three e-discovery principles for insurers
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
1/46
THREE E-DISCOVERYPRINCIPLES FOR INSURERS
Brian S. Jones
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
2/46
DATA CAPACITY IS EXPLODING
7,235 Exabytes
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
3/46
1 exabyte = 1,024 petabytes
1 petabyte = 1,024 terabytes1 terabyte = 1,024 gigabytes
1 gigabyte = 1,024 megabytes
1,099,511,627,776megabytes
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
4/46
By 2017:
2,651,655,542,319,787pictures
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
5/46
E-DISCOVERY COSTS ARE GROWING
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
6/46
TEN YEARS AGO
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
7/46
ZUBULAKE V. UBS WARBURG, LLC
First landmark e-discovery opinion
Gender discrimination case
Zubulake: info needed to provecase was on UBS's computers andbackup tapes
Court ordered restoration of
backup tapes and split costsbetween parties
Certain backup tapes and emails
were "missing"
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
8/46
Two questions:
When does the duty attach?
What must be preserved?
"The obligation to preserve evidence ariseswhen the party has notice that the evidence
is relevant to litigation or when a partyshould have known that the evidence may
be relevant to future litigation."
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
9/46
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
10/46
But...
If a company can identify whereparticular employee documents arestored on backup tapes, then the tapes
storing the documents of key playersto the existing or threatened litigationshould be preserved if the informationcontained on those tapes is nototherwise available. This exceptionapplies to all backup tapes.
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
11/46
UBS's destruction of backup tapes wasnegligent, not willful
Court denied giving adverse inferenceinstruction because Zubulake couldn'tshow that lost evidence would havesupported her claims
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
12/46
SEVEN YEARS LATER
"Zubulake Revisited"
--Pension Comm. of Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc ofAm. Sec., 685 F. Supp.2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)
"By now, it should be abundantly clear thatthe duty to preserve means what it says and
that a failure to preserve recordspaper orelectronicand to search in the right placesfor those records, will inevitably result in the
spoliation of evidence."
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
13/46
RULES CHANGE;
PRINCIPLES DONTUSUALLY
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
14/46
THREE PRINCIPLES
Preservation
Protection
Production
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
15/46
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
16/46
DUTY TO PRESERVESEVENTH CIRCUIT:
Duty to preserve is triggered when the party "knew or should haveknown that litigation was imminent"
--Trask-Morton v. Motel 6 Operating L.P., 534 F.3d 672 (7th Cir.
2000)
SECOND CIRCUIT:
"The obligation to preserve evidence arises when [a] party has
notice that the evidence is relevant to litigation or when a partyshould have known that the evidence may be relevantto future
litigation.
--Fujitsu Ltd. v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 247 F.3d 423 (2d Cir. 2001).
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
17/46
WHAT TO AVOID
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
18/46
ALLSTATE TEXAS LLOYD'S V. MCKINNEY
Insured's housedestroyed by fire
Fire marshall: faultybreakers
Allstate: Nope, itwas arson
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
19/46
Allstate destroyed fire samples and communicationsabout those samples; senior adjuster ordered
destruction
Insured's claim was open
Allstate knew insured had a lawyer
Allstate has asserted work-product protection
for documents that pre-dated the destroyedcommunications
Testimony about samples was excluded
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
20/46
WHAT TO DO
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
21/46
LITIGATION HOLDS
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
22/46
SHOULD BE:
INSTRUCTIVE:You do/don't this
Here's who to ask if have any questions
BROAD:
Go to all potential custodians
Third-party providers, agents*, everyone in IT
SENSITIVE:
Issued when appears litigation might arise from a claim
Look at grounds for denial
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
23/46
Haskins v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 2012 WL5183908 (D. N.J. Oct. 18, 2012):
Insurer had duty to issue a litigation hold to itsindependent agents because, even though
the documents themselves were in the possession ofthe agents, the insurer had a legal right to them, so
they were under the insurers care, custody,or control.
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
24/46
WRITTEN DOCUMENTRETENTION POLICY
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
25/46
RULE 37(E)
Absent exceptional circumstances, a court may notimpose sanctions under these rules on a party for
failing to provide electronically stored informationlost as a result of the routine, good-faith operation ofan electronic information system.
No sanctions for destruction of ESI before knew orshould have known of litigation
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
26/46
OTHER TIPS
Keep Document Retention Policy updated
Readily available to all employees (and
outside counsel)
Make sure IT applies policy uniformly
Designate someone to be representativewitness on retention policies and informationstorage and retrieval capabilities
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
27/46
PROTECTION
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
28/46
Attorney-Client Privilege
Work Product
Trade Secrets
Confidential and ProprietaryInformation
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
29/46
RULE 502(b) INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE. When made in a federal proceeding or to a federal office oragency, the disclosure does not operate as a waiver in a federal or state proceeding if:
(1) the disclosure is inadvertent;
(2) the holder of the privilege or protection took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure; and
(3) the holder promptly took reasonable steps to rectify the error, including (if applicable)following Federal Rule of CivilProcedure 26(b)(5)(B).
