Emoticons Plus E-discovery Preservation Equals Frowny Face
Emojis can pose a number of unique preservation issues during the e-discovery process. But despite all of the headaches involved, there may be no getting rid of them or the legal risk they pose in the workplace.
November 04, 2019 at 09:30 AM
4 minute read
On Thursday, Hanzo and Zapproved co-hosted a webinar entitled "Emojis and the Law: The Real-world E-discovery Challenges Posed by Enterprise Collaboration," with the major takeaway being that smiley faces have many companies trapped between a rock and a hard place.
Actually, it's not so much the smiley faces themselves but the way that they and other popular emoticons register differently across various platforms, which can make preservation and even interpretation of the data a bit of an e-discovery nightmare.
Panelist Evan Gumz, enterprise account manager at Hanzo, pointed out that even something as simple as requesting an emoji pertinent to a case from opposing counsel is rife with the potential for miscommunication.
"Say I want to see all smiley faces [or] winking faces. It might seem straightforward, but are you using the right nomenclature? Are you using the word that would be universally recognized to refer to that?"
He recommended that attorneys in that scenario reference unicode.org, which provides a full listing of all emojis and the different depictions that, say, a smiley face might have across vendors and platforms.
But even if both sides are able to successfully identify the proper emoji, it may all be for naught unless the proper context has been preserved as well. For example, Gumz alluded to the fact that some emojis are dynamic or animated in nature, meaning that a static screenshot may not do justice to something that was originally presented as a dancing ferret.
One option, Gumz noted, would be to use a native preservation method that targets an emoji's underlying HTML source code and can then be used to replicate how that visual worked when it was live on the web.
But sometimes even the best native preservation methods in the world can't capture the full context around the ways that a particular emoji might be regularly deployed in communications within an office environment.
A fish emoji, for example, could be the subject of a recurring and harmless interoffice joke, but establishing that may require organizations to expand the scope of their preservation efforts.
"It's very important to look at what your workplace community is doing because … we have inside jokes and ways to convey meaning and that can really only be seen if your preserve the full context of the messages," Gumz said.
If it's starting to sound like allowing the use of emojis around the office is more trouble than it's worth, keep in mind that pulling the plug isn't so easy either.
Panelist Eric Goldman, a professor of law at Santa Clara University, said the standard conservative advice is for organizations to ban the use of emojis, which he called a "terrible idea."
Ryan Zilm, information lifecycle management adviser at USAA, echoed those sentiments. He indicated that companies who attempt to negate their litigation risks by banning the use of social media or emojis in the office may see their employee retention rates suffer.
"They are actually losing … employees who have been there for five years and are stellar employees because they are taking away their Facebook, their Snapchat or whatever it is they are able to do," Zilm said.
Panelist Ashley Fischer, managing counsel at H-E-B, suggested companies take a more guided approach to regulating the use of emojis and online communications platforms by instituting social media guidelines.
"I think that's coming more and more these days," Fischer said.
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 AllCalifornia Loan Agency Hit With Proposed Class Action Over Alleged Third-Party AI Data Harvesting
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
The FTC's Rebecca Slaughter Wants Fair Competition, and a Good Night's Sleep
'A Fierce Battle of Expert Witnesses' Expected in Cybersecurity Spat
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
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