What Does a TRO Look Like to Preserve & Produce ESI?

The Federal Trade Commission filed for a permanent injunction and temporary restraining order against the Defendants for violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act.  The FTC sought the preservation of the Defendants’ “…assets and an accounting of assets, preserving and producing business records and computers…” FTC v. Real Wealth, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5884 (W.D. Mo. Jan. 26, 2010).

The Court granted the TRO and Ordered the Defendants comply with the following:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent they have possession, custody, or control of Documents described above, Defendants shall produce the Documents as they are kept in the usual course of business. Defendants, to the extent they have possession, custody, or control of computer equipment or electronically-stored information described above, shall provide Plaintiff with any necessary means of access to the computer equipment or electronically-stored information, including, but not limited to, computer access codes and passwords.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, Defendants shall, within forty-eight (48) hours of service of this Order, complete and serve on counsel for the FTC the “FTC’s Electronically Stored Information Statement.” Attachment D (Doc. No. 3-5)

Real Wealth, 15-16, emphases added. 

The Defendants were ordered to preserve electronically stored information and enjoined from the following: 

Destroying, erasing, mutilating, concealing, altering, transferring, or otherwise disposing of, in any manner, directly or indirectly, any documents or records that relate to the business practices, or business or personal finances, of Defendants, or other entity directly or indirectly under the control of Defendants, including but not limited to: any and all computer data and storage media (including, but not limited to, hard drives, DVDs, CD-ROMS, zip disks, floppy disks, punch cards, magnetic tape, backup tapes, and computer chips) and other documents or records of any kind that relate to the business practices or business or personal finances of the Corporate Defendants or Individual Defendants;

Real Wealth, 16.

Bow Tie Thoughts

The FTC and the Court were not messing around.  Seeing the Court order the Defendants to provide direct access to computer systems and passwords sounds like the FTC was going in to do immediate forensic collection of hard drives, email servers or anything with an “On” button.

I’d like to see how detailed the FTC was in Attachment D, the “FTC’s Electronically Stored Information Statement.”  I imagine they were very specific, including SmartPhones, removable media and work from home policies.

It will be standard practice for all parties to face electronic discovery issues as early as possible in litigation. While the FTC seeking a temporary restraining order might be extreme in civil litigation, parties need to consider transitory ESI like RAM data, text messages or data that can be lost as soon as a computer is re-started, and whether a preservation order is needed.

Don’t Tell the Court “Keine Rechtsprechung”

In Accessdata Corp. v. Alste Techs. Gmbh, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4566 (D. Utah Jan. 21, 2010), a United States based company entered into a contract with a German company to sell electronic discovery forensic software in Germany.  Litigation followed after the German Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff for software sales.  The Defendant objected to producing electronic discovery of third parties based on German law and the Hague Convention.  

Given the gamesmanship of producing native files as scanned PDF’s as I discussed in the The Form of Production Battle of the Bulge: Scanned PDF’s Not a Reasonably Useable Form, the outcome was no surprise. 

The German e-Discovery Straßensperre

The Court quickly defeated the Defendant’s objections based on German law and the Hauge Convention, citing the US Supreme Court case Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. United States District Court, 482 U.S. 522, 544 (1987).

Blocking statutes “…do not deprive an American court of the power to order a party subject to its jurisdiction to produce evidence even though the act of production may violate that statute.” Accessdata Corp. at *6, citing Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale at 544 n.29.

Further citing the United States Supreme Court, the Court relied upon the American Law Institute Restatement on blocking statutes and discovery, which stated:

“[W]hen a state has jurisdiction to prescribe and its courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate, adjudication should (subject to generally applicable rules of evidence) take place on the basis of the best information available . . . . [Blocking] statutes that frustrate this goal need not be given the same deference by courts of the United States as substantive rules of law at variance with the law of the United States.”

 Accessdata Corp. at *6, citing Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale quoting the Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States (Revised) § 437, Reporter’s Note 5 (1986)).

Bow Tie Thoughts

The lesson to take away is United States Courts do not like being told “No, you have no power over us.” 

