All posts by Perry L. Segal

Two-Face(d)book: Who Owns your Content ‘Today’?

An globe of the Earth sits perilously on a steel-jaw trapThe latest is a flap between Facebook and their users over who owns the content of their pages.  Facebook quietly modified their Terms of Use policy to state that they own your content.  That didn’t go over well with their user community.  Thousands closed their accounts and others actually prepared to sue over the change.  Then, shock-of-all-shocks, Facebook backed down.

It seems to me this is standard practice lately; quietly modify agreements, then wait to see if anyone notices.  People noticed.  But before you crack open the champagne, two important things to consider:

  • Facebook left wiggle room as to what they’ll do in the future.  To quote from the WSJ article above:

“Because of the feedback we received, we have decided to return to our previous Terms of Use while we resolve the issues that people have
raised
.”  (Italics added)

Resolve ‘what’, exactly?

  • This issue is entirely beside the point because to me, it isn’t about who owns the content, it’s about who has access to it.

Every day that your information is up on Facebook, it may be available to everybody, everywhere.  Maybe you should swap that champagne for tranquilizers…

e-Discovery California: AB 5: A Little Legislative Love

j0308987If you happen to catch the news, you’ll see photos of California state legislators sleeping in all-night session this past weekend as they tried to hammer out a budget agreement to stave off insolvency.

Nevertheless, they found time on Valentine’s Day to re-refer AB 5 – the California Electronic Discovery Act – to the committee on the judiciary.

Forgive me if you think this information isn’t worthy of a post.  It seems to me that my job is to bring you whatever information is available, then let you decide whether it has merit.

e(rotic)-Discovery Insights: Thoughts on Valentine’s Day ‘Sexting’

Schleprockj0438796…something to think about while you plunk down twice the usual price for dinner and a dozen red roses…

Although I run the risk of being designated the official ‘Schleprock’ of Valentine’s Day, this seems like the perfect time to remind you that those steamy ‘sexts‘ you intend to exchange with your wife/husband, or girlfriend/boyfriend, or significant other – or your wife/husband, your girlfriend/boyfriend and your significant other – may become public (I admit, that did kinda make me sound like a wet blanket…it’s the heavy burden I carry trying to keep you out of trouble).

And please…get a room!

Judges to e-Discovery Attorneys: ‘Too Bad, So Sad!’

j0386224“Courts Unsympathetic to Electronic Discovery Ignorance or
Misconduct”.

Those were the words glaring back at me from my January 2009 issue of Kroll Ontrack’s Case Law Update and E-Discovery News Practice Points section.  It goes on to state (emphasis added):

“This past year highlighted a major trend in cases concerning issues involving the exchange of electronically stored data: an increase in judicial unwillingness to display compassion or tolerance for negligent e-discovery blunders. Courts are increasingly imposing sanctions for discovery misconduct and for the failure to properly preserve and produce electronically stored information (ESI). In fact, of the approximately 138 reported electronic discovery opinions issued from Jan. 1, 2008 to Oct. 31, 2008, over half addressed court-ordered sanctions, data production, and preservation and spoliation issues. A rough breakdown of the issues involved in these cases is as follows:

–  25% of cases
addressed sanctions.

–  20% of cases
addressed various production considerations.

–  13% of cases
addressed preservation and spoliation issues.

–  12% of cases
addressed computer forensics protocols and experts.

–  11% of cases
addressed discoverability and admissibility issues.

–  7% of cases
addressed privilege considerations and waivers.

–  7% of cases
addressed various procedural issues.

–  6% of cases
addressed cost considerations.”

Roughly one in four cases involving e-discovery resulted in sanctions?  Stunning!  I’m going to assume that my readers don’t intend to commit misconduct, so let’s talk about ‘ignorance’.

j0386152Based on the conversations I’ve been having lately, a lot of attorneys don’t even know there’s a standard, yet.  Well, if you don’t, here it is:

Courts presume (expect) a level of competence in e-discovery.  Great.  How do they determine the level?  Unfortunately, that’s the slippery slope.  It’s being determined every day in courts throughout the nation.  The Court expects that if you don’t possess the knowledge, you’ll find someone who does, and if you fail to do so, you’re going to be liable.

