E-Discovery Cost Recovery in the Digital Age | NY Law Journal (H. Christopher Boehning & Daniel J. Toal)

E-discovery is a costly necessity of modern litigation. With the ease of email and network data-storage came a deluge of litigation expenses. But producing parties, who historically have born the majority of these costs, may now find some relief in Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 54(d) provides that “costs — other than attorney’s fees — should be allowed to the prevailing party.” The awardable or “taxable” costs are listed in 28 U.S.C. §1920, and include “[f]ees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case.” At first glance, this provision might not seem to encompass e-discovery costs. Since an amendment in 2008 that replaced the word “papers” with “any materials,” however, courts uniformly have concluded that §1920 covers at least some e-discovery costs.[FOOTNOTE 1]

The question that remains is what e-discovery costs are recoverable. Courts confronting this question have identified five elements that a party must establish to tax its adversary with e-discovery costs: (1) the party seeking costs must have been the “prevailing party”; (2) the costs must stem from a modern equivalent of “copying”; (3) the costs must have been necessary; (4) the costs must be reasonable; and (5) the costs must be sufficiently documented to support the other elements.

Although these elements provide a useful analytical framework, they provide an uncertain guide as to how courts will actually rule on requests to recover e-discovery costs. Indeed, courts frequently come to inconsistent conclusions regarding seemingly similar requests for costs. Although it remains the case that there are few bright-line rules as to what e-discovery costs are taxable, trends are beginning to emerge in how courts interpret each of these requirements.

via E-Discovery Cost Recovery in the Digital Age.

Be Careful What You Ask for: Loser Pays Prevailing Party Electronic Discovery Costs (Again) | Morgan Lewis – JDSupra

Following on the heels of Race Tires II,[1] which awarded electronic discovery costs in favor of the prevailing party, several recent awards suggest that when deciding whether to pursue litigation, parties should take into consideration the costs of electronic discovery — and the discovery methods used — as courts are increasingly taxing nonprevailing parties for the costs of electronic discovery.

Recently, courts in California and Pennsylvania found that the prevailing party can recover electronic discovery costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54. The types of costs awarded under Rule 54 depend upon a court’s interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4), which lists “fees for exemplification and the cost of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case,” as taxable, or recoverable, costs. In each of the four cases below, the court found that electronic discovery costs related to the duplication and production of data in discovery were recoverable.

Please see full article below for more information.

via Be Careful What You Ask for: Loser Pays Prevailing Party Electronic Discovery Costs (Again) | Morgan Lewis – JDSupra.

Many Fortune 500 Policies Unclear on Foreign ‘Grease Payments’ | Corporate Counsel

Among Fortune 500 companies, only 19 of those with public codes of conduct prohibit their employees from making so-called “grease payments” to foreign officials. But a whopping 373 companies deal with the same issue by simply not mentioning it at all in their codes of conduct, according to a new study.

Under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, a facilitation or grease payment is legal if made to a foreign official, political party, or party official for “routine government action,” such as processing papers or issuing permits in order to expedite an act that would occur anyway. The payment becomes a bribe, however, if it attempts to influence the outcome of an official’s action—such as approval of a permit—rather than the timing of it.

One of the 19 companies that are explicit about banning this kind of payment is Cincinnati-based Procter & Gamble Company. “At P&G, we strive to do the right thing, and this often means that our policies exceed legal requirements,” said Libby Rutherford, P&G’s vice president and general counsel for global compliance.

Rutherford explained, “We know that bribery harms the company and the communities in which we do business. P&G’s policy is to prohibit facilitating payments worldwide, even though they are permissible under U.S. law. In this regard, we support government efforts around the world in combating bribery, while helping to improve local communities.”

via Many Fortune 500 Policies Unclear on Foreign ‘Grease Payments’.

Court Declines to Excuse Production where Party’s Negligent Failure to Preserve Rendered Data “Less Accessible” : Electronic Discovery Law

United States v. Universal Health Servs., Inc., No. 1:07cv000054, 2011 WL 3426046 (W.D. Va. Aug. 5, 2011)

Here, the Commonwealth sought to avoid producing allegedly inaccessible information.  The court declined to excuse production, reasoning in part that it was the Commonwealth’s own “negligent failure to take steps to adequately preserve information” which rendered the information “less accessible.”  Instead, the court indicated that it would order the backup tapes and forensic images be produced to defendants “for use by a commercial vendor” to retrieve the information “in a format usable by the Commonwealth” and that defendants would bear the costs, subject to a motion seeking reimbursement.

