boehning de rico 20071205 ic mtl

1

LES LITIGES INTER-JURIDICTIONNELS ET LA GESTION DES DOCUMENTS ÉLECTRONIQUES

H. Christopher Boehning - Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLPJean-François De Rico – Langlois Kronström Desjardins SENCRL

La gestion stratégique et l’administration de documents électroniques

Institut Canadien

Montréal – 4 et 5 décembre 2007

2

I. La communication de documents électroniques dans le contexte d’un litige inter-juridictionnels– Les règles de procédure applicables– La protection des renseignements personnels– Les Blocking Statutes

II. Les exigences des nouvelles règles de procédure fédérales américaines – La conservation et la préservation des documents– Les obligations en cas de litige

3

I. LA COMMUNICATION DE DOCUMENTS ÉLECTRONIQUES DANS LE CONTEXTE D’UN LITIGE INTER-JURIDICTIONNELS

4

Les règles de procédure du forumvs

Les lois du situs des documents

• L’obligation de communiquer tous les documents pertinents (semblance of relevancy)

• L’obligation de communiquer les documents que la partie entend invoquer

• Les demandes de communication de documents

5

La protection des renseignements personnels– La communication – La conservation

6

La communication

Loi sur la Protection des renseignements personnels et les documents électroniques

7(3) Pour l’application de l’article 4.3 de l’annexe 1 (la règle du consentement) et malgré la note afférente, ne peut communiquer de renseignement personnel à l’insu de l’intéressé et sans son consentement que dans les cas suivants : c) elle est exigée par assignation, mandat ou ordonnance d’un tribunal, d’une personne ou d’un organisme ayant le pouvoir de contraindre à la production de renseignements ou exigée par des règles de procédure se rapportant à la production de documents;

Voir aussi:Loi sur la Protection des renseignements personnels dans le secteur privé,L.R.Q. c. P-39.1, art. 18(6)Mccue c. Younes, 2002 CanLII 30581 (QCCS)BMG Canada Inc. c. John Doe, [2005] 4 C.F. 81

7

La conservation

Le principe 5 énoncé en annexe de la Loi prévoit:

On ne doit conserver les renseignements personnels qu’aussi longtemps que nécessaire pour la réalisation des fins déterminées.

8

Les lois prohibant la communication

Loi sur les dossiers d'entreprises 2. Sous réserve de l'article 3, nul ne peut, à la suite ou en vertu d'une réquisition émanant d'une autorité législative, judiciaire ou administrative extérieure au Québec, transporter ou faire transporter, ou envoyer ou faire envoyer, d'un endroit quelconque au Québec à un endroit situé hors de celui-ci, aucun document ou résumé ou sommaire d'un document relatif à une entreprise.

Walsh c. Gaitan & Cusack, 1993 CanLII 4101 (QC C.A.)Hunt c. T&N plc, [1993] 4 R.C.S. 289.

9

II. LES STRATÉGIES À ADOPTER EN MATIÈRES DE CONSERVATION ET DE COMMUNICATION DE DOCUMENTS ÉLECTRONIQUES POUR SE CONFORMER AUX NOUVELLES RÈGLES DE PROCÉDURE AMÉRICAINES

II. STRATEGIES FOR LITIGATION, DOCUMENT RETENTION AND DOCUMENT PRESERVATION UNDER THE NEW RULES

10

1. Introduction

2. Mapping Information Systems

3. Document Retention Policies

4. What to Do When Litigation Commences

5. Strategies Once A Litigation is Underway

6. Wrap Up and Q&A

11

The Amended Rules

– Early Planning and Discussion– Rule 16(b): Initial Pre-Trial Conference– Rule 26(a), 26(b)(2), 26(b)(5), 26(f): Initial

Disclosures– Rule 33: Interrogatories– Rule 34: Production of Documents– Rule 37(f): The "Safe Harbor"– Rule 45: Subpoenas

12

Strategies for Litigation, Document Retention and Document Preservation Under the New Rules

Mapping Information Systems

13


Survey from ComputerWorld, just prior to Dec.1, 2006:

About 42 percent of the 170 IT Managers and staff surveyedsaid they did not know the status of their company'spreparedness for the new rules, while 32 percent said theircompany was not at all prepared. 15 percent they werehalf-way prepared and 5 percent they were prepared.

