Electronic Data Records Law | How to Win E-Discovery

Court Judges Corporation’s Record Retention-Destruction Routine

Phillip M. Adams & Associates v. Dell Inc.

Corporate record retention policies are taking a beating in court.

Conventional policy instructs employees to look at records on a one-by-one basis and decide according to rational standards what to keep and what to destroy.  Conventional policy further provides that when litigation arises, then a legal hold is applied – that is, record destruction is suspended and relevant records are retained.  Classic records and information management (RIM) theory holds that if a corporation follows such a conventional policy, then the corporation should not be penalized in litigation for improper destruction of records.

But the theory is not holding up.  Over the past decade, legal authorities have looked askance at record destruction policies.

At an emotional level, the attitude of authorities is, “What?  You’re telling me, big enterprise, that you don’t have any records on the topic of this lawsuit because you told your employees to destroy records (or you set up your system to destroy records automatically unless employees undertake arduous steps to preserve them)?  Explain that to me.  What is the urgency to destroy records in this digital age?   Maybe when records were paper an enterprise needed to rid itself of documents that occupy a lot of real estate and are hard to search.  But e-mail archives do not take up much physical space, and they are amenable to automated search.  I have a pointed question for you, big enterprise:  Did you as a matter of policy winnow down the number of your records so that you could achieve a general advantage in lawsuits?”

The legal system is unhappy with an enterprise that destroys records for the purpose of positioning itself for future litigation, even litigation that is not specifically anticipated.  The system calls that behavior spoliation.

Phillip M. Adams & Associates v. Dell Inc. is a striking case.  It sanctioned a company for destroying records for some years before the lawsuit was filed or specifically threatened.  In accordance with the company's policy, employees (including an engineer or two) destroyed records, or they refrained from preserving records as the company's computer systems destroyed them.

Storage space was limited on the company's central e-mail servers.  Servers overwrote (erased-purged) e-mail relatively quickly unless employees made special efforts to preserve them.

Although the company's policy was not fully expressed as a formal, unified document, the court was able to ascertain what the policy was from the company's deliberate practices and their effect.  Said the court, "“[The company's] practices  . . . tend toward loss of data. The practices place operations-level employees in the position of deciding what information is relevant to the enterprise and its data retention needs."

Effectively, the company's policy is what I've termed on this blog the make-a-decision style of records management, where individual employees are supposed to decide what records to keep and what to destroy.

The court essentially felt the policy was unreasonable.

Some commentators think the court made a bad decision because it runs counter to common business practice.  They speculate the court suspected bad faith on the company's part, but couldn’t specifically cite evidence to support that suspicion.

Regardless of whether the court was right or wrong, the case is consistent with a trend in 21st century law:  the legal system is distrustful of early or aggressive record destruction.  The legal system is providing enterprises a growing basket of incentives to be more generous in retaining records, especially email.

–Benjamin Wright

Mr. Wright teaches e-discovery and e-investigations law at the SANS Institute.

Electronic Mail Message Forged

Electronic Evidence | Forensics and Authentication in Police Investigation

For responsible parties like corporations and government agencies, a reason to retain all their e-mail, text and instant message records is to refute forgeries of e-records.  Thorough email archives (including each attachment) provide forensic evidence to invalidate false claims.

Just ask Australia’s prime minister, Kevin Rudd.  His political opponents tried to embarrass him with an electronic mail record purportedly from his senior advisor Andrew Charlton.  The e-mail appeared to show corruption; it appeared to show Rudd’s government conferring a business advantage to Rudd’s friend John Grant.

But fortunately for the government, it retained its own e-mail records for the time in question.  An investigation revealed that the scandalous e-mail was a forgery!

The investigation proceeded in two steps. First it examined the alleged sender’s digital records.  “Searches by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and Treasury of Dr Charlton's computer and the system of the public service had found nothing.  ‘There have been exhaustive searches conducted on Dr Charlton's computer email system and no such correspondence can be found,’ Mr Rudd said.”

Second, the Australian Federal Police (equivalent to FBI) conducted a forensic analysis of two computers used by the purported receiver of the e-mail.  "Preliminary results of those forensic examinations indicate that the email referred to at the centre of this investigation has been created by a person or persons other than the purported author of the email," said the AFP.