Cases?  Where do I start?  “…willfulness is relevant to the severity of
sanctions imposed, but not to whether sanctions should be imposed.” (Italics added)  Barnett v. Simmons, 2008 WL 4853360 (Okla. Nov. 10, 2008)

This goes to the heart of why I created e-Discovery Insights in the first place.  Any reasonable person understands that when you have new rules, there’ll always be latitude for a time until everyone comes up to speed.  That time is over.  Long over.  The Judiciary is telling us that they’ve had enough and are starting to lose patience with parties who flout the rules, and – like it or not – in many cases they’re completely justified.

You do not want to be in front of a judge who has lost their patience.  Been there, done that.  We’ve already seen the monetary sanctions, but one of these days, an attorney is going to either be suspended or disbarred over an e-discovery foul-up.  Don’t be the first.

Tips & Tricks: e-Discovery Calculator

Adding machineThis is cool!  That’s about all I can say about the JurInnov Electronic Discovery Calculator.  Obviously, little explanation is necessary as to what it does.

To me, whether or not you may rely on this tool to accurately estimate costs isn’t really the point.  Anything that gets the ‘conversation’ started – or fills in elements you may not have considered – is a good thing.

I expect that some of you who try this calculator, after
you see some of the fields, will say, “I didn’t know that was part of
e-Discovery!”.  If it accomplishes that goal alone, it’s worth a look.

e-Discovery LOL: Water is the Common Theme

hopscotch game at a school, white board on blue

…a little humor for a Monday morning…

The following two quips are from people commenting to me about my blog that left me thinking, “I wish I’d thought of that!”

Regarding the practise of e-discovery itself:

“It’s the wave of the present.”

Regarding my recent post about Twitter, MySpace and Facebook:

“Tweeting on Twitter is like taking a shower on Main Street.”

Have a great week!

Tips & Tricks: Internet Archive: Wayback Machine

I’m starting a new ‘Tips & Tricks‘ category today.
Whenever I come across a resource that I think will be useful to my readers, I’ll post it.

WabacFirst things first…many of you will recognize Mr. Peabody and His Boy Sherman, who were part of the Rocky & Bullwinkle Show.

Mr. Peabody was the purveyor of the original ‘WABAC Machine’, which made it possible for he and Sherman to go back in time and visit the past.

Now, Internet Archive has the ‘Wayback Machine‘, which makes it possible for us to do the same.

To put it in their own words, the Wayback Machine allows us to “browse through 85 billion web pages archived from 1996 to a few months ago”.

This has enormous value to those of us who do forensic e-discovery.  Give it a try and I think you’ll agree.

Quite!

Anticipation…Anticipa-a-tion…

“Imagination is more important than knowledge.”
— Albert Einstein

HamburgersAnticipation.  Carly Simon sang the song.  Heinz Ketchup made it famous.  It’s the most important thing you need to develop.

What do I mean by that?  Success in e-discovery relies on that old Boy Scout motto – be prepared.  It’s easy to do it when you know what to be prepared about; but what about when you don’t?

Work with me here…this will all make sense, I promise…

In law, you succeed or fail not only based on your ability to build a strong case for your client, but also by anticipating the moves your adversaries will make, preferably before they make them (hence the ‘anticipation’ part), then responding accordingly.

In IT, you succeed or fail not only based on your ability
to manage current technology, but also by anticipating the future direction and growth of that technology – and how to protect against a range of caveats from minor outages to catastrophic failures.

None of these processes is easy to do.  It’s not something that can be taught – but it is something that can be developed with preparation, practice and experience.