14


Identify a Senior IT Representative to Overseeand Coordinate Litigation Strategies

• Retention• Preservation• Coordination of Holds• Meet and Confer• Discovery Searches• Potential 30(b)(6) Witness

15


What is Mapping Information Systems?

• A comprehensive picture of a company's technology architecture

• A detailed representation of the type and location of all data throughout a company

• Policies and Procedures for employment changes and technology changes

16

A comprehensive picture of the type and location of all data throughout a company

• Servers – both those with active and dynamic data, such as file servers and e-mail and voicemail servers, instant messaging

• Data Management Systems – back-up tapes, financial systems, disaster recovery systems

• Devices – desktop/laptops, PDAs, cell phones

• Portable Media – flash drives, hard drives, CD/DVDs

• Hosted Data – payroll systems

• Third Party Vendors – spam filtering

17

Sample Architecture Map

18

Sample Data Map

19

Sample Data Map

20


Policies and Procedures for Employment Changes and Technology Changes

• New Employees and Departing Employees– What happens to former employees' shared drives, e-

mail and computers?

• New Technologies and "Upgrades"– How does a technology upgrade change where and

what information is being saved?– What happens to older computers, for example, has a

VP's laptop been bequeathed to someone else?

21


Document Retention Policies

22


Companies Must Have A Document Retention Policy

– No need to keep everything

– "Document retention policies, which are created in part to keep certain information from getting into the hands of others, including the Government, are common in business … It is, of course, not wrongful, for a manager to instruct his employees to comply with a valid document retention policy under ordinary circumstances." Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696, 704 (2005).

– Too costly and burdensome

23


The Sedona Guidelines: Best Practice Guidelines & Commentary for Managing Information & Records in theElectronic Age

1. An organization should have reasonable policies and procedures for managing its information and records.

1.c. Defensible policies need not mandate the retention of all information and documents.

3. An organization need not retain all electronic information ever generated or received.

3.a. Destruction is an acceptable stage in the information life cycle; an organization may destroy or delete electronic information when there is no continuing value or need to retain it.

3.b. Systematic deletion of electronic information is not synonymous with evidence spoliation.

24

What Kind of Retention Policy is Appropriate?

•Realistic

•Practical

•Tailored to your organization

25


Once You've Adopted a Policy, Then What?

• Policy only as good as thoroughness of its implementation

• Key is systematic enforcement throughout company

• Education of employees

• Cannot have periodic, random, or ad hoc enforcement

26


Why Have a Retention Policy?• Reduces cost of maintaining information

• Justifies periodic destruction of documents

• May provide a "safe harbor" under new Rule 37(f)

• Provides necessary guidance

27


Steps to Creating a Retention Policy:

1. Create a cross-functional team2. Identify regulatory/legal compliance mandates and draft

policy3. Build a retention schedule4. Determine functional/technical requirements5. Select and deploy the technology6. Communicate policy and processes7. Establish audit/compliance processes

28


Conclusions• Design document retention program independent of pending or

threatened litigation

• Implement and enforce it on a routine basis throughout the company

• Design it with an eye towards specific needs and obligations of your company

• Suspend it when litigation is reasonably foreseeable

29

What To Do When Litigation Commences

30

What to Do When Litigation Commences

When Do You Institute a Litigation Hold?

– Actual notice of litigation or document demand

– Litigation "reasonably foreseeable"

31


What Documents Must be Preserved? Documents

• in existence at the time the duty to preserve documents arises or

• created subsequent to that time

that a party knows or reasonably should know are

• relevant in the litigation• reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence in the litigation• reasonably likely to be requested during discovery in the

litigation or• the subject of a pending discovery request.See Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 217 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

32


What Steps Can be Taken to Satisfy The

Duty to Preserve Documents?