More importantly, conducting discovery in a way that frustrates the legal system (printing ESI as paper and then scanning it as TIFFs when the plaintiff actually makes e-Discovery software) is a sure-fire way to ensure that any objections you muster get shot down.

e-Discovery Civil Procedure: Three Email Messages Do Not Establish Personal Jurisdiction

Pelowski v. Pipe, 2010 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 549, 14-15 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. Jan. 26, 2010) is case where the Plaintiff’s appealed the judgment of dismissal of a Defendant based on the lack of personal jurisdiction.

The Plaintiffs argued that both general and personal jurisdiction in California were properly established, because the Defendant “communicated regularly” with people in California.  Pelowski , at *22-23.

The Plaintiffs offered an email string and another email setting up a meeting in New York as proof of these communications.  These email messages were over several years.  Other evidence was offered, but this article will only focus on the email arguments. 

The Court of Appeals disagreed and found that the Plaintiffs failed to show by a preponderance of evidence facts establishing personal jurisdiction. 

Plaintiff’s Evidence for General Jurisdiction

The Plaintiff offered the following evidence to support their claims of jurisdiction over the Defendant:

(1) An email string where the Defendant was a recipient of a message regarding the terms of a lease in California;

(2) An email string where the Defendant was a recipient of a message from the vice-president of a company based in California; and

(3) An email string where a message was sent to the Defendant requesting her advice “on the best approach . . . on a deal structure” with another company whose location was not stated.

Pelowski , at *22.

General Jurisdiction Requirements

A Defendant must have sufficient contacts with a forum state to establish personal jurisdiction of an out-of-state Defendant not physically in the forum state. These contacts include such communications as mail, telephone and electronic communications.  Pelowski , at *23. 

As the Supreme Court explained in Burger King v. Rudzewicz, “”it is an inescapable fact of modern commercial life that a substantial amount of business is transacted solely by mail and wire communications across state lines, thus obviating the need for physical presence within a State in which business is conducted.” Pelowski , at *23, citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 476.

Holding on General Jurisdiction

The Court held that the email evidence did not establish that the Defendant made contact with people in California (two of the email messages were sent to her and she forwarded two of them on to others who were based in New York).  Pelowski , at *24-25.  There was also no evidence she ever made contact with the vice president of a California company after getting an email from him.  Pelowski , at *25.  The Court stated even if the Defendant had the one contact it alone would not have proven she had “communicated regularly with persons in California via email.”  Pelowski , at *25.

The Court found the Defendant did not have sufficient minimum contacts with California to establish general jurisdiction over her. The email messages and other contacts were not “so wide-ranging that they take the place of physical presence in the forum as a basis for jurisdiction.” Pelowski , at *27-28, citations omitted. 

Resolution of Specific Jurisdiction

Specific jurisdiction exists where there is expressly aimed conduct at a forum state. Pelowski , at *35-36.

The Court’s analysis of Specific Jurisdiction was more detailed, but reached the same conclusion:  There was no evidence that the recipients of the Defendant’s messages were in fact located in California or that the Defendant knew they were located in California.  Pelowski , at *33.  In fact, two of the recipients were located in New York.  Id.

The Court held the vague emails were not sufficient to show directed conduct at the state of California.  Pelowski , at *34-35. Moreover, one email to someone in New York that the Defendant would contact someone in California was not evidence there were “continuing relationships and obligations with citizens of [California].” Pelowski , at *36. 

Bow Tie Thoughts

Personal Jurisdiction Redux

Courts will continue to “drive through” Burger King and the personal jurisdiction cases from the last 150 years with the explosion of iPhones, iPads, BlackBerries, Social Networking sites and whatever else is about to hit the market better connecting people. 

Consider this…

Can being “Friends” with someone on Facebook who lives in a different state be enough to establish jurisidiction in their state if there is a dispute? 

Can venue be established by text messages? 

These issues might just be Civil Procedure exam questions, but they will one day be litigated. 

e-Discovery is the Practice of Law

Understanding e-Discovery is now a requirement to practice law.

The substantive elents of electronic discovery are more than just the form of production, data reduction and document review.  Attorneys may find themselves running searches in a litigation support review application for smoking gun emails to establish minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction.   

