Nothing to LOL About: E-Discovery of Texts On the Rise
While SMS e-discovery is in its relative infancy, numerous recent court decisions should put all organizations on notice: Texts are discoverable, and failure to plan accordingly may result in damaging admissions, adverse inferences or worse.
June 30, 2017 at 04:01 PM
5 minute read
Over the past two decades, email has evolved from a novel method of communication to the primary form of correspondence used by businesses around the world. Discovery of emails and other electronic documents has followed this trend to become a fixture of commercial litigation, with its own set of ever-improving methods and tools familiar to inside and outside counsel. Recently, short and multimedia message service (SMS and MMS, better known as text messaging) has exploded in popularity across all categories of users, including businesses, leading to a glut of less formal (and less cautious) “instant” communications as a supplement to, or replacement of, traditional email. While SMS e-discovery is in its relative infancy, numerous recent court decisions should put all organizations on notice: Texts are discoverable, and failure to plan accordingly may result in damaging admissions, adverse inferences or worse.
Several related factors have kept SMS e-discovery from becoming a commonplace practice to date: unfamiliarity with SMS data management, fear of reciprocal demands for SMS data and the general objection that it presents an undue burden under discovery principles of proportionality and reasonableness. With the expanding use of SMS, however, such excuses are going by the wayside. The growing number of decisions on this issue illustrate that plenty of litigants are willing to open this door, and that courts are unlikely to accept a blanket objection based on undue burden. In light of these trends, organizations are best advised to develop strategies and procedures to manage texting practices, to preserve information on SMS devices, and to develop procedures for SMS data management in the civil discovery context.
An organization's well-defined mobile device policy will provide the foundation for managing the use, and preservation, of this ubiquitous form of communication. There are essentially three categories: company-owned-personally-enabled (COPE), bring-your-own-device (BYOD), or a hybrid approach that gives some or all employees the option between COPE and BYOD. While a COPE policy gives organizations the most control over the mode and storage of instant messages, such uniformity presents significant costs and overhead. For large and complex organizations, a hybrid approach is often preferred because it allows increased flexibility at a reduced cost; however, the great diversity of devices and operating systems adds further complexity in preserving and managing the underlying data. For example, while a typical Android or iOS mobile device preserves text messages for some period of time after a user deletes them, both operating systems have data volume limits and hidden automatic functions allowing permanent deletion unless backed up elsewhere or re-configured and actively managed by IT professionals. There are additional usage-based variables that can be impacted by the database rules and architecture of each system, which are compounded by carrier-specific device configuration, as well as cloud-based and other personal storage options. While a growing number of manufacturer-specific and third-party software platforms are being developed to manage data retention on individual devices, there is no industry-standard enterprise solution. These factors tend to make management, data holds, backup and retrieval a case-by-case challenge.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLegal Departments Gripe About Outside Counsel but Rarely Talk to Them
4 minute readEmbracing Gen AI, Many Legal Departments Don't See Their Firms as Innovative
FTC, DOJ Withdrawal of Antitrust Guidelines for Collaboration Infuriates Republicans
5 minute readThree Reasons CLOs Are Critical to the Successful Adoption of Generative AI
Trending Stories
- 1As 'Red Hot' 2024 for Legal Industry Comes to Close, Leaders Reflect and Share Expectations for Next Year
- 2Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 3Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 4Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 5Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250