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 AllIn-House Leaders Trying to Contain Political Divisiveness Face Maze of Challenges
5 minute readGCs Face Peril as Foreign Bribery Probes Second-Guess 'Routine' Advice
UnitedLex Appoints GC Renee Meisel as New CEO, Replacing James Schellhase After Short Tenure
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
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