• Understand the electronic data infrastructure

• Implement the litigation hold

• Keep records of everything done to satisfy the duty to preserve documents

33







34




Implement the Litigation Hold

• Identify relevant custodians and repositories of documents and data, including through interviews of persons involved in the subject of the litigation (checklists for these interviews are often helpful)

• Notify relevant personnel of litigation hold– Custodians with relevant documents or data– Persons responsible for relevant repositories of

documents and data, both on-site and offsite – Information technology personnel

35




Implement the Litigation Hold

Take affirmative steps to preserve data, including:

• Creating a “snapshot" of existing data

• Halting the deletion or overwriting of backups, and if possible segregating backups

• Making provision for later-created documents

36







37


What Are the Potential Consequences of Failure to Satisfy the Duty to Preserve Documents?

• Criminal prosecution

• Regulatory sanctions

• Civil sanctions– Monetary sanctions– Evidentiary sanctions– Imposition of higher burdens of proof– Entry of judgment against the offender

• Disciplinary sanctions against lawyers

38


Strategies Once A Litigation is Underway

39


The Ground Rules

– Plan ahead– Stay focused– Hide the ball at your peril– Know what you control– Don't over delegate

40


The Basics

– Identify what information exists– Determine the burden and cost of producing

information– Identify what you are not willing to

search/produce/retrieve– Develop a reasonable search protocol– Identify a preferred production method– Make a proposal

41


District of Delaware - Default Standard for Discovery of

Electronic Documents ("E-Discovery")

Discovery Conference• Parties shall discuss the parameters of their anticipated e-discovery at the Fed.

R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference, as well as at the Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 scheduling conference with the court, consistent with the concerns outlined below. More specifically, prior to the Rule 26(f) conference, the parties shall exchange the following information:

– A list of the most likely custodians of relevant electronically stored information, including a brief description of each person’s title and responsibilities.

– A list of each relevant electronic system that has been in place at all relevant times (*) and a general description of each system including, but not limited to, the nature, scope, character, organization, and formats employed in each system. The parties should also discuss whether their electronically stored information is reasonably accessible. Electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible may include information created or used by electronic media no longer in use, maintained in redundant electronic storage media, or for which retrieval otherwise involves undue burden or substantial cost.

(*) For instance, in a patent case, the relevant times for a patent holder may be the date the patent(s) issued or the effective filing date of each patent in suit.

42




Discovery Conference– The name of the individual responsible for retention of that party’s

electronically stored information (.the retention coordinator.), as well as a general description of that party’s retention policies for the systems identified above (see ¶ 7).

– The name of the individual who shall serve as that party’s liaison for e-discovery (.e-discovery liaison.) (see ¶ 3).

– Provide notice of any problems reasonably anticipated to arise in connection with e-discovery, e.g., email duplication.

– To the extent that the state of the pleadings does not permit a meaningful discussion of the above by the time of the Rule 26(f) conference, the parties shall either agree on a date by which this information will be mutually exchanged or submit the issue for resolution by the court at the Rule 16 scheduling conference.

43




E-Discovery Liaison• In order to promote communication and cooperation between the parties,

each party to a case shall designate an e-discovery liaison through which all e-discovery requests and responses shall be made. Regardless of whether the e-discovery liaison is an attorney (in-house or outside counsel), a third party consultant, or an employee of the party, he or she must be: – Familiar with the party’s electronic systems and capabilities in order to

explain these systems and answer relevant questions. – Knowledgeable about the technical aspects of e-discovery, including the

storage, organization, and format issues relating to electronically stored information.

– Prepared to participate in e-discovery dispute resolutions. • The court notes that, at all times, the attorneys of record shall be responsible

for compliance with e-discovery requests. However, the e-discovery liaisons shall be responsible for organizing each party’s e-discovery efforts to insure consistency and thoroughness and, generally, to facilitate the e-discovery process.

