have a right to expect that litigants and counsel will take the necessary steps to ensure that relevant records are preserved when litigation is reasonably anticipated, and that such records are collected, reviewed, and produced to the opposing party. As discussed six years ago in the Zubulake opinions, when this does not happen, the integrity of the judicial process is harmed and the courts are required to fashion a remedy.

Our focus is on helping organizations discharge their duty to preserve electronically stored information and other documents. Absent an effective litigation hold process, an organization will be unable to meet its duty to preserve ESI and other documents. As articulated by various courts (including The Pension Committee v. Banc of America) the failure to implement a written litigation hold is gross negligence. A finding of gross negligence at the onset of a spoliation analysis is a surefire way to be sanctioned. The only question that follows is how much is the sanction.

via Law.com – Step 1 for Legal Holds: Trigger Events.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

SEC restructures to catch next Madoff | The Harvard Law Record

Reeling from the fallout of the Madoff scandal, the Securities and Exchange Commission has been searching for a new strategy and new leadership in its mission to protect the investing public from fraud.  As part of this effort, the S.E.C. recently unveiled six new organizational departments that will lead units aimed at supervising particular domains of finance: asset management, market abuse, structured and new products, foreign corrupt practices, and municipal securities and public pensions.  These changes come with a public recognition that in the rapidly changing world of modern finance the Commission must be constantly vigilant to keep pace with innovation in the markets, as well as a keen awareness that in the wake of the Madoff fiasco the public and Congress are demanding swift action to improve the quality of financial industry oversight.

But while the Commission seeks new and innovative strategies for fulfilling its policy objectives, its core mission of overseeing financial markets continues to depend on its ability to directly probe into the activities of market players, and starting at the end of January, the front-lines inspectors in America's financial capital will have a new chief, private fund industry expert Norman Champ '89, who will take on the role of Regional Associate Director for the S.E.C.'s New York Regional Office.  Champ brings a wealth of experience as an attorney and industry insider, having worked for eight years at Davis Polk & Wardwell before becoming general counsel at Chilton Investments, a private investment management fund based in Stamford, Connecticut with over $7 billion in assets under management.  Champ served until the end of 2009 as Executive Vice President and General Counsel at Chilton, in addition to representing the interests of the hedge fund industry as a member of the board of directors of the Managed Funds Association.

via The Harvard Law Record – SEC restructures to catch next Madoff.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Plaintiffs Sanctioned for Failure to Produce Electronic Files in Hedge Fund Suit

A federal judge has sanctioned 13 plaintiffs suing two collapsed hedge funds for negligence and gross negligence for their failure to preserve electronic files in discovery.

Saying “most plaintiffs conducted discovery in an ignorant and indifferent fashion,” Southern District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin will assess monetary sanctions against all 13 plaintiffs and give an adverse jury instruction for six of the worst offenders in The Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities LLC, 05 Civ. 9016.

“While litigants are not required to execute document productions with absolute precision, at a minimum they must act diligently and search thoroughly at the time they reasonably anticipate litigation,” Schiendlin said in her 87-page opinion. “All of the plaintiffs in this motion failed to do so and have been sanctioned accordingly.”

The lawsuit was brought by investors who sought to recover losses of $550 million following the liquidation of two hedge funds based in the British Virgin Islands. Banc of America and other defendants have already settled the case, which involves a total of 96 plaintiffs.

The chief defendant remaining is Citgo Fund Services, which was hired by the two hedge funds to perform certain administrative services.

t was Citgo that brought the sanctions motion, and it is Citgo that will be compensated, with a yet-to-be-determined amount, in the form of costs and attorney’s fees, including fees and expenses associated with filing sanctions motions, reviewing declarations and deposing declarants.

Citgo, its parent company and two directors will also benefit in the adverse jury instruction with respect to six plaintiffs. Scheindlin said she will tell the jury that relevant evidence was destroyed after the duty to preserve arose and that the plaintiffs were grossly negligent. It would then be up to the jury to decide whether the evidence was relevant.

The six plaintiffs who will get the adverse instruction, including the Morton Meyerson Family Foundation and the Defined Benefit Plan for Hunnicutt & Co., she said, conducted “severely deficient” searches in response to document requests in 2003 and 2004.