Defendants sought to compel production of documents related to complaints of Medicaid fraud from the Commonwealth of Virginia.  The Commonwealth objected, arguing lack of control of the documents, but was ordered to produce them nonetheless.  Thereafter, the Commonwealth indicated it could not produce the documents because it would be unduly burdensome.  Specifically, the Commonwealth asserted that it was too costly to access backup tapes from the relevant time period and that it did not have the technological capability to search forensic images of hard drives which were made following placement of the (delinquent) legal hold.  Interestingly, while the Commonwealth admitted that there were less expensive alternatives for accessing the at-issue information, it claimed that state agencies were bound by state law to take their “information technology needs” to Virginia Information Technologies Agency, the agency that estimated the allegedly burdensome cost to access the backup tapes in question.

via Court Declines to Excuse Production where Party’s Negligent Failure to Preserve Rendered Data “Less Accessible” : Electronic Discovery Law.

Gibson Dunn – An EU Data Privacy Advisory Body Provides Guidance Regarding Consent to Process Personal Data

On July 13, 2011, the EU’s Data Protection Working Party issued its Opinion 15/2011 on the definition of Consent (the “Opinion”), providing a thorough analysis of the concept of consent in EU Data Privacy law, and in particular in Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data (the “Data Protection Directive”) and Directive 2002/58/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC, concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (the “e-Privacy Directive”).

Even though consent has always been a key notion in EU Data Protection law (in particular, it is one of several legal grounds enabling the processing of personal data under the Data Protection and e-Privacy Directives), it has not always been clear, according to the Working Party, where consent is needed and what conditions have to be fulfilled for consent to be valid. As EU Data Protection law is not fully harmonized, according to the Working Party, there is a risk of different approaches and divergent views of best practices in different Member States, which might weaken the position of data subjects. The Working Party’s goal with the Opinion is to analyze in detail the requirements for “consent” to be valid under the Data Protection Directive and the e-Privacy Directive, and thus to ensure a common understanding of the existing legal framework. The analysis is illustrated with practical examples based on national experiences. Also, the Working Party prepared its Opinion in response to the European Commission’s request for input regarding the concept of consent in the context of its ongoing review of the Data Protection Directive (more information on which can be found at the website of the European Commission).

via Gibson Dunn – An EU Data Privacy Advisory Body Provides Guidance Regarding Consent to Process Personal Data.

Why E-Discovery Cooperation Is Best for Both Sides | Law.com

Mention “cooperation between parties” to a group of litigators and you usually get facetious exhortations to hold hands and sing “Kumbaya” or “We Are the World.” Respond that you are not talking about utopian fantasies, but ways for both sides to get what they want (or, at least, paying props to Mssrs. Jagger and Richards, what they need), the group will usually respond that cooperation in litigation, like communism, always looks great in theory but never works in practice.

When dealing with e-discovery, however, cooperation can and does work. Once the parties understand what is at stake, skeptical posturing can give way to steps that actually benefit both sides.

WHAT’S AT STAKE

Interestingly, the economic philosopher who best understood the benefits of cooperation was not Karl Marx but Adam Smith, who explored in “The Wealth of Nations” his postulate that economic actors act in their enlightened self-interest and so the free marketplace was the best setting for them. The same holds true here; so what is key is that the parties understand what their enlightened self-interest is.

Absent exceptions, producing parties bear the costs of preservation, collection, processing, searching, reviewing, and producing e-discovery. As has caught the attention of one, two, or several million people over the last number of years, those costs can be considerable. Thus, it is in the enlightened self-interest of the producing party to minimize e-discovery costs. Minimizing such costs in improper ways, however, can lead to dire consequences. In the “poster child” spoliation case of Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, the failure to preserve, collect, and produce e-discovery properly led first to increased e-discovery costs as the producing party had to try to find later, at a much higher cost, what it did not preserve earlier at a lower cost, and then to dire sanctions for spoliation.

via Why E-Discovery Cooperation Is Best for Both Sides.

Lawyers and Social Media: A New Evidentiary Landscape | Litigation Edge

Are you avoiding the Facebook-YouTube-Twitter hype and hoopla because you don’t understand how it works?

Here is a good reason why you need to get up to speed – quickly. The “social media revolution” is not going to go away any time soon.

If Facebook were a country, it would be the third most populated in the world, approaching 600 million users. Twitter users post 140 million “tweets” per day. If you perceive that Facebook is only for Generation Y, then this statistic might make you sit up and take notice: in 2010, the fastest growing demographic of social media users were those over the age of 55!

Lawyers need to take a harder look at social media, how pervasive it has become, and how it is being used – if not by the legal profession, then by companies and individuals who are our clients.  Corporate and personal use of social media has wide ranging legal implications especially in litigation. This emerging field offers lawyers an opportunity to develop specialist legal skills to meet a growing need.

Social Media As Evidence

The impact of social media on litigation cannot be ignored as postings on Facebook and other social media platforms are being increasingly produced as evidence in Court hearings. [Read more...]

