80 likes | 301 Vues
Aguilar v. ICE Division of Homeland Security. 255, F.R.D. 350 (S.D.N.Y 2008). Parties. Plaintiff – Adriana Aguilar 30 Latino plaintiffs that claim ICE performed illegal searches of their homes. Defendant – ICE, Department of Homeland Security
E N D
Aguilar v. ICE Division of Homeland Security 255, F.R.D. 350 (S.D.N.Y 2008)
Parties • Plaintiff – Adriana Aguilar • 30 Latino plaintiffs that claim ICE performed illegal searches of their homes. • Defendant – ICE, Department of Homeland Security • ICE agents and employees who were engaged in Operation Return to Sender – searching for fugitives who ignored immigration proceedings orders to leave the country
Facts • ICE agents performed early morning searches of homes for fugitives, after receiving voluntary consents to search the homes. • Aguilar’s attorney’s, during 26(f) and other encounters, failed to discuss metadata and forms in its discovery requests and did not mention until ICE had almost completed all its discovery obligations. • After untimely request for metadata for already produced discoverable material, ICE refused to comply • Aguilar is seeking an informal motion to compel production of metadata and information about ICE’s database
eDiscovery Legal Framwork • Rule 26(f) – Meet and Confer • Rule 26(b)(2)(C) – Balancing test of probative vs. burden • Rule 34 – Requesting party can request format, responding party can oppose. If no request then as “ordinarily maintained” or “reasonably useable form” • Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(iii) – Party need not produce the same ESI in more than one form • Sedona Principle 12 – Unless material to dispute no obligation to produce metadata, but take metadata into account for need to produce reasonably accessible metadata
Analysis of Case • Plaintiffs argue that all the metadata for all the ESI are relevant • Emails – P failed to request metadata before D was almost complete; Metadata not needed to manage only 500 emails. • Backups – 2-tier process. P failed to show a benefit against the “unquestionably high” burden. • Word Documents – P showed only marginally relevant need for metadata, because the already produced documents were in text-searchable PDFs • Spreadsheets – D agreed to already reproduce them
Issues Regarding eDiscovery • “This lawsuit demonstrates why it is so important that parties fully discuss their ESI early in the evolution of a case.” • Production of Metadata For Emails already produced • Rule 26(f) – parties must meet and confer and the requesting party must ask for the form in which it wants. • Production of Backup Tapes • Rule 26(b)(2)(B) – Is a 2-tiered approach: responding party need not produce not reasonably accessible data, if requesting party then seeks to compel production the court must consider the factors of 26(b)(2)(C) • Production of Metadata for Word Documents Spreadsheets already produced • Rule 34 – Parties need not produce the same ESI more than once; In reasonably usable form • Sedona Principle 12 – metadata not obligated, but must comport with enhanced accessibility and functionality it provides
Conclusion • “[I]f a party wants metadata, it should “Ask for it. Up Front. Otherwise, if [the party] ask[s] too late or ha[s] already received the document in another form, [it] may be out of luck.” – Taming the Metadata Beast • Email – Metadata is not required for custodians who already supplied their emails via forwarding instead of .msg or .pst files. P failed to request metadata. Rule 26(f). • Backups – No production. Undue burden with little benefit. Rule 26(b)(2)(B)&(C). • Word Documents Metadata – Already provided as text-searchable pdf. D will produce at cost to P. Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(iii), Sedona Principle 12. • Spreadsheets Metadata – P already agreed to reproduce in native format.
Class Discussion • The 2nd Edition of Sedona Principle 12 “placed greater weight on the enhanced accessibility and functionality that metadata provides to the recipients of ESI.” • What types of metadata would give enhanced accessibility and functionality? • Who should decide whether the metadata meets this threshold? • The emails produced did not include BCC recipients. • If produced emails contain To and From information, should it also contain BCC recipients as a default? • And should any other information be included by default?