Although I advocated self-collection in my recent post about Facebook Self-Collections, I want to note that self-collections are usually not a good way to go. In fact, the ediscovery Team recently posted a blog article about the pitfalls of self-collection. Ralph Losey pointed to a recent opinion out of the Eastern District of Texas, Green v. Blitz U.S.A., Inc, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20353 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2011), where the Court entered sanctions for bad faith withholding of evidence against a party who engaged in self-collection.
As the use of social media increases, so does its relevance to litigation. We are now seeing more and more people wanting to collect data from social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Initially, a Facebook collection meant getting a user’s permission and sending a subpoena to Facebook. But now, Facebook has streamlined the process by allowing users to collect their own information.
When dealing with discovery, there is a need to find the right balance between collecting all the potentially relevant data in the universe and the cost to do so. But, how does one do that while complying one’s discovery obligations? In general, you need to show good faith that you preserved relevant evidence. Moreover, FRCP 37(c)(1) requires substantial justification for “non-compliance” with FRCP 26 production obligations. Therefore, when defending a motion for sanctions, you need to be able to show the reasoning behind why an item was...
Ever wondered what research is being done on the plethora of tools in the ediscovery space? In my last post, I alluded to a study in my quote from Judge Grimm’s opinion in Victor Stanley. He was referring to the Text Retrieval Conference (TREC) Legal Track administered by the US National Institute of Standards (NIST). This is an interesting program that facilitates research on the effectiveness of search methodologies. A variety of methods have been tested including Boolean queries and statistical analysis of terms across a set of data.