vs. Stanley Victor question regards documents that CP produced. (
held: privilege waived by the voluntary production OUCH!
4.9 GB 33.7 GB CP had two sets of ESI: searchable non-searchable here is what happened: these documents were searched, reviewed, and produced
a week later, VS send alert that privilege documents were produced by CP
Here's the kicker. parties and court conference call discussing a clawback proposal... CP abandoned their efforts to obtain a clawback agreement. oops! VS files motion that CP waived privilege CP argues inadvertant production; no waiver clawback agreement? funny you should mention that OPEN PARENTHETICAL CLOSE PARENTHETICAL back to the program rabbit trail
The court tries to makes heads or tails of how the defendant handled the documents, what went wrong, and why. CP argues inadvertent production; no waiver back to the program WAS THIS INADVERTANT?The court tries to makes heads or tails of how the defendant handled the documents, what went wrong, and why. CP argues inadvertent production; no waiver back to the program WAS THIS INADVERTANT?
The court finds that defendant failed to provide information regarding: keywords used rationale behind the words qualifications of the designers analysis of results proving reasonable conduct
In bearing the burden, the court expected to see: description of the keywords how they were developed how the search was conducted what quality controls were employed to assess their reliability and accuracy qualifications for designing a search and information retrieval strategy Of note, Judge Grimm suggests: sampling!
Court states that there are limitations and risks associated with keywords; selection and implementation involves technical, if not scientific knowledge eg, computer technology, statistics and linguistics for lawyers and judges to dare opine that a certain search term or terms would be more likely to produce information than the terms that were used is truly to go where angels fear to tread. Equity Analytics, LLC v. Lundin, 248 F.R.D. 331, 333 (D.D.C.2008) Things are looking down for CP But Judge Grimm has more to say about searching.
where angels fear to tread. Use of information retrieval methodology requires the utmost care Selection of the method requires careful advance planning by persons qualified to design effective search methodology implementation should be tested for quality assurance However, if you are brave enough to go where angels fear to tread, here are some things to remember: Once you arrive where angels fear to tread
1. explain the rationale for the method chosen to the court, party selecting the methodology Once you arrive where angels fear to tread must be prepared to Here is what Judge Grimm expects of you:
Plaintiff may use these documents as evidence in this case, provided they are otherwise admissible.  2. demonstrate that it is appropriate for the task, 3. show that it was properly implemented and CP could not do any of that stuff.