Legal Hold Pro

LegalTech is right around the corner with the show kicking off on Monday, January 30, and continuing through Wednesday, February 1, at the Hilton New York. Legal Hold Pro will be  exhibiting and rolling out some exciting new enhancements to our industry leading legal hold management system.

If you are planning to attend, come see us in Booth 537 on the Lower Level. We can also set up a private meeting to give you a more in-depth look at what’s new and to learn more about your preservation needs. You can email us at info@legalholdpro.com or call the booth at (503) 307-1261.

We hope to see you in New York!

We were honored once again to sponsor the Georgetown Law Center 8^th Annual Advanced eDiscovery Institute which took place November 17-18 in Pentagon City, VA. This conference is an annual highlight because of the outstanding quality of the panels, which include many of the country’s most influential jurists.  We were also pleased to have contributed to the discussions through a compilation of essays co-edited by Brad Harris and Ron Hedges on the topic of “Preservation and Proportionality.”

The conference had a wide-ranging agenda, so we’ve narrowed our focus to highlights pertinent to legal holds and data preservation issues, and selected three key takeaways from the conference.

1. Act Reasonably and Cooperate! Cooperate! Cooperate!

Arguably, the main event at the conference is the “eDiscovery Case Law Update” that was moderated by Ron Hedges and featured an all-star panel of judges. The recurring theme from the stage was  an admonishment to act reasonably and cooperate with the court on preservation issues.

As Hon. John M. Facciola reflected, “Thanks to the work of Judge Rosenthal, Judge Scheindlin and the other members of the Federal Rules Advisory Committee, I don’t think they appreciate just how much cooperation is now coming into the system…a steady, irreversible trend towards cooperation and it is the next phase of discovery.”

Continuing to focus on the positive, Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin followed up on Hon. Lee H. Rosenthal’s presentation about Gaalla v. Citizens Med.Ctr., 2011 WL 2115670 (S.D. Tex. May 27, 2011): “So often we focus on what wasn’t done than what was done. It’s very vindicating to me that there was a litigation hold put in place, and that is what gave [Judge Jack] cover.” Indeed, sending legal holds provides evidence of reasonableness, as cited in Siani v. State Univ., 2011 WL2580361 (E.D.N.Y. June 28, 2011), where in spite of spoliation, their good faith efforts helped litigants escape sanctions.

When compared to last year, where the conversation centered on the need for written legal holds, today the discussion has evolved to questions concerning trigger events and the opportunity for proportionality. As Hon. Andrew J. Peck affirmed, cooperation (a.k.a. “proactive strategic information giving”) is a key to getting what you want.

2. Judges Expressed Reservations about Updating Rules

The buzz at the conference was around the ongoing work by the Judicial Rules Subcommittee on Discovery to consider amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a means to address rising costs of data preservation. Following the Dallas Mini-Conference held in early September, the process is in high gear and involved many of the participants in the room at the Georgetown conference.

Although recognizing to the challenges faced by litigants, the jurists in attendance expressed a distinct lack of enthusiasm about updating the FRCP with bright lines concerning pre-litigation preservation. As Judge Peck argued during the opening panel: “’Just do the right thing’ approach of cooperation is going to work. It is a very difficult practical problem, but I’m not sure there is any rule-based approach that’s going to solve the problem.”

In a later panel that directly addressed the topic of Rules changes, Judge Rosenthal added her thoughts on the subject:

The “proportionality” buzzword that has become so widely used in the past year is a way of describing reasonableness. If the argument is that you have to write a rule that says “go forth and be reasonable.” I think that just proves a little too much.

…

Don’t misunderstand the advocacy or enthusiasm for a rule change or the belief that it would be helpful for a belief that that’s all you need. The good news for all of you is that there are lots of resources available, in addition to the rules. Even if the rules are changed in a pretty thorough way, or even a limited way, changing the rules is never enough.

