Hands-on eDiscovery: California Seminar on Responding to Discovery Requests

I had the good fortune to organize a seminar on responding to electronic discovery requests for the Santa Clara County Bar Association’s Civil Practice Committee on February 27, 2013. However, this seminar was different from other eDiscovery CLE’s, because the attendees spent a full hour conducting searches for responsive ESI to requests for production. The speakers included Santa Clara County Judge Socrates Manoukian (currently assigned to civil discovery), Tyler Atkinson of McManis Faulkner and Charlie Kaupp of Digital Statra.

Our seminar first focused for one hour on the California eDiscovery Act, California Rules of Court on eDiscovery, search and strategies for conducting document review.

Unfortunately, there is very little published California case law on eDiscovery. We have two main cases to explore, specifically Toshiba America Electronics Components v. Superior Court, 124 Cal. App. 4th 762, 764 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. 2004), which addressed mandatory cost-shifting for translation of back-up tapes into a reasonably useable form and Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc., 174 Cal. App. 4th 967 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2009), which does not address the eDiscovery Act, but unstated litigation hold issues and eDiscovery abuses resulting in an answer stricken and a default judgment entered.

However, at least one unpublished California opinion hints Courts want more than mere speculation that a discovery production was inadequate:

Following remand, Sukumar asked Nautilus to disclose its e-mails and all other electronically stored information concerning the Med-Fit order. After Nautilus responded that it had already disclosed all relevant documents, Sukumar filed a motion to compel. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that Nautilus’s response was sufficient and Sukumar “has offered only speculation that additional documents exist.” On appeal, Sukumar asserts that the trial court’s order denying his motion to compel should be reversed.

Sukumar v. Med-Fit Sys., 2012 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3309 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. May 2, 2012).

The appeal in the above case was denied, however it a glimpse at how California courts are handling production issues. Unfortunately, California discovery orders are not published and unpublished cases cannot be cited for any precedential value.  We literally have to watch for tentative orders to see how these issues are being presented to the courts to determine any trends. 

The second hour required attendees to work as teams in a review database finding responsive discovery from the ENRON dataset, which was provided by Digital Strata in their InControl review platform.

Searching for responsive electronically stored information is a frequent topic at continuing legal education seminars, but infrequently a hands-on experience for attorneys. Our attendees were very engaged and diligently worked through the different hypothetical discovery requests.

We gave several case law examples of “bad” discovery requests, such as the following:

Produce any and all information related to email, including messages, from 1997 to 2006. 

Using the above as a reminder that production requests must be reasonably tailored to secure the production of documents relevant to the issues in a Federal lawsuit (See,Thompson v. Jiffy Lube Int’l, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27837 (D. Kan. May 1, 2006)), we developed Requests for Production such as the following for the attendees:

Request for Production 3:

Any and all electronically stored information pertaining to the $56 million loss on Catalytica Energy Systems, sent between 12/01/2000 to 12/31/2001, in native file format, with the following extracted text or metadata:

From, To, CC, BCC, Date, Time, Subject, Document Author, Document Name, Custodian, Control Number, Folder (System File Pathway).

Request for Production 4: 

Any and all electronically stored information authored by Will Nolen, Sally Beck, Susie Ayala, Shona Wilson or David Port relating to project “jedi” sent between 1/01/2000 to 12/31/2001, in native file format with extracted text, substantive and embedded metadata.

One hour of conducting searches is only the beginning of how to respond to discovery requests. However, it is a very good first hour for attorneys who want to learn how to effectively search and respond to discovery requests.

I would like to put together a future program focused on conducting privilege review, redaction, production and privilege log creation at a future seminar. I also think attorneys would benefit from a half to full day conference focusing on practical eDiscovery, such as issuing litigation holds, tracking hold compliance, document review strategies, developing search strings, testing different search tools (i.e., concept, complex Boolean, predictive coding), and production.

Conducting discovery is a skill. Like any skill, it is best to learn it by actually doing it. I believe our profession needs more hands-on eDiscovery events for attorneys to build their comfort level and confidence to competently represent their clients.

California Subpoenas: Invitation to Comment on ESI

California’s Electronic Discovery Act changed the Rules of Civil Procedure in 2009 to include electronically stored information, in addition to provisions on the forms of production and issues with undue burden.

The California Judicial Council has an invitation to comment on a proposed modification to the subpoena forms to include electronically stored information, so the forms reflect the changes in the Code of Civil Procedure.