We are taught in law school to analyze facts and apply them to the law.  Analyzing “The Facts” requires knowing what “The Facts” are. Today’s “Facts” are contained in email messages, Word documents, Excel files, social networking sites and text messages. 

In the above case, “the Facts” were email messages to show sufficient minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction.  In your case it might be an anticipatory breach of contract or insider trading.  Regardless, you need to be aware that traditional principles of law and electronic discovery go hand in hand.

5150 Texting, Drinking & Guns Don’t Match

A man was prohibited from owning fire arms and appealed the decision.  The road leading up to the gun ban started on November 2, 2008…after fighting and texting with his girlfriend.  People v. Akers, 2010 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 102 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. Jan. 7, 2010).

The Petitioner, while drinking and having a history of bipolar disorder, sent his girlfriend text messages where he threatened to kill himself. 

The girlfriend called the police after getting the text messages.  Akers, at *1.

The Police found the Petitioner walking the streets very late at night with a loaded .40-caliber handgun.  Akers, at *1-2. 

The Petitioner was held over night in a  psychiatric hospital pursuant to the California “5150” statute, which allows the police to take someone into custody who is a danger to himself or others for up to 72 hours at a state approved mental hospital.  Akers, at *2. (For the 1980s music fans, the statute inspired the title to the first Van Halen album with Sammy Hagar).

The police confiscated the Petitioner’s handgun…along with three other guns in his apartment. 

Johnny Get Your Guns

The Petitioner moved the court to return his guns, six weeks after being detained, claiming he was on his bipolar medication and his text messages were an “error of judgment” to get attention from his girlfriend.  Akers, at *4. 

The Trial Court did not agree.  The Trial Court found the petition to return the Moving Party’s guns, being only weeks after the 5150 texting episode, as being premature to determine if it was safe for him to have four guns.  Akers, at *5. 

The Court of Appeals upheld the Trial Court’s findings.  The Court of Appeals found that just not enough time had passed since the  Petitioner’s texts threatening suicide, him walking the streets armed with a load gun while intoxicated and the ending of his stressful relationship.  Akers, at *6-8. 

To put it bluntly, six weeks was not enough time to give him back four guns.

Bow Tie Thoughts

The key evidence alerting the Petitioner’s former girlfriend and police that the Petitioner was possibly a danger to himself were his text messages.  While the opinion is silent on how the text messages were collected, it most likely was with a device seizure tool or produced by the cell phone provider. 

More importantly, the Court of Appeals did not simply refer to the text messages as text messages, but as “communications.”  Akers, at *7.  Seeing a Court recognize the data not merely as electronically stored information but as a communication continues the judicial recognition of our society’s digital evolution.

Load Files and Then Some…

Special Guest Blogger Pete Coons, VP of D4.

This is part two of a discussion that attempts to explain some of the often used and often misunderstood eDiscovery terms.

Last week I discussed DeNIST’ing and now we will tackle “Load Files”.  I am also going to squeeze in “Processing”.

Load Files

The Sedona Conference Glossary (great reference document) defines a Load File as:

“Load file:  A file that relates to a set of scanned images or electronically processed files, and indicates where individual pages or files belong together as documents, to include attachments, and where each document begins and ends. A load file may also contain data relevant to the individual documents, such as metadata, coded data, text, and the like. Load files must be obtained and provided in prearranged formats to ensure transfer of accurate and usable images and data.”

That pretty much covers it.  Now let’s take a step back and attempt to break down exactly where a Load File fits into a typical eDiscovery process.

Let’s say Company XYZ is being sued by a former employee for discrimination.  Company XYZ must now identify and preserve documents that may be relevant to the claim.   Data is identified and collected by a qualified individual within the organization or by a third party eDiscovery/Forensic service provider.  Typically, the collected data is then processed (another confusing term) so it can be placed into a database for review and eventual production to the opposing party. 

Processing

The Sedona Conference Glossary defines Processing as:

“Image Processing: To capture an image or representation, usually from electronic data in native format, enter it in a computer system and process and manipulate it.”