While most participants weighed in with their own thoughts, the feeling from the jurists was that pre-litigation preservation is a gray area and one that has so many variables that it requires judgment on a case-by-case basis, rather than expecting arbitrary bright lines to provide comfort for litigants.  When one audience member suggested during the final Judicial Roundtable panel that Pippins v. KPMG opinion represented the end of proportionality, several judges were quick to point to the specifics of the case and the need for caution and due diligence when deciding what data is preserved or destroyed prior to discovery.

3. E-Discovery Pilot Programs Show Promise

Several ongoing pilot programs were referenced during various discussions which could provide valuable resources for litigants if they prove successful. The programs include:

• Southern District of New York’s Pilot Project Regarding Case Management Techniques for Complex Civil Cases
• Western District of Pennsylvania’s Electronic Discovery Special Masters
• Seventh Circuit Electronic Discovery Pilot Program

Judge Scheindlin described the program in her district as a proactive program aimed to streamline complex civil litigation.  The program includes an ESI protocol to guide the parties through the particulars of electronic discovery and to bring to the forefront any issues they can’t agree on.

Hon. Joy Flowers Conti presented an in-depth overview of the program she is overseeing in the Western District of Pennsylvania. The court is recruiting a group of pre-qualified Electronic Discovery Special Masters to serve as a ready resource to the courts should disputes arise pertaining to electronic discovery issues.

Judge Rosenthal provided a prescient overview of the importance of these efforts during the Future of Rules panel:

What’s the difference, the advantage they have over rules? They don’t have to go through a rules enabling act process that at a minimum takes three years, and often more to become adopted. That’s a long time. In our world in three years, a lot changes and it forces us to a level of generality because if you write it too specifically, the technology will become obsolete before the thing becomes effective. Pilot programs can change on a dime and can be more helpful.

The judges look at these programs as experiments that can help identify new techniques to promote cooperation and reduce the involvement of the court in resolving ongoing friction related to electronic discovery.

As in the past, the presentations at Georgetown reflected the continuing evolution of what constitutes “e-Discovery best practices” while remaining true to the overarching goal of “just, speedy and inexpensive” resolution of issues.  In the area of data preservation, the discussion is no longer if a legal hold needs to be issued, but rather on ways to reasonably limit the cost and burden of doing so through cooperation, reasoned thought and transparency.

By Brad Harris

In our recently published white paper, Preservation and Proportionality, Ron Hedges and I solicited input from industry thought leaders on the current debate over the rising costs of data preservation and the call for proportionality through cooperation, court order or rule changes.  A particularly relevant opinion was issued from the Southern District of New York on October 7, 2011, which directly posed the applicability of proportionality, and Pippins v. KPMG was prominent in several of the contributed essays for our paper.

We provided highlights of the case and included as reference the complete amicus brief filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in response to U.S. Magistrate Judge James L. Cott’s findings. The debate over Pippins v KPMG continues, and we wanted to post two additional briefs as an addendum to our paper that shed additional light on the ongoing discussion.

The Defendants submitted their objections to the finding of the magistrate judge on October 28, arguing that a district court should modify or set aside the order.  In their brief, they articulate KPMG’s position with respect to their prior good faith efforts to preserve potentially relevant information (including HR personnel records and time records, in addition preserving “computer hard drives of departing employees who are putative class members in New York”).  They argue that the magistrate judge erred in holding “that every potential member of the putative class and FLSA potential opt-in plaintiff is a ‘key player’ whose hard drives must be preserved” (and therefore they should not have incurred a duty to preserve).  They further argue that denying the motion for a protective order was in err when the judge failed to determine “whether the cost of preserving the hard drives is proportional to their likely benefit” and unreasonably burdensome (arguing instead for a reasonable sample).

In response, the Plaintiff submitted a memorandum on November 30 in opposition to the Defendant’s objections, citing a lack of cooperation and arguing that the disputed hard drives are likely to contain useful information (having not had an opportunity to examine any hard drives to suggest otherwise).  They go on to argue that the Defendants had failed to sufficiently establish an undue burden nor demonstrate with any certainty that the drives should be destroyed without knowing their contents.