44




Search Methodology• If the parties intend to employ an electronic search to locate relevant

electronically stored information, the parties shall disclose any restrictions as to the scope and method which might affect their ability to conduct a complete electronic search of such information. The parties shall reach agreement as to the method of searching, and the words, terms, and phrases to be searched with the assistance of the respective e-discovery liaisons, who are charged with familiarity with the parties’ respective systems. The parties also shall reach agreement as to the timing and conditions of any additional searches which may become necessary in the normal course of discovery. To minimize the expense, the parties may consider limiting the scope of the electronic search (e.g., time frames, fields, document types).

45




Format• If, during the course of the Rule 26(f) conference, the parties cannot

agree to the format for production of their electronically stored information, as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, such information shall be produced to the requesting party as text searchable image files (e.g., PDF or TIFF), unless unduly burdensome or cost-prohibitive to do so. When a text searchable image file is produced, the producing party must preserve the integrity of the underlying electronically stored information, i.e., the original formatting, the metadata and, where applicable, the revision history. After initial production in text searchable image file format is complete, a party must demonstrate particularized need for production of electronically stored information in native format.

46




Retention• Within the first 30 days of discovery, the parties should work towards an

agreement (akin to the standard protective order) that outlines the steps each party shall take to segregate and preserve the integrity of all relevant electronically stored information. In order to avoid later accusations of spoilation, a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 (b)(6) deposition of each party's retention coordinator may be appropriate.

• The retention coordinator shall:– Take steps to ensure that e-mail of identified custodians shall not be

permanently deleted in the ordinary course of business and that all other electronically stored information maintained by the identified custodians shall not be altered.

– Provide notice as the criteria used for spam/virus filtering of e-mail and attachments; e-mail and attachments filtered out by such systems shall be deemed non-responsive as long as the criteria underlying the filtering are reasonable. Within 7 days of identifying relevant custodians, the retention coordinators shall implement the above procedures, and each party's counsel shall file a statement of compliance as such with the court.

47


Accessible v. Inaccessible

• Active, online data (i.e. hard drives)• Near-line data (data in some sort of automated

retrieval system)• Offline storage data (involving manual intervention to

retrieve)• Backup tapes (compressed backups used for

emergency data retrieval)• Erased, fragmented, or damaged data

48


"In civil cases, I've instructed law firms directly that they are toconduct the discovery of documents themselves and not havecorporate counsel conduct that discovery. They're representingthe client in the courtroom. And in-house counsel is not. They'remaking a representation to the Court that the documents are, infact, the true documents that are requested in discovery. Not in-house counsel. And they cannot rely on them. In-house counselhas other loyalties. They can lose their job if they disclose them.Outside counsel, it's true, the firm can lose the representation, but if we're going to have independence in the bar and rely on thebar, we've got to have them do the work…"

Transcript of hearing at 15, United States v. Cardoso, 05 CR 563 (RPP),(Sept. 20, 2006).

49


Make A Proposal

– List sources you propose to search/retrieve and those you do not propose to search/retrieve

– When appropriate, identify search terms you propose to use or request a list of search terms

– Suggest format for production

50


Managing The Phases of E-Discovery– Collection

• Logistics and project management• Be mindful of chain of custody issues• Consider a checklist• Prioritize• Do-it-yourself?

– Processing• One size does not necessarily fit all

– Different vendors/strategies depending on needs of case• Consider all phases

– Form of production?– Reviewing

• Develop and implement a review strategy– Artificial Intelligence?

• Project management– Producing

• Be open with adversaries, regulators, etc.

51

LES LITIGES INTER-JURIDICTIONNELS ET LA GESTION DES DOCUMENTS ÉLECTRONIQUES

H. Christopher Boehning - Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLPJean-François De Rico – Langlois Kronström Desjardins SENCRL

La gestion stratégique et l’administration de documents électroniques

Institut Canadien

Montréal – 4 et 5 décembre 2007

boehning de rico 20071205 ic mtl

Business

documents que

documents lectroniques

production of documents

document preservation

renseignements ou exige

renseignements personnels

conservation et

financial systems