To see the proposal and draft subpoena forms, click here. Comments are due by June 20, 2011 and the proposed effective date is January 1, 2012.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.8 governs requests to third-parties.  The proposed Civil Subpoena (Duces Tecum) forms contain the following updated language:

The witness has possession or control of the documents, electronically stored information, or other things listed below, and shall produce them at the time and place specified in the Civil Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Records at Trial or Hearing on page one of this form (specify the exact documents or other things to be produced; if electronically stored information is demanded, the form or forms in which each type of information is to be produced may be specified):

A total of four forms are being updated to include electronically stored information, including the Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records; Subpoena for Production of Business Records in Action Pending Outside California; and Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Records in Action Pending Outside of California.

I think these modifications are a very good proactive change to reflect the Electronic Discovery Act.  More importantly, the proposed changes reflect the real world that business records are most likely going to be electronically stored information. Simply put, the California forms need to reflect reality. However, I would make one addition to the language so the form states the following: “…if electronically stored information is demanded, the form or forms in which each type of information and associated metadata that is to be produced may be specified.”

My hope is by adding metadata to the form it will limit problems with third-party demands that state the form of production, but are silent on metadata. Whether a requesting party wants embedded metadata or specific email fields for their review platform, those issues should be considered long before a witness appears pursuant to a civil subpoena.

Driving the Snakes from e-Discovery Seminar

Driving the Snakes from e-Discovery, the first seminar by the Santa Clara County Bar Association e-Discovery Task, will be on March 17, 2011 in San Jose, California.  This two-hour seminar is the first of a four-part series on e-Discovery in Silicon Valley. To register for the panel, please click here. 

“Driving the Snakes from e-Discovery” is an introduction to electronic discovery. It will address practical solutions for understanding and competently handling e-Discovery issues, whether you are working with a small client or a large enterprise and will include an overview of e-Discovery terminology; understanding computers and sources of electronic data; collection methodologies for large and small clients; litigation hold notices and strategies; and best practices for complying with the California Electronic Discovery Act and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

I am very proud to be on this panel with an all-star panel, including:

Judge Socrates Manoukian, Santa Clara County Superior Court

William Kellermann, Esq., Director of e-Discovery at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

Dianne Sweeny, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

Kate Wilson, Esq., Berliner Cohen

Jon Rowe, PinPoint Labs

If you are in Silicon Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area, we hope you can join us on March 17 for Driving the Snakes from e-Discovery.  Our panel is also sponsoring O’Doul’s Non-Alcoholic Beer in honor of St. Patrick’s Day.

One Year Later: A California Metadata Case

June 29, 2010 marks the first anniversary of the California Electronic Discovery Act.  It is unlikely there are any decorations at state courthouses celebrating the date. 

There are many California judges, attorneys and bar associations preparing educational events on e-Discovery.  However, there are few cases directly addressing electronically stored information and the one year old law.

One of the first (unpublished) metadata cases in California was a criminal prosecution involving photos and assault.  The Court summarized metadata of the photos as “information like date, time and exposure that is recorded when an image is captured.” See, People v. Wood, 2009 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 9959, 11-12 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. Dec. 17, 2009).

A photographer expert testified on the metadata from over 4,000 photos, creating a chronology of when each photo was taken down to the minute.  The expert also explained on cross-examination how metadata can be altered.  Wood, at *11-12. 

This was one of the first cases addressing metadata after the enactment of the California Electronic Discovery Act…yet had nothing to do with the Act.  This was a criminal case. 

Judges, special masters and discovery referrers will have to address electronically stored information.  It is only a matter of time before a California judge finds herself with a dispute over the form of production and associated metadata fields.  When that day comes, the entire state should listen closely.

Things to Think About for Your Rule 26(f) Meeting…

In a case management hearing, the parties were directed to consider the following electronically stored information (ESI) issues at their Rule 26(f) conference for drafting their proposed Rule 16(b) order:

With regard to any discoverable electronically stored information (ESI) the parties may have, the Court further requests that the joint discovery plan also include any issues and concerns related to the following:

a. What ESI is available and where it resides;

b. Ease/difficulty and cost of producing information;

c. Schedule and format of production;

d. Preservation of information; and

e. Agreements about privilege or work-product protection.

 Wallace v. Tindall, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89669, *2-3 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 29, 2009).

It is good to see Courts ordering parties to consider issues such as whether ESI is reasonably accessible, the form of production, preservation and privilege concerns in case management orders.  While the above order is actually brief on the e-Discovery issues, consider the new California Rules of Court section 3.724(8), which require the following topics to be discussed at the “Meet & “Confer:”

Any issues relating to the discovery of electronically stored information, including:

(A) Issues relating to the preservation of discoverable electronically stored information;

(B) The form or forms in which information will be produced;

(C) The time within which the information will be produced;

(D) The scope of discovery of the information;

(E) The method for asserting or preserving claims of privilege or attorney work product, including whether such claims may be asserted after production;

(F) The method for asserting or preserving the confidentiality, privacy, trade secrets, or proprietary status of information relating to a party or person not a party to the civil proceedings;

(G) How the cost of production of electronically stored information is to be allocated among the parties;

(H) Any other issues relating to the discovery of electronically stored information, including developing a proposed plan relating to the discovery of the information;

Case management orders such as the above and the new California Rules of Court acknowledge the reality that every case will have electronically stored information of some kind.  Lawyers must deal with these realities early and not wait for them to become problems.

Get Out the Check Book for Translating ESI into a Reasonably Usable Form in California

California Code of Civil Procedure 2031.280(e) states, in relevant part:

If necessary, the responding party at the reasonable expense of the demanding party shall, through detection devices, translate any data compilations included in the demand into reasonably usable form.

California Code of Civil Procedure 2031.280(e) might give anyone used to litigation in Federal Court pause.  The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have no mention of “at the reasonable expense of the demanding party.” 

Reasonably Usable Form

The Advisory Committee Notes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26, and arguably CCP 2031.280(e), acknowledge that some electronically stored information as it is ordinarily maintained is not in a reasonably usable form, and thus requires translation into a form the requesting party can use.  See, Michael R. Arkfeld, Arkfeld on Electronic Discovery and Evidence, §7.7(F), 7-207-208.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34(a)(1)(A) defines electronically stored information as “data compilations–stored in any medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, after translation by the responding party into a reasonably usable form.”

Magistrate Judge John Facciola explained Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34(a)(1)(A) in D’Onofrio v. Sfx Sports Group, Inc., 247 F.R.D. 43, 47 (D.D.C. 2008):

In other words, electronic data is subject to discovery if it is stored in a directly obtainable medium. If, however, it is not stored in a directly obtainable medium, a request may be made of the responding party to translate the electronic data into a “reasonably usable form.” Because the step of translating this type of electronic data adds an extra burden on the responding party, the request may only seek for it to be done “if [the translation is] necessary.” It is not the case that this clause requires the responding party to produce data in its original form unless “necessary” to do otherwise.

Traditional Rule for Discovery Costs

The traditional rule is that parties pay for their own discovery productions.  There are of course exceptions to this general rule.  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(b)(2)(C) gives a Federal Court the inherent authority to shift discovery costs to the requesting party or proportionally between the parties.   Additionally, Federal litigants may seek a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(c) if there is undue burden or cost.  See, Arkfeld, §7.4(G), 7-77.

California & Cost Shifting

California provides a different, some might say clearer, others might say horrifying, solution when it comes to translating data compilations into a reasonably usable form and cost shifting:  The law requires mandatory cost shifting.  This requirement existed in the code prior to the Electronic Discovery Act and the major case addressing the issue is Toshiba America Electronics Components v. Superior Court, 124 Cal. App. 4th 762, 764 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. 2004).

In Toshiba, the parties fought over who would pay the cost to restore 800 back-up tapes spanning 8 years into a “reasonably useable form.”  The estimated cost was between $1.5 to $1.9 million. Toshiba, 765-766. 

The Requesting Party argued cost-shifting would be unfair, citing to Federal law and ignoring then California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031(g)(1).  Toshiba, 766. 

The lower court ordered the Producing Party to “produce all nonprivileged e-mails from its backup tapes within 60 days.” Toshiba, 767.

The Court of Appeals in Toshiba found that then California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031(g)(1) had mandatory language requiring cost-shifting.  As the Court of Appeals explained:

By enacting the cost-shifting clause of section 2031(g)(1) our Legislature has identified the expense of translating data compilations into usable form as one that, in the public’s interest, should be placed upon the demanding party. That is, section 2031(g)(1) is a legislatively determined exception to the general rule that the responding party should bear the cost of responding to discovery. When there is no dispute about the application of the statute, the statute automatically shifts the expense of translating a data compilation into usable form to the demanding party. The trial court’s decision, which was based upon the general rule that the responding party bears that expense, was based upon a faulty legal analysis and was, therefore, an abuse of discretion. Toshiba, 772.

California has continued the requirement for mandatory cost shifting for data compilations into a reasonably usable form with California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280(e).  While the provision does not have a built in mechanism to challenge the cost-shifting, a party can seek a protective order if there is undue expense or cost for translating the data into a reasonably usable form. Toshiba, 773.

So, if you are reqesting ESI that requires translation into a reasonably usable form, get the check book ready.