Both briefs make interesting reading, and are included here for your reference.  If you haven’t already done so, please download our Proportionality and Preservation Signature Paper.  We welcome your thoughts and feedback!

By Brad Harris

We just learned of another preservation case involving sanctions but what makes this one stand out is that the litigation started in 2011 – after Pension Committee, Rimkus, Victor Stanley II, and the other opinions showing the courts’ focus on preservation issues. This case out of the Western District of Tennessee, which is the first preservation sanction we’ve seen from this district, shows how the need for improved preservation practices is permeating the judicial landscape.

In Naaco Materials Handling Group, Inc. v. Lilly Co. (No. 11-2415 AV, 2011 WL 5986649, W.D. Tenn. Nov. 16, 2011), the plaintiff brought a motion to prevent further spoliation of evidence due to inadequate preservation efforts being demonstrated by the defendant.  The original lawsuit alleged unauthorized and improper access to the plaintiff’s secure dealer website.  After initial 30(b)(6) depositions and e-discovery, there was evidence of data spoliation, and the plaintiff sought sanctions for both the failure to adequately prepare the 30(b)(6) witness and failure to take reasonable steps to preserve potentially relevant information.

In determining if sanctions were warranted, the court looked at a number of factors:

In order to determine if sanctions against Lilly are appropriate, the court must first determine (1) when Lilly’s duty to preserve evidence arose; (2) the scope of Lilly’s duty to preserve evidence; (3) whether Lilly’s litigation hold and search and collection efforts were sufficient; and (4) if not, whether sanctions should be imposed on Lilly… [p. 6]

The court found that Lilly’s duty to preserve arose no later than when they were served with the lawsuit in December of 2011.  The court next looked at scope, concluding that “given the allegations concerning computer access, which Lilly did not deny, Lilly’s duty to preserve potentially relevant ESI was very broad” [p. 7].   The court then considered the defendant’s preservation actions, identifying a number of shortcomings:

Upon being served with the lawsuit on February 25, 2011, Lilly took no immediate action whatsoever to preserve any data, electronic or paper. In addition, upon receiving the preservation letter, approximately twelve days later, Lilly failed to issue a written company-wide litigation hold. Instead, Clark simply circulated the litigation hold letter to seven Lilly employees out of Lilly’s 160 employees without any additional instruction. The failure to issue a written litigation hold is “likely to result in the destruction of relevant evidence.” [p. 7]

The court went on to cite additional shortcomings, including not notifying all the “key players” who had access the secure dealer website, and that no actions were taken to prevent deletion of emails or backup data.  The court concluded:

In summary, after the duty to preserve was triggered, Lilly failed to timely issue an effective written litigation hold, to take appropriate steps to preserve any existing electronic records, to suspend or alter automatic delete features and routine overwriting features, and to timely and effectively collect ESI. Therefore, the court finds that Lilly breached its duty to preserve relevant evidence. [p.8]

The court then considered the level of culpability (in this case, finding negligence) and prejudice suffered (uncertain, but highly likely given the facts of the case).  The end result: the court imposed preservation actions, additional discovery and monetary sanctions.

It bears repeating. Lilly is required to bear these costs because its preservation and collection efforts were woefully inadequate. Parties must take their duty to preserve ESI seriously. In order to avoid sanctions, such as these, parties must cooperate and voluntarily preserve, search for, and collect ESI. [p.11]

We’re hearing such conclusions from the courts being repeated often, and they do indeed serve as fair warning that litigants must take their duty to preserve seriously and respond appropriately, especially now that these issues are under a white-hot spotlight.

Further Reading:

• Electronic Discovery Law Blog, “Sanctions Ordered for Failure to Adequately ‘Preserve, Search for, and Collect Potentially Relevant Information,’” K&L Gates, Dec. 8, 2011.

