e-discovery, litigation and mobile devices · e-discovery, litigation and mobile devices . ......

412.394.7711 | clarkhill.com

E-DISCOVERY, LITIGATION AND MOBILE DEVICES


•  General Principles of E-Discovery

•  Authentication and Admission of ESI

•  Expert Testimony: The Frye and Daubert Tests


• E-DISCOVERY

•  Discoveryistheprocessinli0ga0onwherebothsidesexchangeevidence.E-discoveryisdiscoveryofelectronicallystoredinforma0on(“ESI”)

•  Recentrevisionstofederalrulesarefocusedonbalancingtheneedfor

inves0ga0nganddevelopingclaimsagainstthesignificant,costlyburdenofcollec0ng,analyzingandproducingESI

.


FRCP 26(a)(1)#

Scopeofdiscoverableinforma0onisanynonprivileged,relevantmaGerthatis:•  “propor0onaltotheneedsofthecase,considering

theimportanceof•  theissuesatstakeintheac0on,•  theamountincontroversy,•  thepar0es’rela0veaccesstorelevant

informa0on,•  thepar0es’resources,•  theimportanceofthediscoveryinresolving

theissues,and•  whethertheburdenorexpenseofthe

proposeddiscoveryoutweighsitslikelybenefit.”


Trail v. Lesko, No. GD-10-17249 (Allegheny Cty., July 3, 2012)!

Pa. R. C. P. 4011: No discovery, including discovery of ESI, shall be permitted which (a)  is sought in bad faith; (b) would cause unreasonable annoyance,

embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense


Parties have a duty to collect and preserve all evidence that may be relevant to a pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation.


InrePradaxa(DabigatranEtexilate)ProductsLiabilityLi9ga9on,MDLNo.2385(S.D.Ill.Dec.9,2013)

KicapooTribeofIndiansoftheKickapooReserva9oninKansasv.NemahaBrownWatershedJointDistrictNo.7,No.06-CV-2248(D.Kan.Sept.23,2013)

Ewaldv.RoyalNorwegianEmbassy,No.11-cv-2116(D.Minn.Nov.20,2013)

PTSI,Inc.v.Haley,No.684WDA2012(Pa.Super.May24,2013)

Christouv.Beatport,LLC,No.10-2912(D.Colo.Jan.23,2013)


PREREQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF ESI

•  Relevant—F.R.E.402,Pa.R.E.402•  Authen0cated—F.R.E.901-02,Pa.R.E.901-02•  Sa0sfytheoriginalwri0ngrule(“bestevidencerule”)oroneofitsexcep0ons.

—F.R.E.402,Pa.R.E.402

•  Mustnotbehearsay,ormustqualifyunderahearsayexcep0onorexemp0on.F.R.E.801etseq.,Pa.R.E.801etseq.

•  Theproba0vevalueoftheevidencemustnotbesubstan0allyoutweighedbythedangerofunfairprejudice,confusingtheissues,misleadingthejury,unduedelay,was0ng0me,orneedlesslypresen0ngcumula0veevidence.Fed.R.E.403,Pa.R.E.403.


AUTHENTICATION OF ESI#

•  Authen0ca0onrequiresthatthepartyprofferingtheevidenceproduceabaseline(“primafacie”)showingthattheevidencereallyiswhatthatpartyclaimsittobe.

•  Whethertheprofferedevidenceis,infact,thatthing,isforthejurytodecide.


METHODS OF AUTHENTICATING ESI

§  Tes0monyofawitnesswithknowledge.

§  ComparisonbyanExpertWitnessortheTrierofFact.

§  Dis0nc0vecharacteris0csinthecontent.

§  Dis0nc0vetechnicalcharacteris0cs.


AUTHENTICATING PARTICULAR KINDS OF ESI o  Email–presenceofthewitness’semailaddressisnot,alone,sufficiently“dis0nc0ve”.

o  Canauthen0cateawebsitewithassistanceofwebcataloguingservice.

o  Instantmessaging,textmessaging

o Recordedvoice/voicemail


HOW DO YOU GET EVIDENCE OF AUTHENTICITY?

§  Forensicexpert§  RequestsforAdmissionorInterrogatories

§  Deposi0ontes0mony


•  “Authen0city”andCyberBullying—Authen0ca0onofsocialmediaaccounts

§  Characteris0csofapar0cularpartyintheprofilemaynotbeenoughtolinkittotheparty,e.g.profilepicture,dateofbirth,etc.