China Rejects Google’s Accusation of Hacking – NYTimes.com

China’s official Communist Party newspaper issued a caustic response on Monday to Google’s charge that Chinese hackers had taken aim at influential users of its Gmail service, calling the accusations “political gaming” aimed at fomenting new discord between the Beijing and Washington governments.

The newspaper, People’s Daily, published a front-page editorial in Monday’s international editions that also suggested that Google’s actions could cost it credibility in the business world.

“Many international bystanders believe that Google’s charge is thickly tainted with political colors, and one can’t dismiss the fact that Google is taking advantage and provoking new Sino-American Internet security disputes with sinister intentions,” the editorial stated. “Today’s Google really makes one wring one’s hands. What was once a model of leading Internet innovation has now become a political tool for slandering other countries.”

via China Rejects Google’s Accusation of Hacking – NYTimes.com.

Court Declines to Hold that Lack of Written Litigation Hold Allows Presumption that Relevant Evidence was Lost or Destroyed : Electronic Discovery Law

Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Country Gourmet Foods, LLC, No. 08-CV-561S(F), 2011 WL 1549450 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2011)

Relying largely on the holding of Pension Comm. of Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Bank of Am. Secs., defendant argued that plaintiff’s failure to issue a written litigation hold and subsequent failure to produce three allegedly relevant emails allowed for a presumption that relevant evidence was lost, thereby warranting spoliation sanctions.  Declining to adopt such a holding, the court denied defendant’s motion for sanctions absent evidence that plaintiff was responsible for the destruction or loss of any relevant evidence.

Plaintiff in this breach of contract case issued only an oral litigation hold and failed to produce at least three emails, which defendant argued were relevant to the case.  (Defendant received the emails from another defendant in the case.)  Accordingly, based on the holdings of Pension Committee, defendant argued that relevant evidence should be presumed lost, thereby warranting spoliation sanctions.

Beginning its analysis, the court set forth the relevant law of spoliation:

A party bringing a spoliation motion must demonstrate that: (1) the party charged with destroying the evidence had an obligation to preserve it; (2) the records were destroyed with a ‘culpable state of mind’; and (3) the destroyed evidence was relevant to the party’s claim or defense.

Additionally, “[c]ourts have found that actual destruction or loss of relevant documents is a prerequisite for sanctions based on spoliation.”

Here, the court found that “the record fail[ed] to reveal any evidence that Plaintiff was responsible for the destruction or loss of any relevant evidence.”  For example, as to one email identified by the defendant as relevant but not produced, plaintiff argued (without opposition) that the email was merely overlooked for purposes of production.  Moreover, the court reasoned that even if the identified emails had been lost because of preservation oversights, the emails were not relevant to defendant’s defense.

via Court Declines to Hold that Lack of Written Litigation Hold Allows Presumption that Relevant Evidence was Lost or Destroyed : Electronic Discovery Law.

Recovering E-Discovery Costs as a Prevailing Party

After you celebrate your win in federal court, as the prevailing party, you will likely turn your attention to the bill of costs. In the age of electronic discovery, a large majority of your client’s costs may have been incurred to recover and produce electronically stored information. In fact, your opponent may have used e-discovery as a weapon throughout the litigation to extract a settlement.

But what if both parties knew the court could award e-discovery costs to the prevailing party? In this case, it is likely both parties would exercise restraint in making unlimited demands for ESI and willingly cooperate to minimize e-discovery costs. Or, both parties may be more apt to enter into a cost allocation agreement from the outset.

Before the advent of electronic discovery, a lawyer would review discovery requests, and either the client or the lawyer would personally gather the client’s documents in order to respond to the requests. More often than not, the client’s documents would be presented to the lawyer in paper form, and the lawyer, after reviewing the documents for privilege and responsiveness, would have the documents bates-stamped, photocopied and sent off to the other side.

Today, the process of gathering documents is far more complicated. More than 90 percent of today’s business records are electronic, as noted by David G. Reis, author of eDiscovery. In handling discovery requests, lawyers and their clients are not equipped with the knowledge or technical skill to gather electronically stored documents. The process of gathering documents is now a concerted effort between the legal and technical teams. The lawyer’s role in collecting responsive documents is now that of a project manager and involves, among other duties, identifying and interviewing document custodians, determining the kinds of electronic documents that were created, and uncovering the company’s data preservation practices to determine where potentially responsive ESI resides and is stored. Once the lawyer’s work is done, the technical team, often a skilled ESI vendor, processes the data by copying it from its original electronic format (commonly referred to as “native format”) so that the lawyer can review the documents for privilege and responsiveness.

via Recovering E-Discovery Costs as a Prevailing Party.