Processing data usually involves ingesting the file or e-mail into eDiscovery software.  The software then catalogs the file and extracts all available text.  This text is usually placed into a separate text file and it’s associated with the native file or e-mail.  The processing process also extracts various metadata elements from the file and stores that information in a database. 

Let’s take a Word Document that contains the text “Hello World”.  After ingesting into the eDiscovery software a record is created in the database.  That record will contain metadata elements about the file such as: Author, Date Created, Date Modified, and Date Last Printed. 

As stated previously, the software will also create and store an accompanying text file that will have the text “Hello World” in addition to saving the original native file. 

We know that no case involves just one document so let’s pretend we have 10,000 Word documents and 10,000 e-mails.  It really doesn’t matter because the process is basically the same.  

This is a very simple explanation of the processing process and there are other steps that occur, like indexing or tiffing (imaging), but for all intents and purposes our data is now processed and it can now be prepared to be loaded into a review database.  This is where the Load File comes into play.

We have to get the data OUT so we can put it back IN somewhere.

Load files are usually simple text files (some are a bit more complex).  Meaning they can be opened and viewed with Notepad or WordPad in Windows.  To the uninitiated they may look daunting but after seeing a few they begin to look the same. 

Think of a load file as transport file that is used to facilitate the transfer of data and its associated metadata from one database to another.  We have to LOAD the data into one database from another. The load file contains information about each and every record (file) that was processed. 

That information can include the original file name, the author, date created, beginning ID number, the number of attachment that exist in an e-mail, the parent ID of the attachment, etc.  There are potentially dozens of metadata objects that can be provided in a load file (usually agreed upon by both parties prior to its creation).  The load file will also contain a link to the native file and the accompanying extracted text file. 

The load file along with the native file (or tiff) and its extracted text is the complete package for loading into another database. 

And that’s processing and load files!

The Form of Production Battle of the Bulge: Scanned PDF’s Not a Reasonably Useable Form

“In the court’s experience, scanned PDFs, as opposed to electronically-produced PDFs, are not reasonably usable.”

Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner

In Accessdata Corp. v. Alste Techs. Gmbh, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4566 (D. Utah Jan. 21, 2010), a United States based company that produces forensic software used in e-Discovery, entered into a contract with a German company.  Litigation ensued when a contract dispute broke out and e-Discovery turned into a war. 

The Form of Production Einwand und Angriff

The German Defendants produced electronically stored information as hard copies and converted the scanned images to PDF’s.  The Plaintiffs claimed the production was not reasonably searchable.  Accessdata Corp. at *16.

The Defendants claimed the production was in a “reasonably useable form,” because they printed all the ESI as paper and had it scanned as PDF’s.  Accessdata Corp. at *17.  Adding insult to injury, the Defendant further claimed it would be unduly burdensome and expensive to somehow “fix” the ESI so it was searchable.  Id.

The Plaintiff, perhaps feeling a little like General Patton, cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule rule 34(b)(2)(E)(ii), which states that electronically stored information should be produced “in a form or forms in which [they are] ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably useable form.” Accessdata Corp. at *17.

e-Discovery Untergang

The Court channeled General Eisenhower in its ruling. 

The Court ruled the Defendant was required to produce its electronically stored information “…in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form.” Accessdata Corp. at *18. citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(ii).

The Court stated the previously produced electronically stored information was ordinarily maintained in an electronic format.  Accessdata Corp. at *18.  Converting ESI to paper and then scanning to PDF’s destroys searchable features of the inherently searchable electronically stored information. 

The Court noted that the option to produce in a “reasonably useable form” does not give a party free rein to destroy the searchable functions of the e-Discovery.  Accessdata Corp. at *18.   If ESI is ordinarily maintained in a searchable form, the information “should not be produced in a form that removes or significantly degrades this feature.” Accessdata Corp. at *18, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b) Advisory Comm. Notes to 2006 Amendment.

As the Court concluded, “In the court’s experience, scanned PDFs, as opposed to electronically-produced PDFs, are not reasonably usable.” Accessdata Corp. at *18-19.