§  Griffinv.StateofMaryland,19A.3d415(M.D.2011)(reversingconvic0on)offers3avenuesforauthen0ca0onofsocialmedia


•  “STOREDCOMMUNICATIONSACT(SCA)prohibitselectroniccommunica0onserviceprovidersandremotecompu0ngserviceprovidersfromknowinglydisclosingthecontentsofcustomer’selectroniccommunica0onsorsubscriberrecords.18U.S.C.A.2702(a)§  Flaggv.CityofDetroit,252F.R.D.346(E.D.Mich.2008),candirectthe

requesttothepartywhowrotethecommunica0ons,toobtainthemfromtheproviderandproducethem.


FRYE/DAUBERT

•  FryeandDaubertarethetwoteststhatgoverntheadmissibilityofexperttes0mony,basedoncertainstandardsofreliability/acceptability.

•  DAUBERTV.MERRELLDOWPHARMACEUTICALS,INC.,509U.S.579(1993)


DAUBERT

o  Ifscien0fic,technical,orotherspecializedknowledgewillassistthetrieroffacttounderstandtheevidenceortodetermineafactinissue,awitnessqualifiedasanexpertbyknowledge,skill,experience,training,oreduca0on,maytes0fytheretointheformofanopinionorotherwise,if:•  Thetes0monyisbaseduponsufficientfactsordata,•  Thetes0monyistheproductofreliableprinciplesandmethods,

and•  Thewitnesshasappliedtheprinciplesandmethodsreliablyto

thefactsofthecase.


FRYE/DAUBERT (CONT’D)

•  FRYEV.UNITEDSTATES,293F.1013(D.C.Cir.1923)

§  “Generallyaccepted”isthebeginningandendofthetest.

§  Thiscreatesanissuewithnewornovelscien0fictes0mony.

•  Pennsylvaniaisoneofveryfewstatesthats0lladherestotheFryestandard.§  Gradyv.Frito-Lay,Inc.,839A.2d1038(Pa.2003)


COMPUTER FORENSICS CASES

•  PatrickCollins,Inc.v.JohnDoe1,2012U.S.Dist.LEXIS(E.D.N.Y.Nov.20,2012),holdingthatanIPaddressalonedoesnotiden0fyaperson.

•  However,UnitedStatesv.Huether,673F.3d789(8thCir.2012)holdingacomputerforensicsexpertmayiden0fyaspecificpersonwhodownloadedinforma0ononpar0cularcomputersbasedontheuser’saccesstothecomputersandasimilarityoffilestructures.


Geoloca0onandtheAdnanSyedcase


•  Geoloca0ondatafrom1999basedoncelltower“pings”forincomingcalls.•  Thestate’scellphoneexpertwasaRadioFrequencyEngineerdealingwith

deviceslikecellphonesdesignedtoworkwithradiofrequency


CONCERNS ABOUT THE RELIABILITY OF THE EXPERT’S TESTIMONY


•  APPLICATIONOFFRYE§  UnderFRYE,the

prosecu0onwouldhavetoshowthatthemethodologyandtheconclusionsbytheirexpertwereacceptedwithinthe“generalscien0ficcommunity”


•  APPLICATIONOFDAUBERT§  Daubertwillallowinnovelapproaches,solongasthescien0ficapproach

isbasedinsoundscien0ficprinciples.§  Thisexpert’stes0monyprobablywasnotbasedinsoundscience.


MOBILE FORENSICS CASES#

United States v. Banks, 93 F. Supp. 3d 1237 (D. Kan. 2015) (considering utility and limitations on expert testimony concerning cell-site data)


United States v. Evans, 892 F. Supp. 2d 949 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (allowing expert testimony about the general topic of how cellular networks operate, but disallowing expert testimony on the theory of “granulization”) United States v. Allums, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24224 (D. Utah 2009) (cell-site data in conjunction with Stingray) Murray v. Motorola, Inc., 2001 CA 8479 B, 2014 D.C. Super. LEXIS 16 (D.C. Super. Aug. 8, 2014) (considering admissibility of expert testimony that cell phones cause brain cancer under Frye analysis)


Thank You

ELIZABETH F. COLLURA 412.394.2328

[email protected]

e-discovery, litigation and mobile devices · e-discovery, litigation and mobile devices . ......

Documents