The judge criticized the six plaintiffs for:

• failure “to institute a timely written litigation hold” — a communication to employees to stop the routine and legitimate destruction of data in anticipation of commercial litigation or a civil enforcement action;

• failure “to collect or preserve anyelectronic documents prior to 2007;

• continued deletion of electronic documents after the duty to preserve arose;

• failure to request documents from key players;

• delegation of search efforts without supervision from management: and

• destruction of backup data potentially containing responsive documents of key players and/or submitted misleading or inaccurate declarations.

via Law.com – Plaintiffs Sanctioned for Failure to Produce Electronic Files in Hedge Fund Suit.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

New SEC Suit Alleges BofA Hid ‘Extraordinary Losses’ at Merrill

The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a new lawsuit Tuesday against Bank of America Corp., claiming the bank failed to disclose billions of dollars in rising losses at Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. before shareholders voted on a merger in December of 2008.

The new suit will be heard by U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan, who is also handling an earlier SEC suit accusing the bank of misleading shareholders about billions of dollars in Merrill bonuses.

On Monday, Rakoff denied a motion by the Securities and Exchange Commission to add a new charge to its earlier complaint against Bank of America. But Rakoff told the SEC it could bring the charge as a separate case, if it wants.

Rakoff said he wanted to move ahead with the March 1 trial date on the earlier complaint, and there was a danger of confusing the jury by introducing a different charge involving a different set of facts. Rakoff said, in fairness to the bank, it would need more time to pursue its defense and expert testimony against the new allegation.

The new charge accuses the bank of failing to disclose the “extraordinary losses” at Merrill Lynch, before the shareholders voted on Dec. 5, 2008, to approve the merger between the two financial giants.

The SEC wrote a Dec. 31 letter (pdf) to Rakoff asking to add the charge to its earlier complaint, which alleged that the bank failed to disclose Merrill's $5.8 billion bonus pool to the shareholders. The Dec. 31 letter, along with the bank's response (pdf), were made public Monday.

In the letter, the SEC alleges that by the time of the shareholder vote, the bank knew of $4.5 billion in net losses at Merrill in October of 2009, and estimated an additional multibillion-dollar loss for November. “These losses alone constituted more than one-third of the merger value as of December 5, and approximately 60 percent of Merrill's entire losses in the preceding three quarters of the year,” the letter stated. Merrill would eventually lose $15.3 billion in the fourth quarter alone.

Responding for the bank, attorney Daniel Kramer said that the new claim has no legal basis, that the SEC didn't act diligently in waiting so close to the March 1 trial date to file the new charge, and that the bank would be prejudiced because the discovery and other pre-trial processes are closed. Kramer is a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison in New York.

via Law.com – New SEC Suit Alleges BofA Hid ‘Extraordinary Losses’ at Merrill.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Seeking Ways to Set Limits on E-Discovery

Several efforts are under way across the nation to focus attention on the growing costs and complexity of federal civil pretrial discovery procedures, and to consider modifications or alternatives to our present system. These efforts are driven by a perception, shared by many across the globe, that litigation in the United States has become overly expensive and that, “rather than being just an incremental part of doing business, the mere threat of legal action can seriously, and sometimes irrevocably, damage a company,” thereby “making it harder to manage legal risk in the U.S. than in other jurisdictions.”[FOOTNOTE 1]

This perception is said to have had significant consequences with regard to America's competitiveness in the global market. A report by the Committee on Capital Markets noted, “[f]oreign companies commonly cite the U.S. class action enforcement system as the most important reason why they do not want to list in the U.S. [securities] market.”[FOOTNOTE 2]

This article will examine the factors that are leading numerous groups to initiate re-examinations of our current rules, briefly summarize the progress to date, and note the conferences scheduled for the first half of next year that will discuss these issues.

via Seeking Ways to Set Limits on E-Discovery.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

SEC Charges California Telecom Company With Bribery And Other FCPA Violations

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Alameda, Calif.-based telecommunications company UTStarcom, Inc. with violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for authorizing millions of dollars in unlawful payments to foreign government officials in Asia.

SEC Complaint

UTStarcom agreed to settle the SEC’s charges and pay a $1.5 million penalty among other remedies. In a related criminal case, the U.S. Department of Justice announced today that UTStarcom agreed to pay an additional $1.5 million fine.

“UTStarcom spent millions of dollars on illegal bribes to win and keep customers in Asia,” said Marc J. Fagel, Director of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office. “It is important for corporate America to recognize that resorting to these methods of boosting profits contributes to a culture of corruption that cannot be condoned under U.S. law.”

via SEC Charges California Telecom Company With Bribery And Other FCPA Violations.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare