Gibbons Law Alert
It should come as no surprise that litigants continue to ignore such basic discovery obligations as the duty to preserve potentially relevant documents once litigation is reasonably anticipated. A recent case out of the Northern District of New York exemplifies the importance of patience in establishing a record of discovery abuses, including data deletion, before seeking sanctions to address such situations.
Southern District of New York Magistrate Judge Francis has determined that Microsoft must comply with a U.S. Government’s warrant seeking a user’s email content even though the emails are stored in Microsoft’s datacenter in Dublin, Ireland. The decision is likely to get widespread attention and be the subject of future court review, as it expands the reach of a government criminal warrant beyond the borders of the United States to allow for the collection of evidence abroad.
Generally, a confidential email sent to one’s personal attorney is protected under the attorney-client privilege. But what if the communication is sent using a business email account? Will a corporate policy entitling the company to access “all communications” sent on work computers undermine the privilege? Followers of this blog will recall, among other posts, our detailed recap of the extensive discussion of this issue at our Annual E-Discovery Conference in the wake of the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., upholding the privilege where the employee used a company computer to communicate with her attorney via a personal password-protected internet based e-mail account, and sanctioning the employer’s attorneys for failing to turn over the protected communications. Readers may also recall our discussion of US v. Hamilton, where the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that a husband waived the marital communications privilege when he sent messages from his work email account to his wife, but took no steps to protect their sanctity. Since those decisions, courts nationwide have continued to wrestle with these issues. Most recently, a Delaware Court held an employee waived the attorney client privilege where he used his work email account to email his lawyer with knowledge of the company’s policy establishing its right to access all communications on work computers.
Recently, in In re Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 11-2299, a Louisiana federal jury awarded $9 billion in punitive damages against Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. (“Takeda”) and Eli Lilly & Co. (“Lilly”). The verdict was delivered on the heels of Judge Rebecca Doherty’s January opinion, which lambasted Takeda for failing to (1) enforce its own litigation hold and (2) follow its document retention procedures, which led to the destruction of relevant evidence that Judge Doherty found would have likely been beneficial for the plaintiffs’ case.
An opinion from Judge Rebecca Doherty in In re Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 11-2299, provides valuable lessons on the consequences of drafting overly-broad litigation hold notices, as well as the importance of providing evidence from knowledgeable witnesses in defense of document retention procedures.
In 2006, responding to terrorist attacks in London and Madrid, the European Commission impelemented a data retention directive (the “Directive”) seeking to harmonize EU member states’ retention of certain electronic data that is generated or processed by providers of electronic communications services or public communications networks. The Directive requires, among other things, that Internet service providers retain details of network user communications and information necessary to identify particular users for at least six months and, in some cases, up to two years.
Recently, a Florida appellate court held that a former headmaster was not entitled to an $80,000 payment pursuant to a settlement agreement with his former employer, all thanks to his chats with his daughter about the settlement, and her subsequent Facebook post bragging about the settlement. Patrick Snay sued Gulliver Schools, Inc. for age discrimination and retaliation. Gulliver agreed to pay Snay, in part, $80,000 to settle all claims. The parties’ agreement contained a non-disclosure provision requiring the existence and terms of the settlement be kept confidential, and upon breach by Snay or his wife, the disgorgement of the $80,000 payment.
We have been covering a case pending in the Criminal Court of the State of New York in which the State sought discovery and use of a criminal defendant’s tweets for use in his trial. Malcolm Harris was accused of disorderly conduct when he and others allegedly marched on to the Brooklyn Bridge during an Occupy Wall Street protest. For nearly a year, Harris argued in court papers that he was not guilty because the N.Y.P.D. had allegedly led the protestors onto the roadway of the Brooklyn Bridge as the protest swelled.
Litigants who fail to meet e-discovery obligations run the risk not only of being sanctioned, but also of being subject to a court order compelling them to retain an e-discovery vendor. While the use of e-discovery vendors is becoming a common practice, it may add considerable expense to the already costly discovery phase of litigation. Additionally, compelled retention of a vendor may reduce litigants’ control over their own document production.
In 2000, the European Commission and U.S. Department of Commerce developed the so-called “U.S.-E.U. Safe-Harbor Framework” as a way to foster data transfer between the United States and E.U. countries notwithstanding concerns that U.S. privacy laws do not offer the same level of protection as E.U. laws with respect to personally identifiable information. As part of the safe-harbor framework, companies that choose to enter the program must publicly declare compliance with the safe-harbor requirements, which include adherence to seven privacy principles touching on the areas of notice, access, data integrity, individual choice (opt in/out rules), security, third-party transfer, and enforcement. The principle of “enforcement” includes making sure that procedures are in place to verify a company’s adherence to the rules and a sanctions regime sufficient to ensure compliance.