Source: https://bowtielaw.wordpress.com/category/meet-confer/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 05:11:45+00:00

Document:
Civil Procedure AND Star Wars?
Discovery disputes often result in strong judicial rebukes. Then there are the judges who work in a good Star Wars reference in an opinion. This case has both.
This discovery dispute has quickly transformed into a behemoth, replete with competing and disputed descriptions of at the Parties’ efforts to meet and confer. This is not the cooperative discovery contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Rules”) and this Court does not look kindly on the Parties’ behavior, especially when even a quick a review of the record reveals that many of the disputes have since been resolved and would have been resolved even without judicial intervention.
Cedar Grove Composting, Inc. v. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co. (W.D.Wash. Dec. 23, 2015, No. C14-1443RAJ) 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171576, at *2-3.
The first issue was a motion for fees by the Plaintiff to recover costs for a motion to compel. The Court denied the motion, holding that the “that Plaintiff did not attempt in good faith to obtain the requested discovery prior to filing its Motion to Compel.” Cedar Grove, at *5. Judge Jones explained that the Plaintiff’s effort to confer with the Defendant over a discovery production could “hardly” be described as done in good faith to resolve issues. Cedar Grove, at *6.
The parties had a telephone meet and confer that had two very different stories, depending on which party was telling the story. The Defendants offered three attorney declarations that recounted the call, which the Plaintiff’s attorney did not dispute. The Court found that “unacceptable.” Cedar Grove, at *7.
In summarizing the dueling meet and confers, the stated the “Plaintiff has given the meet and confer requirement short shift.” Cedar Grove, at *8. Moreover, the Plaintiff never discussed the only remaining discovery dispute between the parties regarding an attorney retained to assess insurance coverage. Id. Furthermore, the motion to compel pertained to amending the Defendant’s privilege log, which was produced before the briefing on the motions had even been finished. Cedar Grove, at *9.
Cedar Grove, at *10-11, citations omitted.
The next issue addressed whether the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine applied to communications from an attorney retained to analysis possible liability and its renewal policy. Cedar Grove, at *13. What followed was beautiful analysis of what was protected by the attorney-client privilege and what was protected by the work product doctrine. Effectively summarizing the work product doctrine, for a document to be protected, it must: “1) be ‘prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial’ and (2) be prepared “by or for another party or by or for that other party’s representative.” Cedar Grove, at *18.
The review of the subject communications sought for production revealed they were covered by the work product doctrine. Cedar Grove, at *18-19.
The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant was not producing written claims files improperly withheld behind the work product doctrine, taking the position that the files “simply must exist.” Cedar Grove, at *19.
In addressing this argument, the Court is tempted to simply invoke Occam’s razor — “that in explaining anything, no more assumptions should be made than necessary.” See ACLU v. Clapper, 804 F.3d 617, 624 n.2 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Oxford English Dictionary (3d ed. 2004)). Perhaps it is too much of an assumption to think that Defendant seriously trying to mislead both Plaintiff and the Court by simply waving its hand and stating that “these aren’t the droids you’re looking for.” Star Wars: Episode IV — A New Hope (Lucasfilm 1977). A simpler explanation is that many of those documents do exist — and Plaintiff has received them (and would have received them) without this Court’s intervention.
Cedar Grove, at *20, footnote 4, emphasis added.
The Court ultimately held that the subject documents were protected by the work product doctrine and likely covered by attorney-client privilege under state law. Cedar Grove, at *21-22.
There are many Federal Judges who masterfully explain Civil Procedure and enjoy Star Wars. It is good to know Judge Richard Jones can discuss the work product doctrine and make an Obe-Wan Kenobi reference.
Conducting privilege review often is reduced to attorneys simply checking a box that an email, document, or Excel file is “privileged.” The term “privilege” cannot be an all-encompassing term to be used in a privilege log. What is the actual privilege being asserted? If it is an attorney-client communication, it has to be a communication from the client to a lawyer seeking legal advice, or a communication from the lawyer to the client giving legal advice.