The Defendant was thusly ordered to re-produce electronically stored information in native file format or an electronically-generated PDF format.  Accessdata Corp. at *19.

Bow Tie Thoughts

Producing electronically stored information as scanned paper in PDF format is about as defensible as the Maginot Line (especially when your opponent makes electronic evidence software).  Parties are ill-served by playing such discovery games, unless they want to be on the losing end of a motion to compel that reads like the Treaty of Versailles.

Tweeting Contempt: Trademark Infringement on Twitter

The Plaintiff, an established 15-year-old moving company, brought a lawsuit against the Defendant for trademark violations, libel, and other unfair competition causes of action.  Tdc Int’l Corp. v. Burnham, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4646 ( E.D. Mich. Jan. 21, 2010).

A settlement agreement was entered (after a default) requiring the Defendant to cease using the Plaintiff’s mark, including one of the Defendant’s domain names and other restrictions.  Id.

The Defendant was also required to donate money to a junior sailing program.  The settlement was codified as a court order.  Id.

None of that happened according to the agreement and order.  The Plaintiff brought a motion enforce judgment and an order to show cause for contempt. 

The Court found that the “most troubling” evidence of the Defendant’s contempt was the Defendant’s EXACT usage of the Plaintiff’s trademark on Twitter.  Tdc Int’l Corp., at *7. 

The Court’s findings included evidence from the Twitter profile, with the Plaintiff’s mark, that listed the Defendant’s domain name. Tdc Int’l Corp., at *7-8. 

The Court additionally relied on evidence from the Defendant’s Yelp.com and Squidoo.com profiles in establishing the Defendant’s contemptuous conduct.  Tdc Int’l Corp., at *7.

The evidence of contempt even included online testimonials on the Defendant’s services, including one posting made the day before the Plaintiff filed their motion.  Tdc Int’l Corp., at *8.

The Court ReTweeted the Plaintiff’s view of contempt and ordered the Defendant to appear in person to explain why he should not be held in contempt for violating the Settlement Agreement and Consent Judgment.  Tdc Int’l Corp., at *9. 

Bow Tie Thoughts

This case highlights the ease with which someone can engage in Trademark infringement on Twitter.  More importantly, it illustrates how savvy Courts are becoming with social media litigation.

Social Networking & Blogging Sneaks into a Supreme Court Opinion

The epic United States Supreme Court opinion on campaign finance reform sneaked in a passage on social networking and Free Speech.  The opinion is over 100 pages long, with Concurring and Dissenting opinions, so this is by no means a comprehensive review of Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion. 

Justice Kennedy stated:

Rapid changes in technology — and the creative dynamic inherent in the concept of free expression — counsel against upholding a law that restricts political speech in certain media or by certain speakers. See Part II-C, supra. Today, 30-second television ads may be the most effective way to convey a political message. See McConnell, supra, at 261 (opinion of SCALIA, J.). Soon, however, it may be that Internet sources, such as blogs and social networking Web sites, will provide citizens with significant information about political candidates and issues. Yet, § 441b would seem to ban a blog post expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate if that blog were created with corporate funds. See 2 U.S.C. § 441b(a); MCFL, supra, at 249. The First Amendment does not permit Congress to make these categorical distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech.

Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 766, at *91-92 (U.S. Jan. 21, 2010).

The United States Supreme Court went on to overrule the law, stating, “…the Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity. No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.” Citizens United, at *93.

The extended passage is purely dicta in the Majority Opinion, but it highlights the fact the United States Supreme Court is keenly aware of social networking websites.  It is a matter of time before there is an opinion where a reference to Twitter or Facebook is part of a controlling opinion and not merely dicta.

To DeNIST or Not to DeNIST, that is the question!

Speical Guest Blogger Pete Coons, D4, VP

This is the first of a multipart series that will help define some of the nifty, and often made up terms, in the eDiscovery lexicon.

