UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. DISTRICT OF NEVADA NO. 2:13-cv-00298-APG-PAL SPECIAL MASTER DANIEL B. GARRIE E-DISCOVERY SUMMARY AND ORDER



Similar documents
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 2:13-cv APG-PAL Document 189 Filed 08/18/14 Page 1 of 78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Acknowledgments Introduction: Welcome to the Labyrinth. CHAPTER 1 Gathering the Evidence 1. CHAPTER 2 Third-Party Experts 25

GUIDELINES FOR USE OF THE MODEL AGREEMENT REGARDING DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION

Case 2:14-cv KHV-JPO Document 12 Filed 07/10/14 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Case4:12-cv KAW Document2-1 Filed06/25/12 Page1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND DIVISION

Case: 1:13-cv SSB-SKB Doc #: 9 Filed: 03/11/14 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 31

Article originally appeared in the Fall 2011 issue of The Professional Engineer

DEFAULT STANDARD FOR DISCOVERY, INCLUDING DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION {"ESI")

CIVIL DISCOVERY STANDARDS* AUGUST 1999 [NOVEMBER 2003 DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY STANDARDS]

E-Discovery in Practice: A Roadmap for Financial Institutions

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GOVERNING EXPERT DISCOVERY

How To Find Out What You Know About Esi

LEGAL HOLD OBLIGATIONS FOR DISTRICT EMPLOYEES

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN

PROPOSED ELECTRONIC DATA DISCOVERY GUIDELINES FOR THE MARYLAND BUSINESS AND TECHONOLOGY CASE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM JUDGES

The E-Discovery Process

Schneps, Leila; Colmez, Coralie. Math on Trial : How Numbers Get Used and Abused in the Courtroom. New York, NY, USA: Basic Books, p i.

DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY-STORED INFORMATION IN STATE COURT: WHAT TO DO WHEN YOUR COURT S RULES DON T HELP

Best Practices Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

) ) NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority vested in me as Chief Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, it is

FRONTIER REGIONAL/UNION#38 SCHOOL DISTRICTS. Records Retention Policy for Electronic Correspondence

Electronic Discovery How can I be prepared? September 2010

Case: 4:12-cv CEJ Doc. #: 182 Filed: 07/17/12 Page: 1 of 4 PageID #: 4880

Electronic Discovery and Disclosure:

In-House Solutions to the E-Discovery Conundrum

Records Retention & E-Discovery. Preserving Electronically Stored Information for Litigation

Case 2:11-cv LRH-PAL Document 174 Filed 07/18/14 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * Plaintiff, Defendants.

Best Practices in Electronic Record Retention

E-Discovery and Data Management. Managing Litigation in the Digital Age. Attorney Advertising

electronic discovery requests

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

WASHINGTON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PRO SE CUSTODY PACKET

How To Answer A Question About Your Organization'S History Of Esi

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

DIGITAL FORENSIC TECHNOLOGY SEE BEYOND THE NUMBERS

Department of Veterans Affairs VA Directive 6311 VA E-DISCOVERY

DOCSVAULT WhitePaper. Concise Guide to E-discovery. Contents

IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS FOR MID-RANGE EDISCOVERY DATA COLLECTION

E-Discovery for Paralegals: Definition, Application and FRCP Changes. April 27, 2007 IPE Seminar

CLAIMS AGAINST TELEPHONE ANSWERING SERVICES: THE TRILOGY OF PREVENTION, HANDLING AND RESOLUTION PART TWO: WHAT TO DO WHEN A CLAIM HAPPENS

FEDERAL PRACTICE. In some jurisdictions, understanding the December 1, 2006 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is only the first step.

ediscovery: The New Information Management Battleground Developments in the Law and Best Practices

Case 2:11-cv JWL-JPO Document 94 Filed 06/07/13 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Case 1:04-cv RJL Document Filed 08/16/13 Page 1 of 6. EXHIBIT 1 s

University of Louisiana System

102 ediscovery Shakedown: Lowering your Risk. Kindred Healthcare

Preservation and Production of Electronic Records

How To Be A Computer Forensics Examiner

Electronic Data Retention and Preservation Policy 1

ESI Risk Assessment: Critical in Light of the new E-discovery and notification laws

ACADEMIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL ******************************************************************************

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER ON VIDEO CONFERENCING PILOT PROGRAMS