Lawyers should define the privileges in their case and set-up document review to reflect those privileges. If privilege issue tagging is done, coupled with notes stating the claimed privilege, the reviewing attorneys are building their privilege logs as they conduct document review. This is far easier then trying to later use the Force to construct an effective privilege log as a later step.
This methodology involved selecting subsets of employees likely to have relevant information, those who sent or received information, those who could have been involved in the case and those “most likely” to have relevant information. Banas at *4.
The Court stated this approach could have been reasonable, but two problems emerged: 1) The methodology was never discussed or agreed to with the Plaintiff; and 2) Multiple deponents did not have their email searched prior to their depositions. Banas at *4-5.
The Plaintiff also had a hard drive that contained ESI that was not produced by the Defendant. Id.
The Court ordered the supplement search and production of ESI from the deponents whose ESI had not been searched. Banas at *6.
The Court stated that the Defendant’s search methodology was not unreasonable or designed to conceal information. Banas at *7. However, as the production was conducted on a rolling basis, the Plaintiff could not have been immediately aware of any production gaps. Banas at *6.
As such, supplemental discovery was reasonable.
The Court also highlighted the Northern District of California’s model order requiring parties to meet and confer over the search of ESI prior to responding to a discovery request. This is one of the first opinions to reference the model order. Following the model order is highly advisable for anyone in the Northern District of California. It also has very good best practices for any attorney to consider in a case with electronically stored information.
Identifying relevant custodians and their electronically stored information requires using technology and strategy. Many can feel like it is trying to find a teardrop in the ocean.
Analyzing communication patterns, clustering email based on domain names or conducting searches based on date ranges and subject matter are just a handful of ways to identifying ESI that could support a parties claims or defenses. Running searches based on discovery requests is another.
I recently had a product demonstration of Kroll Ontrack’s eDiscovery.com Review. Below you can see the features of this product can help search for responsive ESI.
Banas v. Volcano Corp., also has a very important message about the meet and confer process. Parties really should discuss what information is subject to the lawsuit, relevant custodians and search methodologies. While I do not agree with the idea of discussing what tools parties should use, because it can cause unnecessary fighting, agreeing on how ESI will be identified certainly does not hurt between educated attorneys.
There are attorneys who believe the most effective Rule 26(f) meet and confer is simply meeting at dawn with dueling pistols.
The parties in Procongps, Inc. v. Skypatrol, LLC, fought over proclaimed inadequate productions, failures to adequately meet and confer and the defensibility of their productions. Procongps, Inc. v. Skypatrol, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47133, 9-12 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2013).
The parties Spireon and Skypatrol had many dueling “they did/they did that first” claims before the Court.
Spireon took issue with a discovery production of “410,000 pages of documents” that contained duplicated information. Procongps, Inc., at *8.
According to Spireon, Skypatrol proposed discussing limiting the scope of ESI in the case. According to Spireon, they were willing to “discuss a search of a limited number of custodians using identified terms only after Skypatrol produced documents that could be identified through traditional methods of conferring with Skypatrol’s employees and agents to identify and produce responsive documents.” Procongps, Inc., at *7.
The parties exchanged discussions about discussing search terms, provided that Skypatrol first met is obligation to produce responsive discovery. Procongps, Inc., at *7-8. Skypatrol’s production followed after these exchanges. Spireon then sought an order from the Court for Skypatrol to identify its production by category pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2)(E)(i). Procongps, Inc., at *8.
Skypatrol claimed that they had requested to meet and confer over search terms for months. According to Skypatrol, Spireon refused to meet to discuss discovery productions and exchange search terms. Procongps, Inc., at *8.
Skypatrol argued, “Spireon insisted that Skypatrol conduct its own searches and produce documents from over 200 GB of data.” Procongps, Inc., at *8.
Skypatrol claimed that Spireon could not both refuse to cooperate over limiting the scope of discovery through cooperation, then claim Skypatrol produced “too many” documents. Procongps, Inc., at *8-9.