Today we are announcing the publication of “Preservation and Proportionality: Perspectives on Lowering the Burden of Preserving Data in Civil Litigation,” a 36-page white paper that offers a comprehensive resource in the ongoing discussion around best practices for data preservation. “Preservation and Proportionality” is edited by our Brad Harris and Ron Hedges, a former United States Magistrate Judge.

How to manage the cost of preservation is squarely in the spotlight due to recent events, including the Dallas Mini-Conference in September and the Pippins v. KPMG opinion in October. In the post-Pension Committee world, the discussion has moved beyond “if” litigants need to preserve information to focus on “how.”

A highlight of this publication is “Perspectives on Preservation and Proportionality” featuring 13 contriibuted essays by e-discovery luminaries including Craig Ball, Kevin Brady, Eugenia Brumm, David Cohen, Dr. Richard Esham, Maura Grossman, John Jablonski, Tom Kelly, Browning Maream, Ariana Tadler, Jeane Thomas, David Walton, and Paul Weiner.

This is essential reading for everyone in the legal community that is involved with responding to a duty to preserve ESI for litigation – whether as in-house counsel, litigation support, or outside counsel.

Download our latest Signature Paper “Preservation and Proportionality” in PDF format at no charge by clicking here. If you would prefer a printed copy, please email your request to info@legalholdpro.com.

N.V.E., Inc. v. Jesus J. Palmeroni, et al., Civil Action No. 06-5455 (ES), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107600 (D.N.J., September 21, 2011)

On September 21, 2011, a new ruling out of New Jersey highlighted the intolerance of the courts for improperly implemented litigation holds.  In N.V.E. v. Palmeroni,  U.S. District Judge Esther Salas imposed monetary sanctions and an adverse inference instruction in her opinion that stated “[N.V.E] did not destroy records deliberately but was grossly negligent in failing to preserve them.”

The case began when N.V.E., a nutritional supplement company, sued its former vice president of sales Jesus Palmeroni who they had fired the previous January under the RICO Act. They accused Palmeroni of making deals with brokers for kickbacks on commissions. N.V.E. also added a claim that Palmeroni had conspired with other employees to buy products at less expensive international prices and resell them in the U.S. rather than export them. In response, Palmeroni filed a counterclaim accusing N.V.E. of firing him in response to his complaint of and refusal to participate in deceptive activities.

It’s interesting to note the timeline of events: Palmeroni was fired in January 2006. In May 2006 N.V.E. retained Pashman Stein of Hackensack, NJ. The lawsuit was not filed until November 2006. Pashman Stein admits that the firm failed to issue a litigation hold. The Chief Financial Officer of N.V.E. Erling Jensen, testified that counsel prior to Pashman Stein had sent out an email telling staff not to destroy documents, but there was no proof to back up this claim. Sometime after January 2006 N.V.E. deleted Palmeroni’s emails and destroyed all electronic records and papers. The electronic records had been on a computer system that N.V.E. was in the process of upgrading. The company stated that it could not “…have predicted we would not be able to get to our old computers.”

Also noteworthy is the comment by Aidan O’Connor of Pashman Stein who has since asked for reconsideration or an interlocutory appeal. He stated that from the time the case was filed until present time there has been a “sea change” in the law regarding litigation holds. He says, litigation holds are “now done as a matter of course.”

Isn’t that the truth? With a collaborative approach enabled by Legal Hold Pro, attorneys can now support clients in a way not possible only five short years ago in 2006. When faced with the possibility of litigation in 2011, counsel (both inside and out) need to imagine how they will demonstrate their preservation efforts if that case eventually goes to trial in 2014, 2015, or beyond – and then act accordingly.

Further Reading:

• Download the full opinion in N.V.E. v. Palmeroni
• Gallagher, Mary Pat, “N.J. Company Faces Sanctions Over Failed Litigation Hold,” New Jersey Law Journal, September 27, 2011

By Brad Harris

Last month, the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules called together a mini-conference to solicit greater insight in the nature and scope of the preservation problem, including how technology is contributing to the issue and how rule changes might help address the problem. Held under the auspices of the Discovery Subcommittee, the Mini-Conference on Preservation and Sanctions took place September 9 in Dallas, Texas.  The subcommittee was chaired by Hon. David Campbell and included representatives from in-house counsel, law firms, government and the judiciary.