Xact Data Discovery. Xact Data Discovery. Xact Data Discovery. Xact Data Discovery. ediscovery for DUMMIES LAWYERS. MDLA TTS August 23, 2013

Archiving and The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Understanding the Issues

RULE 1. ASSIGNMENT OF CASES

Overview of E-Discovery and Depositions in U.S. IP Litigation

E-Discovery: A Common Sense Approach. In order to know how to handle and address ESI issues, the preliminary and

Case 2:10-md CJB-SS Document Filed 05/23/13 05/17/13 Page 12 of of 78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION TO AUTHORIZE DISTRIBUTION OF THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND

Outlaw v. Willow Oral Argument Motions for Sanctions

How To Write A Hit Report On A Lawsuit Against A Company

USER INSTRUCTIONS WELCOME TO THE CLERK S OFFICE ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM

Measures Regarding Litigation Holds and Preservation of Electronically Stored Information (ESI)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAGIC KINGDOM ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions in Electronic Discovery. Discovering What There Is to Discover

General Items Of Thought

E-Discovery Basics For the RIM Professional. Learning Objectives 5/18/2015. What is Electronic Discovery?

ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY. Dawn M. Curry

Case 2:10-md CJB-SS Document Filed 08/15/13 Page 1 of 22

2 California Evidence (5th), Discovery

Vancouver Toronto Seattle

Technical Evidence Management Theory: The early application of technology to reduce dispute resolution costs

B. Preservation is not limited to simply avoiding affirmative acts of destruction because day-to-day operations routinely alter or destroy evidence.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. SOME DEBTOR, Case No (Chapter ) Debtor. JUDGE [NAME OF JUDGE]

The Evolution of E-Discovery Model Orders

77 FR DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT. [Docket No ; FR-5613-N-06-B] November 15, 2012

Case3:11-cv EMC Document10 Filed07/26/11 Page1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Discussion of Electronic Discovery at Rule 26(f) Conferences: A Guide for Practitioners

Case 2:10-cv CW Document 90 Filed 02/02/15 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

E-Discovery Toolkit for Educational Institutions

ZL UNIFIED ARCHIVE A Project Manager s Guide to E-Discovery. ZL TECHNOLOGIES White Paper

3 "C" Words You Need to Know: Custody - Control - Cloud

Electronic Medical Records Issues with Discovery of e-medical Records in Litigation

case 2:03-cv PPS-APR document 64 filed 11/03/2004 page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, v. Windmill Inns of America, d/b/a Windmill Inn of Ashland, Defendant.

MASTER DISCOVERY TO INSURER AND ADJUSTER DEFENDANTS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION. Case No. 5:07-CV-231-F

SECOND AMENDED ORDER DESIGNATING ALL CASES E-FILE AND SETTING FORTH CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS IN E-FILE CASES

E-discovery: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and their Implications for Public Sector Corrections Departments

State of Michigan Records Management Services. Guide to E mail Storage Options

Digital Forensics, ediscovery and Electronic Evidence

Data Security at the KOKU

C. All responses should reflect an inquiry into actual employee practices, and not just the organization s policies.

THE NEW WORLD OF E-DISCOVERY

FINAL JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER. This matter is before the Court on a Final Pretrial Conference pursuant to R. 4:25-1.

2. Five years post-graduate degree experience with child custody issues that may include evaluations, therapy, and mediation.

Transcription:

Small et al v. University Medical Center of Southern Nevada Doc. 169 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DANIEL SMALL, et al.,, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER OF SOUTHERN NEVADA, Defendants. DISTRICT OF NEVADA NO. 2:13-cv-00298-APG-PAL SPECIAL MASTER DANIEL B. GARRIE E-DISCOVERY SUMMARY AND ORDER BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS The Special Master was appointed on March 3, 2014. (Dkt. No. 149.) On March 10, 2014, the parties, counsel for all parties, and ESI consultants for all parties, met with Special Master Daniel Garrie and United States Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen in chambers. (Dkt. No. 151.) On March 18, 2014, Special Master Garrie memorialized his directives to the parties in a written order. (Dkt. No. 154.) The Special Master conducted multiple hearings on the following dates: April 4, 2014; April 7, 2014; April 10, 2014; April 15, 2014; April 27, 2014; May 1, 2014; and May 6, 2014 with counsel, the parties representatives, and consultants. Those hearing concerned UMC s ESI collection and production issues, UMC s efforts to preserve discoverable materials pursuant to the Plaintiffs litigation hold/preservation letters, UMC s search of the ESI collected, UMC s preservation efforts with mobile devices, and other issues regarding UMC collection of ESI in the DOL hearings as it relates to this litigation. the following: Plaintiffs. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs and UMC will have done or do 1. Plaintiffs will provide any and all exhibits intended to be used at any future hearing at least 48-hours in advance to defendant and the Special Master. 2. Plaintiffs are to submit a letter to the Special Master identifying any and all negative Dockets.Justia.com