Furthermore, Skypatrol explained that they did run a de-duplication process over its production; the “duplicative” files were email attachments to messages they included for a complete production. Procongps, Inc., at *9-10.
Skypatrol also argued that Spireon’s production was not forensically sound (defensible), because 1) Spireon could not identify any custodians from whom ESI has been collected; 2) Any search terms used to identify responsive ESI other than “Skypatrol;” and 3) The volume of ESI that had been collected or produced by another in the litigation. Procongps, Inc., at *10-11.
Based upon the record before the Court, it appears that the parties have not engaged in a meaningful meet and confer process with regard to ESI production. It is the Court’s view that the current document issues could have been avoided if the parties had cooperated with each other. The relief that the parties seek is essentially an order directing the other side to comply with their discovery obligations, and the Court believes such an order would not actually remedy any problems because both parties assert that they have and are fully complying with their discovery obligations. The Court finds that the most efficient solution is for counsel who are responsible for ESI production to engage in an in-person meet and confer regarding all outstanding ESI production issues in an effort to resolve those matters. If the meet and confer is unsuccessful, the Court will refer any disputes regarding ESI production to a Magistrate Judge for resolution.
The Dreyfus Protocol should never be included in a meet and confer.
eDiscovery requires attorneys to not simply talk about cooperating, but to actually cooperate. Determining search methodologies, the scope of discovery and production formats do not require the same zeal as cross-examining an adverse witness. It is not supposed to be a game of “gotcha,” but determining the technical framework to get to the merits of the case. This requires attorneys to be tactical and have a strategic vision for how they will handle ESI in their cases. Moreover, parties must engage in more than pillow talk to actually reach agreement on eDiscovery protocols.
The adult supervision in eDiscovery often comes from eDiscovery attorneys in law firms and litigation support professionals. How data is collected, the scope of ESI in the lawsuit, data reduction strategies and review methodologies are vital to litigating a case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 1. Fundamentally, these are the professionals who advise attorneys to not request “any and all” ESI, but “all unique ESI” to limit duplicate data in ESI productions. The value of these professionals cannot be overstated in helping litigators be cost efficient and effective.
Attorneys who want to learn effective eDiscovery strategy should read Michael Arkfeld’s Best Practices Guide for ESI Pretrial Discovery: Strategy & Tactics. It is one of the best books on the subject. In full disclosure, Michael is a good friend and I have helped on many webinars. The book offers a great overview of issues, checklists and discovery strategies every litigator should before a meet & confer.
As a general rule, such costs are taxable if the parties have agreed to produce discovery electronically. Specht, at *9, citing Fast Memory Erase, LLC v. Spansion, Inc., No. 10-C-0481, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132025, 2010 WL 5093945, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 10, 2010).
The Defendants had a significant problem in seeking their costs: There was no evidence the parties agreed to produce discovery electronically. Specht, at *10.
The best the Defendants could produce was an email that an associate wrote for a partner to review and comment on. Specht, at *9.
There was no evidence that the draft email had been sent to the Plaintiffs. Specht, at *9. Moreover, the draft email did not reference an actual agreement to produce hard copy discovery in electronic format. Specht, at *9.
The email did reference producing metadata for specific ESI, however, the Court stated that the “Defendant has not adequately documented that an agreement existed between the parties to produce documents electronically.” Specht, at *9-10.
The Court found the $17,778.64 was not recoverable, because the Defendants did not show there was an agreement to produce documents electronically. Specht, at *10.
This case illustrates the realities of modern litigation. The failure to document an agreement for producing ESI or hard copy documents in electronic format can result in costs for producing discovery denied. It is a prudent topic to add to a meet and confer “to do” list.
Attorneys should discuss the form of production during the meet and confer process and codify their agreement in a discovery order. Parties should discuss how databases should be produced, whether hard copy documents are to be scanned and OCR-ed, types of metadata to be produced and how costs should be apportioned. These are just a few examples of topics for a meet and confer.
Establishing expectations on the above topics can help control litigation costs and put a party in a position of strength if there is a later dispute.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.