Einstein had it right, but I would temper his words a bit.  Like it or not, where e-discovery is concerned, there’s no substitute for knowledge.  If you don’t know the law, lead cases and/or the technology – and how they work together – you’re not going to succeed.  It’s as simple as that.

How will you make an educated guess without the education?

j0387766One of the most common sayings in law is, “Never ask a question to which you do not already know the answer”.  You’ve got to admit, that mantra cuts down on surprises.  Technically, the context would be a deposition or trial, but why can’t we apply it to e-discovery as well?  Let’s ask ourselves the questions instead of our ‘opponent’.

If I’m a lawyer, suppose instead of waiting for my technology support to ask me questions, I asked myself, “What do the technology experts need to know about e-discovery law – and my requirements – that they don’t already know?”

If I’m a technology expert, suppose instead of waiting for the attorneys to ask me questions, I asked myself, “What do the attorneys need to know about our ESI that would help them understand how our data is compiled and how it may be reproduced?”

Do you think maybe you’d show up for the preliminary – and subsequent – meetings better prepared?  Would you perhaps write a white paper to hand out at the meeting?  Would there be less likelihood that crucial information exchange would slip through the cracks?  Would each side be able to retire to their prospective ‘corners’ and have a better idea of what would be coming down the pike?

And the most important question; would the template apply elsewhere and therefore be re-usable?

Example.  If I manage data systems and someone asks for ESI, I’d simply think about producing it for them.  But what if the legal department supplied me with a summary of Zubulake I-V?  Then, litigation or not, my entire thought process would change.  I’d be thinking about accessibility, I’d be thinking about monitoring cost requirements; plus other things I wouldn’t likely have considered before, unless they were requested of me in advance.  And, I’d be doing all of it simultaneously.

I’d be anticipating instead of reacting, cutting both time and costs.  Imagine that!

Obama’s CrackBerry Addiction: e-Discovery Intervention?

To My Readers:  No matter what your political leanings may be, today is an example of what’s great about the United States; the peaceful, seamless transfer of power.  So, in honor of the inauguration, I felt it appropriate to jot down some observances I’ve made lately regarding the Presidency, e-evidence, privilege…and why I think they’ve got it all wrong…

Businessman Using a Palm Pilot

e-Discovery Insights:  Keep this on the down-low.  I have it on good authority that Barack Obama’s going to be in the nation’s capitol on Tuesday.  Let’s all plan to get him in a room and confront him on this whole ‘BlackBerry‘ problem.

Readers:  What’s the big deal?  He’s a thoughtful guy.  He’s responsible.  He can control himself.  Why are all of these lawyers making such a big deal out of this?

e-Discovery Insights:  Because PDAs are subject to subpoena, that’s why.

What’s the difference between your PDA and Obama’s BlackBerry?  Absolutely nothing.  You have the same exposure he does!  At least he might be able to invoke Executive Privilege in certain circumstances; meanwhile, you’ll be hoping for ‘run-of-the-mill’ privilege.

Now comes word the White House staff has been told they may not use instant messaging (IM).  Check out this quote – contained in the above link – from Reginald Brown, a former associate White House counsel for President Bush:

“These lawyers — [incoming White House Counsel] Greg Craig in
particular — come out of a law firm environment and knows how onerous
e-discovery has been for clients
,” (italics/bold added).

I’m feeling sooooooooo cool with my career choices right now…

j0438808Seriously though, I’m actually disappointed.  In my opinion, this is exactly the opposite of the approach I would like to see them take.  Why?

Because technology is HERE, it’s not going away, and it’s time we started accepting that fact and adapting to it rather than restricting it.  This administration may prevent their aides from using IM, but someday, it’s going to be used.  Wouldn’t the better way be to educate the staff, put some trust in them, implement policy and let them use the tools that exist solely to make communication easier?

Preposterous?  Inconceivable?  Impossible?  Unattainable?

I’ll ponder that while I watch the swearing-in of the first African-American President of the United States of America.