Influenced by recent opinions on preservation and spoliation, the mini-conference participants were seeking greater clarity with regards to what constitutes a triggering event, how the preservation scope should be defined, and how sanctions apply.  Different approaches to possible rules distributed in advance of the conference ranged from highly detailed enumeration of preservation obligations, to a focus solely on sanctions and how to determine reasonableness.

In reading the notes from the conference, it was clear that there are no ready answers.  There did seem to be several common points of view from the discussions and here are my four takeaways from reviewing the conference minutes:

1. Preservation is an increasing burden.

It was clear from the comments of in-house counsel that preservation is a huge and increasing burden.  Driven by the fear of sanctions motions and the resulting reputational damage, corporations are preserving vast amounts of ESI.  The cost of such action, especially given the traditional approach of segregating, collecting and retaining ESI, is overwhelming.

This expense is in spite of the fact that the vast majority of the data will never be used for discovery. One corporate general counsel described how less than 10 percent is ever processed for discovery, and far less ever produced.  Microsoft’s GC pointed to this“monumental inefficiency” which is clearly driving the desire for greater clarity and certainty as to what constitutes reasonableness and good faith.  Advances in technology such as new  ways to communicate, the blurring of corporate and consumer technologies, and the rise of cloud computing and storage will only make things worse.

2. The threat of sanctions is enough to drive broad preservation.

Despite sanctions being involved in less than 1 percent of cases, the threat of sanctions motions is enough to drive a “de facto rule that there must be extremely broad preservation.”  One corporate GC  described having already spent in excess of $5 million on preservation and is incurring $100,000 a month to segregate and preserve information for a case that is still only anticipated.  Rather than a presumption of sanctions, one judge noted, perhaps a better presumption “that certain sorts of preservation efforts are ordinarily sufficient” even in the absence of a strict rule.

3. Rule changes are likely not the answer.

There seemed to be a lot of discussions about the limitations of potential rule changes, especially given the fact that “80 percent of the concerns of in-house counsel are about pre-litigation decisions” where rules don’t apply.  The group discussed the effectiveness of Rule 26(f) – that litigants seem reluctant to bring up preservation during meet and confer meetings (citing a recent Sedona survey where preservation was addressed fewer than 25 percent of the time) and how the meet and confer simply occurs too late in the process.   Discussions also illuminated some of the potential unintended consequences of bright lines when it comes to defining what constitutes a triggering event or attempting to arbitrarily limit scope of discovery.

4. The need for proportionality.

One interesting observation from reading the notes from the mini-conference was a lack of specific discussion about rules of proportionality.  I suspect proportionality was on everyone’s mind, especially when one general counsel described having spent over $3 million in discovery costs for a matter with a “small” value of less than $4 million.  Several judges expressed concern that perceived advances in review technology (e.g., predictive coding) may create a false-sense of security that overly broad collection and review isn’t really a problem (let alone the cost-prohibitive nature of such technologies for many parties to litigation).   Although not directly applicable to pre-litigation obligations, it seems appropriate to include the principles of Rule 26(b)(2)(c) when considering “objective guideposts” for reasonable preservation efforts.

We will watch eagerly as additional progress is made on this effort to see if a consensus emerges among the diverse group of stakeholders.

Further Reading:

• Download the official minutes from of the mini-conference in their entirety here.
• Allman, Thomas, “Thomas Allman: Discovery Subcommittee Report,” EDDUpdate.com, October 4, 2011

Since the law firm Gibson Dunn started covering electronic discovery rulings in its twice-per-year reports, they have become a “go to” resource for practitioners.  The team at Gibson Dunn recaps notable cases and organizes the report so that key trends are highlighted and they recently released the 2011 Mid-Year E-Discovery Report.