“Can’t you just DeNIST the data and get rid of all the junk files…?”  This is a question I am often asked.  It usually comes after an individual attends an eDiscovery conference and the magical phrase “DeNIST” was uttered at some point.    The individual is led to believe, or rather wants to believe, it’s a supernatural process that separates all the wheat from the chaff.  Well, that’s only half the story…

Before we can define DeNIST we need to define NIST.  NIST is an acronym for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. (www.nist.gov).  A direct quote from the website:

“Founded in 1901, NIST is a non-regulatory federal agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce.  NIST’s mission is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life.” 

Further, NIST has a sub-project called the NSRL or National Software Reference Library.  An excerpt from the website www.nsrl.nist.gov  is below:

“The National Software Reference Library (NSRL) is designed to collect software from various sources and incorporate file profiles computed from this software into a Reference Data Set (RDS) of information. The RDS can be used by law enforcement, government, and industry organizations to review files on a computer by matching file profiles in the RDS. This will help alleviate much of the effort involved in determining which files are important as evidence on computers or file systems that have been seized as part of criminal investigations.

The RDS is a collection of digital signatures of known, traceable software applications.”

A digital signature is akin to a digital fingerprint.  It is also referred to as a hash value. 

In theory, every file has a unique hash value.  If two files have the same hash value they are considered duplicates. 

It also may help to know that most software applications comprise dozens if not hundreds of files. 

When Microsoft Word is installed on a laptop there are hundreds of standard files copied to a computer’s hard drive.   All of these standard install files are the same (identical hash value) no matter what computer they reside on.  

Now imagine a typical computer with dozens of software applications.  A typical computer hard drive contains tens of thousands of files.  As you can well imagine the vast majority are not user generated and hold little to no evidentiary value for litigation purposes.

The NIST list, as it has been unofficially dubbed in the eDiscovery community, contains over 28 Million file signatures. 

It is used regularly by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to identify files with no evidentiary value.  Best of all, the list is free. 

Many eDiscovery companies take advantage of this free list and incorporate it into their software. 

The list, along with the file signatures, can be stored in a database and used to compare file signatures of data collected (hard drive, server share, etc.) for discovery purposes. 

Any file that has a signature that matches one in the NIST list is DeNISTed (removed) from the collection and it does not move further down the eDiscovery processing chain.   

And there you have it, that’s what DeNISTing means.

Here’s the rub; the NIST list does not contain every single “junk” or system file in the known Universe. 

Many attorneys and legal review teams expect the DeNIST process to get rid of every EXE and DLL on a hard drive or data collection.  It doesn’t work that way.  That’s the left over chaff… 

So while DeNISTing is a definite time and money saver and an important part of the eDiscovery process, it’s not the “one” process that will knock out all the junk. 

Next week we will discuss “Load Files”…

Peter Coons is Vice President at D4 LLC and has over 15 years of experience in litigation and electronic discovery services.

Classy Text Messages from a Collection Agency

In Hartung v J.D. Byrider of Chandler, et al., 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 54415 (2009), the Plaintiff got behind on car payments.  As one would expect, a collection agency became involved. 

As one would not expect, the representative from the Collection agency called T-Mobile, claimed he was Plaintiff’s father and asked to be added to her cell phone account.

The Collection agency representative then began making harassing phone calls and texting to Plaintiff. A total of 17 text messages over 5 days that were sent, that the Court called angry, menacing & intimidating. The representative also claimed he was a lawyer and would have her arrested. 

Below are selected text messages from the Collection Agency Representative:

“[Y]ou have various bills going to crows landing. I can tell by talking to you you’re smarter than this. So [sic] I guess we’ll see.”

“you [sic] might want to tell your amigo Rudy to get a job, I just faxed maricopa [sic] paperwork to stanislaus sheriff department [sic].”

“Calling [sic] me will not help you. Park the car [sic] tell Rudy to warm up the Impala.“

“[I]t upsets me a smart girl like you is iwith [sic] a guy is [sic] doing nothing at 11:30 a.m. but when he doesn’t have a free car he’ll leave.”

“[M]ake sure and have the [sic] deputy call me, nad [sic] show him your DL too.”

“[T]he guy in [G]eorgia has been removed from the case. Now its my entire staff versus you.”

As for how the Court handled the disposition of the case, watch the summary from “Textual Relations,” presented at the Paraben Forensic Innovation Conference.