This revelation of course played to the Prime Minister’s distinct advantage.  He could show that his adversaries had based their attack on misrepresented facts.

The Strategy Lesson:  Unless you are a criminal, your e-records are your friend.  Had the government been destroying its records quickly, it would not have been so capable of exposing this fraud.

–Benjamin Wright

Mr. Wright is an advisor to Messaging Architects, thought leader on ESI investigations.

Text Email Home PC - BlackBerry - iPhone - Cell Phone

Discovery in Business Lawsuit?

How far will the law will go to get the e-mails, text message records, that are relevant to a legal inquiry like a lawsuit?

An eye-opening Canadian case is CIBC World Markets Inc. v. Genuity Capital Markets, [2005] O.J. No. 614 (S.C.J) (QL).

CIBC sued Genuity, alleging it had stolen trade secrets from CIBC.  When a lawsuit like this is filed, the parties are expected to apply a litigation hold to ensure no records are destroyed.  But a litigation hold is hard to implement if a litigant is not causing copies of all business e-mails to be stored in a central archive.  Furthermore, if the litigant is not storing copies of all its employees’ messages, then it may be forced to canvass their home computers.
 
In the CIBC case, the court permitted forensics experts to go to great lengths and expense to locate e-mail.  They were granted access to all PCs, BlackBerries (smart mobile phones) and similar devices under the influence of the Genuity's employees, including devices at home (like iPods, iPhones or Androids) and belonging to spouses and children!  (In an investigation like this, imagine what goes through the mind of an employee who might have been involved in any kind of marital strife or infidelity.)

The lesson from the case is that enterprises are wise to keep extensive, centrally-managed archives of all business-related e-mail (including webmail, SMS, MMS [multimedia message service], text messages and instant messages) by employees and other personnel.  That way they avoid the expense and hassle associated with searches of home computers and other personal gadgets.

This topic grows more important as informal electronic contracting, such as trading in OTC derivatives, attracts greater scrutiny, regulation, litigation and investigations.

–Benjamin Wright

Click Here

 

Mr. Wright teaches electronic data and records law at the SANS Institute.

Cull ESI

Search Costs in E-Discovery and E-Disclosure

Does the cost of filtering attorney-client communications from legal disclosures justify a policy of skimpy retention of email?

To understand that question, we need background:  If an enterprise possesses records, it must be prepared to disclose them when required to do so by law.  Disclosure entails effort to find and compile the relevant records.  If the records are paper, the searching and compiling are performed manually.  But if the records are electronic, automated methods for searching and compiling may be available.

For records of electronic mail, modern archival technology enables easy searches, even if the number of records is large.  Search engines can make finding/compiling records rather low cost.  From a policy perspective, those low costs help to justify more complete and lengthy retention of e-mail within an enterprise.

But wait. Some say those low costs are offset by the expense of screening out attorney communications when law requires that the enterprise disclose records.

Is that true?  Let’s analyze the topic.

When the owner of e-mail records such as a public agency must release records under e-discovery or freedom of information act (FOIA), the owner may normally withhold those records protected by attorney-client privilege.  Why?  The law wants to encourage open communication between counsel and client and to enable lawyers to create work product outside the scrutiny of adversaries.

Given this right to withhold, a record holder naturally wants to cull out any protected attorney communications before it discloses records.  If performed manually, this detection and sifting can involve much time and expense.  Some therefore argue the holder would have been wiser in the first place not to have retained the records.  They advocate deleting e-mail records as soon as possible.  If the holder does not possess the records, they say, the holder avoids the eventual cost of filtering out the protected records.

That argument, however, ignores how rapidly search engines are advancing.  Advanced search engines employing artificial intelligence and other techniques can (so their promoters claim) outperform lawyers when examining copious records. See, Daniel Fisher, “The Data Explosion,” Forbes, October 1, 2007.  I courageously predict search engine advances will accelerate as better search methodology and algorithms are developed.

As search technology improves, the need for expensive, manual screening for protected communications diminishes.

Sure, search engines can make mistakes. A lady from a government agency reminded me that if a privileged e-mail slips out in a FOIA disclosure, the law provides no way to claw it back.  So her agency tediously examines e-mails before divulging them.