In the first half of 2011, they tracked 187 decisions that involved electronic data discovery, a remarkable increase of 82 percent at the same time in 2010.  Also interesting to note that the number of instances in which litigants sought sanctions continue to rise (more than double the number in the same 6-month period as last year) and that courts continue to award sanctions at essentially the same rate (56 percent).

In narrowing our perspective to issues pertaining to data preservation practices, Gibson Dunn noted the following topics in the “Preservation and Legal Holds” section as highlighted in the second key topic area (behind sanctions):

• Must legal holds be written? – “[A] number of courts in the first half of 2011 deliberated over whether a legal hold notice must be written or whether oral notification is sufficient. Several courts have been unwilling to follow Judge Shira Scheindlin’s 2010 Pension Committee decision, which held that failure to issue a written legal hold notice constitutes gross negligence per se and gives rise to a presumption of spoliation and prejudice to the opposing party.” (p.2)
• When exactly is the trigger event? – “Another hotly litigated issue continues to be when the duty to preserve is triggered. In the first half of 2011, the Federal Circuit dealt with this issue in the latest chapter of the long-running Rambus saga.” (Ibid.) “Decisions in the first half of 2011 also reinforced that the duty to preserve is triggered when litigation is reasonably foreseeable, which may be well before a complaint is actually filed.” (p.8)
• Counsel’s ongoing obligation to manage holds. – “Courts also continued to remind counsel of their obligation not only to ensure that a legal hold notice is issued in a timely manner, but also to monitor its implementation.” (p.2)

The continued focus of the courts on issues pertaining to legal holds is a sign of the growing intolerance of jurists to a lackadaisical approach still shown by some litigants when addressing their preservation obligations.  We have covered most of the key opinions in previous posts, but it is impactful to see summaries and analysis of them by Gibson Dunn to help reinforce the need for organizations to be proactive about their preservation processes.

More Reading:

• PDF of Gibson Dunn’s 2011 Mid-Year E-Discovery Update
• EDD Update, “Blistering Pace of EDD Decisions at Mid-Year,” ALM Media, July 25, 2011
• Our post regarding Gibson Dunn’s 2010 Mid-Year E-Discovery Update

by Brad Harris

In July, we posted about the DuPont v. Kolon opinion in April which was noteworthy in that DuPont escaped any sanctions in spite of spoliation by having a strong preservation plan in place.  The Eastern District of Virginia’s Senior District Judge Robert E. Payne issued a subsequent ruling on July 21 responding to a counterclaim for misappropriation of trade secrets filed in February 2009.

Despite Kolon producing nearly 1.2 million pages of discovery, in reviewing the outcome, DuPont noted a “suspiciously low document production totals” from certain key players as well as indications of intentional document destruction. (*2)  DuPont filed its spoliation motion and request for a default judgment in August 2010.

This case is an extremely interesting and well-worth a detailed read.  Judge Payne not only provides numerous case cites to back up the court’s findings, but also in discussing how relevance and culpability play such important roles in determining fault.

Judge Payne starts with a discussion of the three elements required when seeking sanctions for spoliation of evidence – that there was there a duty to preserve, that the destruction or loss was accompanied by a “culpable state of mind,” and was the information being destroyed or altered was relevant to the case.

In Kolon v. DuPont, the duty to preserve attached no later than when the case was filed.  Kolon did respond by issuing two litigation hold notices, the first to a handful of upper-level executives, and a second to all employees.  However, after what the court described as a “long, and oftentimes tortuous, journey on the part of DuPont,” (*2) it was determined that key players had indeed engaged in bad faith deletion of files and emails that were subject to their duty to preserve.