issues relating to the UMC s production, with examples as appropriate, on or before June 4, 2014. 3. Plaintiffs will file with the Court, by May 25, 2014, the amended ESI Protocol. Defendants. 1. UMC is to provide the Special Master with a letter as to dates and times the following repositories were collected, searched, and produced: network file shares, intranet, and any other systems that might contain relevant and/or responsive data. 2. UMC is to provide the Special Master with a spreadsheet (.xlsx ) that identifies for the 26 custodians all computers, devices, and other storage repositories during the relevant time period. See 4/7/2014 Tr. 111:5-25 (discussing spreadsheet in some detail). The spreadsheet is to contain the following column values in the following order: Full Name Device Type Device Serial No. Date Collected Date range device used OS of Device David Yu iphone4s 12345689000 01/22/2014 10/01/12 to 05/01/13 Apple 3. UMC is to provide the Special Master with a letter that lists the different UMC mailing lists used during the relevant time period by any of the 26 custodians to communicate information relating to this dispute. See 4/7/2014 Tr. 168:20-25 (Discussing UMC mailing lists). UMC is to also identify the full name of the people and their email addresses who were authorized to send to these mailing lists information relating to this dispute. See 4/7/2014 Tr. 169:1-7. 4. UMC is to inform the Special Master if any of the audio recordings of union grievance hearings are responsive to Plaintiff s discovery requests. See 4/7/2014 Tr. 206:8-11. 5. UMC is to provide to the Special Master the following on or before June 03, 2014, unless noted otherwise: Declaration of former counsel as to preservation notice and collection on or before May 22, 2014. See 05/06/2014 Tr. 7: 15-25; 8:1-3; 9:2-4. Declaration from prior vendor on collection process that was used, the author of that process, and interaction with prior counsel. UMC is to produce bates stamp numbers for Excel spreadsheets containing data for Page 2

DOL referenced by Panzieri. See 05/06/2014 Tr. 28: 12-15. A letter to the Special Master that defines acuity reports and GRASP database, and identifies if either of these two data repositories contain data responsive to these proceedings. An updated file share spreadsheet that details the network file share repositories that were not collected until April of 2014, and were identified as potential repositories with responsive information. 6. UMC is to provide to the Special Master a letter that details UMC's litigation hold protocol process for each type of litigation. UMC is to also clarify whether UMC has existing contracts with vendors or uses a vendor "master contract. See 05/06/2014 Tr. 249:17-20. 7. UMC is to provide to the Special Master, on or before May 30, 2014, an updated declaration that clarifies Mr. Doug Spring s testimony as to tracking Clocking In and Out through custodians emails. 8. UMC is to provide a letter to the Special Master, on or before May 27, 2014, that establishes a timeline UMC can meet to complete the index of hard copy documents that Plaintiffs will inspect, and an estimate as to the number of documents and page count in the index. 9. UMC is to provide an Affidavit to the Special Master, on or before May 23, 2014, on Mr. Brannman s role in preservation procedures and efforts surrounding this case, including: (i) whether Brannman was given notice of July 27th, 2012 filing of the lawsuit; (ii) whether Brannman received and viewed the August 6th, 2012 preservation letter; (iii) whether Brannman received and viewed the November 6th, 2012 preservation letter; (iv) what is Brannman's best recollection of UMC preservation policies for lawsuits like the current case; (v) what was Brannman s role in preservation procedures and efforts surrounding this case; (vi) who was the person or persons who reported to Brannman directly or indirectly and were responsible for executing the preservation effort in this case; (vii) what to the best of Brannman s knowledge were the retention policies Page 3