(c) DISCLOSURE MADE IN A STATE PROCEEDING. When the disclosure is made in a stateproceeding and is not the subject of a state-court order concerning waiver, the disclosure does notoperate as a waiver in a federal proceeding if the disclosure:
(1) would not be a waiver under this rule if it had been made in a federal proceeding; or
(2) is not a waiver under the law of the state where the disclosure occurred.
(d) CONTROLLING EFFECT OF A COURT ORDER. A federal court may order that the privilege orprotection is not waived by disclosure connected with the litigation pending before the courtin whichevent the disclosure is also not a waiver in any other federal or state proceeding.
(e) CONTROLLING EFFECT OF A PARTY AGREEMENT. An agreement on the effect of disclosure in afederal proceeding is binding only on the parties to the agreement, unless it is incorporated into a
court order.
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
30/46
502(D) ORDERS
SHOULD BE A PART OF EVERY INSURER'S PRACTICES
Drafting tips:
State that order applies to information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, or any other privilege in thecase and in any other federal or state proceeding or arbitrations
Disclaim Rule 502(B)'s applicability
Disclosure doesn't have to be inadvertent
Don't have to take measures to prevent or rectify disclosure
Refer to other confidentiality agreements/protective orders, if any
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
31/46
502(D) ORDERS
More drafting tips:
Contain "clawback" language requiring
return or deletion of documents andprohibiting use in any form while preservingright to challenge privilege asserted
Apply order to information alreadyproduced
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
32/46
PRODUCTION
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
33/46
How the process ends should be
discussed at the very beginning.
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
34/46
BEFORE THE 26(F) CONFERENCE
Early discussion with outside counsel and IT
Early identification of key IT witnesses
What kinds of ESI exist?
How ESI is maintained?
How can ESI be produced?
What forms of ESI do we need to receive?
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
35/46
RULE 26(F)(3)
(C) any issues about disclosure or discovery ofelectronically stored information, including theform or forms in which it should be produced;
(D) any issues about claims of privilege or ofprotection as trial-preparation materials, including
if the parties agree on a procedure to assertthese claims after productionwhether to ask thecourt to include their agreement in an order;
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
36/46
RULE 34(B)(2)
(E) Producing the Documents or Electronically Stored Information.Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, these proceduresapply to producing documents or electronically stored information:
(i) A party must produce documents as they are kept in the usualcourse of business or must organize and label them to correspond tothe categories in the request;
(ii) If a request does not specify a form for producing electronicallystored information, a party must produce it in a form or forms in
which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form orforms; and
(iii) A party need not produce the same electronically storedinformation in more than one form.
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
37/46
CASE MANAGEMENT PLANS
Best places to set out forms ofproduction
Some courts requiring ESI
language in CMPs
SeeSeventh Circuit E-DiscoveryPrinciples
E-discovery liasons
Cost-sharing discussions
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
38/46
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
39/46
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
40/46
Initial universe of 19.5 million documents
Keyword culling trimmed that to 3.9 milliondocuments (1.5 terabytes).
De-duping cut that to 2.5 million.
Using statistical sampling, 99% confidence that
.55% to 1.33% of unselected documents wouldbe responsive;1.37% to 2.47% of the original19.5 million were responsive.
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
41/46
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
42/46
Under predictive coding, the software learns a userspreferences or goals; as it learns, the software identifieswith greater accuracy just which items the user wants,whether it be a song, a product, or a search topic.Biomet used a predictive coding service called Axelerateand eight contract attorneys to review a sampling of the2.5 million documents. After one round of find more likethis interaction between the attorneys and the software,the contract attorneys (together with other softwarerecommended by Biomets e-discovery vendor) revieweddocuments for relevancy, confidentiality, and privilege.
$1 07 million in e-discovery costs; $3 25 million more expected
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
43/46
$1.07 million in e-discovery costs; $3.25 million more expected
Plaintiffs Steering Committee felt initial keyword culling tainted theprocess; wanted Biomet to use predictive coding on the original 19.5
million documents
Court approved Biomets e-discovery procedures:
What Biomet has done complies fully with the requirements of Federal
Rules of Civil ProcedureIt might well be that predictive coding, insteadof a keyword search, at Stage Two of the process would unearthadditional relevant documents. But it would cost Biomet a million, ormillions, of dollars to test the Steering Committees theory thatpredictive coding would produce a significantly greater number ofrelevant documents. Even in light of the needs of the hundreds ofplaintiffs in this case, the very large amount in controversy, the partiesresources, the importance of the issues at stake, and the importance ofthis discovery in resolving the issues, I cant find that the likely benefitsof the discovery proposed by the Steering Committee equals oroutweighs its additional burden on, and additional expense to, Biomet.
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
44/46
Technology quickly replacing traditionaldocument review procedures
Expensive, but can result in significant costsavings in large cases
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
45/46
SUGGESTED READING
Indianapolis Friendsof E-Discovery
-
8/14/2019 Three E-Discovery Principles for Insurers
46/46
FOLLOW
insuranceblog.boselaw.com
litigationblog.boselaw.com
@brianjoneslaw
http://litigationblog.boselaw.com/http://insuranceblog.boselaw.com/