When determining appropriate sanctions, the court then needs to consider both the “quantum of fault” and the degree of prejudice suffered.  Judge Payne did conclude that Kolon had “breached its duty to preserve when key employees… deleted files and email items from their personal computers in the days after DuPont filed this action.” (*26)  However, was this enough to warrant a case-dispositive sanction as sought by DuPont?  In this case, the court found insufficient evidence of widespread and wanton disregard of its duty to preserve, ruling instead for the imposition of “sanctions in the forms of attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs related to this motion, and an adverse inference instruction.” (*37)

The court did cite Kolon’s efforts in issuing litigation holds and subsequent efforts to preserve files (including preserving backup tapes and capturing images of custodian hard drives) in its decision against a default judgment.  However, it found the litigation hold process lacking – the first hold was sent only to a handful of employees, with no evidence that the hold was forwarded on to others in the company.  The second issued a week later was distributed broadly, yet done so in English to mostly non-English speaking employees, and with “insufficient instruction given to employees about the importance of preserving relevant files and email items.” (*5)

As we’ve seen in so many other cases over last two years, the Courts are demanding a more rigorous preservation process and actively engaged counsel.   The continuing battle between DuPont and Kolon illustrates ways to reduce the risk and ultimate cost of spoliation claims – including timely written legal holds addressed to individuals expected to take action, clear and concise instructions as to what is expected of those custodians, routine updates and reminders, and a detailed audit trail documenting the steps taken.

More Reading:

• Electronic Discovery Law Blog, “For Key Employees’ Bad Faith, Intentional Spoliation, Court Imposes Adverse Inference and Monetary Sanctions,” August 12, 2011, K&L Gates
• Full Opinion of E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., No. 3:09cv58, 2011 WL 2966862 (E.D. Va. July 21, 2011)

Haraburda v. Arcelor Mittal USA, Inc., No. 2:11 cv 93, 2011 WL 2600756 (N.D. Ind. June 28, 2011)

An opinion in late June from the Northern District of Indiana firmly reiterated the need for a legal hold and shot down one litigant’s attempts to postpone its timing until after the Rule 26(f) meeting.  That strategy was rebuffed when U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew P. Rodovich upheld the plaintiff’s motion for an Order to Preserve on June 28, 2011.  Thanks to K&L Gates’ Electronic Discovery Law blog for bringing this case to our attention.

The employment matter was initiated when the plaintiff filed a complaint for employment discrimination on March 11, 2011, against Arcelor Mittal, the world’s leading integrated steel and mining company, with operations in more than 60 countries and 2010 revenues of $78 billion.  The plaintiff’s legal team worried that relevant emails were deleted during the EEOC investigation (and well after the ‘trigger event’) and in response said that those emails were company property.

When asked for assurance that the defendant would preserve relevant information,  “Mittal responded that it refused to implement a litigation hold or other process to preserve evidence until after the Rule 26(f) discovery conference, explaining that Haraburda’s request was premature. Mittal further indicated that it would decline all requests from Haraburda for information and documents, including non-litigation documents. (*1)

Naturally, this did not sit well with the court which, in a granted motion reminiscent of March 2009’s Synventive v. Husky out of the District of Vermont.  The court cited the defendant’s lack of preservation efforts and statements on the subject, in addition to the potential burden of spoliation on the plaintiff’s case when it ordered Mittal to “place a litigation hold on any and all documents and information that may reasonably be related to the pending litigation.” (*3)

Haraburda v. Arcelor Mittal is a strong reminder that timeliness is critical when issuing a litigation hold.  As it was reiterated in Judge Rodovich’s opinion the duty to preserve starts when “[a party] knows, or should have known, that litigation was imminent” (*1, citing Trask-Morton v. Motel  6) and that is precisely when a legal hold should be issued – otherwise the court will do it for you — as Arcelor Mittal discovered.  It also shows that even large, publicly traded multinationals such as Arcelor Mittal still have much to learn about what is appropriate in today’s legal environment.

Further Reading

• K&L Gates, Electronic Discovery Law blog, “Court Rejects Refusal to Issue Litigation Hold Before 26(f) Conference, Orders Litigation Hold on All Evidence Reasonably Related to Pending Litigation,” July 8, 2011
• Haraburda v. Arcelor Mittal Order to Preserve