followed in this case; and (viii) whether Brannman made any relevancy determinations regarding document collection and preservation in this dispute. See 05/06/2014 Tr. 44:25; 45:1-11; 46:13-17; 70:3-16 (clarifying substance of Brannman declaration to be provided to the Special Master). 10. UMC is to complete relevancy determinations on or before May 23, 2014, for the following repositories that were collected in April 2014: Network file shares, Web server, and Outlook public folders. 11. UMC is to provide an affidavit to the Special Master from Dean Schaibley that includes the following information: (i) who directed collection, timeline followed; what has been collected; (ii) error logs; (iii) date and details of the initial data that was transferred to UMC ESI vendor for analysis; (iv) details of how data was collected; (v) explanation of all the error logs posts that were provided to the Special Master; (vi) details as to the interaction with prior counsel around the verification of correct custodians; (vii) any and all reports, documents, and spreadsheets submitted or provided in the Special Master hearings (05/06/2014 Tr. 196:19-25); (viii) the history and details around the use of ActiveSync at UMC (05/06/2014 Tr. 155:22-25); (ix) clarifies what data is contained on the TS-1 Server; (x) states whether Leah Conedy's personal mobile device was ever configured to have access to UMC information (05/06/2014 Tr. 141:23-25); and (xi) states the number of tiff images in each network file path (05/06/2014 Tr. 282:15-25). 12. UMC ESI expert, Mr. Joseph Edmondson, is to provide an updated declaration to the Special Master, on or before May 23, 2014, that (i) contains an annotated version of the e-discovery process; (ii) further clarifies the actual data received and analyzed on or before March 10, 2014 (04/15/2014 Tr. 30:2-10); (iii) provides a complete list of preservation/litigation hold notices transmitted internally via email (05/06/2014 Tr. 62:8-13); and (iv) provides an exhaustive list of all the e-discovery issues in a clear and detailed written form. See 05/06/2014 Tr. 287:23-25. 13. UMC is to provide a letter to the Special Master, on or before June 2, 2014, that (i) Page 4

identifies the individual at UMC who is responsible for setting and managing UMC record retention policies during the time period in question and currently; (ii) identifies the prior mail filter application to McAfee implementation at UMC in June of 2012 and the individual that was responsible for the administration of this system; (iii) clarifies how the UMC assistant controller (Vanke) was involved in the excel conversion action relating to the SAP/Kronos payroll system data; (iv) identifies the third-party who is responsible for managing anonymous complaints from employees and whether this system contains responsive information relating to the substance of these proceedings; (v) identifies the name, title, and contact details of the individual(s) in UMC IT department who implement the record/data retention schedules for emails, Blackberry communications, and SAP/Kronos systems; (vi) clarifies UMC s past claims it spent $100,000 on ESI vendors (05/06/2014 Tr. 113:21-23); (vii) verifies that the folder "nursing administration" is collected from the network file shares (04/10/2014 Tr. 14:16-22); and (viii) details the organization charts for the UMC Information Technology Department. Human Resources, Risk, Finance, and Payroll (including applicable personal assistants) for the time period in question. 14. UMC is to provide a declaration or affidavit to the Special Master, on or before May 30, 2014, from the original e-discovery provider that addresses the following: (i) how they failed to properly collect the ESI that UMC initially collected; (ii) why they were unable to collect in a forensically sound manner the ESI gathered by UMC either in April and August. 15. UMC Counsel is to provide a two page letter to Special Master Garrie, on or before June 03, 2014, that explains how UMC s Security individual, UMC s Counsel, UMC s current forensic expert, and UMC s former forensic expert did not realize the ESI collection being searched was not the entire ESI repository collected by UMC. In addition, UMC ESI expert is to provide an affidavit to the Special Master, on or before June 06, 2014, which identifies each and every file valid and deleted that was collected by UMC and not Page 5

included in UMC s first, second, or third ESI production. 16. To the extent another due date is not specifically provided for in the tasks set forth above, the due date for that task shalll be June 10,, 2014. HEARING DATES The following dates for hearings are as follows: May 20, June 3, and June 16. All hearings will be held at the Las Vegas court house or telephonically with a court reporter present. The Special Master will coordinate with the court to confirm space is available. The Special Master Orders the parties to be prepared and their ESI and UMC IT experts to be available in-person. SO ORDERED: Daniel Garrie, Esq. Electronic Discovery Special Master DATED this 18th day of May, 2014. Page 6