My reply:  people make mistakes too.  Moreover, the risk of an occasional privilege slip-up is small reason for a government agency to adopt a policy of early e-mail destruction.  While I respect the agency’s need for confidentiality with its lawyers, many other considerations suggest the agency is wise to keep generous electronic mail records.

Another point:  is it really in the public’s interest for a government agency to place colossal emphasis on protecting its lawyer records?

As the costs drop for implementing pretty-good automated measures for screening out protected records, the argument for minimizing the size of email archives drops too.

–Benjamin Wright, JD

 

Documentation for Swap Contracts

Electronic Records of OTC Derivatives Contracts

New financial regulations, when coupled with advancing technology, will force the retention of massive electronic commerce records.  Hear what the authorities are saying about the regulation of financial derivatives:

First:  Famed economist Hernando de Soto says poor documentation for $1 quadrillion worth of financial derivatives is wreaking havoc on the world economy. "Toxic Assets Were Hidden Assets," Wall Street Journal, 3/25/09, pA13.  He calls for much better documentation of derivatives contracts.

Second:  Former SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt recommends much new record-keeping and reporting by entities like hedge funds that have not previously been regulated. “Former SEC chief says gather, share more data,” USA Today, 3/27/09 p3B.

Third:  To prevent more of the “toxic” assets poisoning today’s financial system, Treasury Secretary Geithner says, “We will require that all non-standardized derivatives contracts be reported to trade repositories and be subject to robust standards for documentation and confirmation of trades, netting, collateral and margin practices, and close-out practices.”

What’s the definition of a “non-standardized derivatives contract?”  It’s really just a negotiated contract that allocates risk between two or more parties.  It can cover most any kind of risk or possibility, from the risk of a lawsuit to the potential for rain in the Australian Outback.  (A derivative can even be "embedded" in an routine commercial contract, such as a sale agreement or a mining agreement.)  The scope of this field is breathtaking.  Non-standardized derivatives contracts have become a very large, thinly-monitored part of our financial world. 

So what’s a complete record of one of these derivatives contracts look like?  Would it be a stack of paper, stapled together, with signatures at the end?  It could indeed be such a stack of paper. 

But . . . let’s think deeper about how contracts are documented these days.  As the methods for written business communication – letter, telex, fax, e-mail, instant message and so on -- have grown progressively more cheap and easy, the challenges for documenting complex contracts have risen.

If the derivatives contract were entered in the 1970s, using the practices of the day, a stack of paper, stapled together, would most likely be the form it would have taken.  It might have been supplemented with a few paper letters and, once-in-a-blue-moon, a telex or two.  (Some court cases enforced telex similar to paper correspondence.)

Then in the 1980s faxes became popular, and the contract might have been a stack of stapled paper, supplemented or amended by several faxes. (We learned years ago that faxes can be legally-binding records, just like paper-written letters.)  

Next, in the 1990s e-mail started to become a common form of business communication.  Numerous judicial decisions have held e-mail to be legally-binding “signed writings” essentially equivalent to paper letters.  

See JSO Associates, Inc. v Price (informal e-mails can constitute signed writings agreeing to hire a broker to sell securities and pay a commission) and Cloud Corp. v. Hasbro (formal paper contract that says it can be amended only by a signed writing is amended by informal e-mails).

The e-mails in a contractual relationship can be very numerous.  And they often are not as clearly written as old-fashioned, formal paper contracts were.

Today non-standard derivatives contracts (a.k.a. "swaps," or "custom," "customized," "tailored," "bespoke" or "bilateral" derivatives) can be negotiated, documented, amended, supplemented and interpreted by a dizzying array of electronic communications.  Fax and e-mail are probably most common, but instant messages, phone text messages, chat rooms, message boards, social networking channels and voicemail-converted-to-text are rising in usage among busy traders.  (Dedicated online marketplaces like Agora-X and 360T provide organized electronic environments for communication and negotiation of over-the-counter derivatives instruments.  A brochure for 360T says its secure marketplace supports "Real-time online chat with any requesting counterparty individual.")

In the derivatives world, "novation" (substitution of one counterparty for another) commonly occurs by e-mail.

All this communication can be critical to full documentation for a modern financial contract.  In the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, for example, the administrator digs through mountains of e-mail to figure out what the firm’s rights and obligations were in the over-the-counter derivatives market.