discovery Archives - The National Law Forum

Qui Tam Defendants’ Presentations to Government During Investigation Unprotected from Discovery in Other Lawsuits, Federal District Court Ruled

In a recent decision, a federal district court judge ruled that a defendant’s presentations to the Department of Justice, made during the course of the Department’s investigation of a pending False Claims Act qui tam lawsuit, are not protected from discovery by the whistleblower who brought that lawsuit. The case is the United States and State of California ex rel. Higgins v. Boston Scientific Corp., 11-cv-2453 (D. Minn. Aug. 28, 2019), and was decided by Judge Joan Ericksen.

The relator (the term for the whistleblower in a False Claims Act lawsuit), Higgins, alleged that Boston Scientific made certain false certifications relating to the company’s defibrillators, thereby causing physicians to submit false claims for payment relating to the use of those devices. As is usual in qui tam cases, after filing the lawsuit, the Department of Justice opened an investigation and requested documents (known as a “civil investigative demand” under the False Claims Act) to Boston Scientific. The company turned over documents to the Department, but then also created and made “presentations” to the government. While the court’s decision does not describe those “presentations,” presumably they were slideshows or other materials, put together by Boston Scientific’s lawyers, to try to convince the Department of Justice to shut down the investigation or to decline intervention in the lawsuit.

Unscrupulous companies have found many different ways to take advantage of vital government programs. The False Claims Act is an essential weapon in the fight against government programs fraud since it was first enacted during the Civil War to combat war profiteering. The system often depends on whistleblowers telling their story with the help of an experienced False Claims Act attorney.

These private citizens bring qui tam (whistleblower) lawsuits under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), which allows them to act on behalf of the U.S. government in exposing government programs fraud committed by companies serving the federal government. Under the FCA, relators (fraud whistleblowers) receive a portion of the money that has been recovered by the government, known as the relator’s share.

After the government declined intervention in the case, Higgins decided to pursue the case on his own (which a relator is permitted to do), and he served a document request on Boston Scientific demanding production of any such presentations. Boston Scientific did not want to turn over the materials and therefore raised four separate legal objections. It was those objections that Judge Ericksen addressed in her opinion.

First, Boston Scientific objected to turning over the presentations because they were akin to “settlement negotiations” with the government, and thus not “relevant” to relator’s lawsuit. The court, however, ruled that although settlement negotiations might not be admissible at trial, they were still subject to discovery by Higgins because “they were related to his claims about the medical devices at issue.”

Second, Boston Scientific objected because “public policy” required protection of the presentations, arguing that “the government will not be able to settle False Claims Act cases if a defendant’s presentations to the government could later be revealed to relators.” Judge Erickson, however, found nothing in the False Claims Act that supported this position. While the government might not be able to turn over such presentations under certain circumstances, nothing in the statute prevented Boston Scientific from turning them over to relator.

Third, Boston Scientific claimed an “expectation of confidentiality” in the presentations, citing a 1977 decision by the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Erickson rejected that contention, finding that the earlier Circuit Court decision related to attorney-client privilege, but not to the work product doctrine. Because the materials that Boston Scientific had provided to the Department of Justice were not covered by attorney-client privilege, the company’s only argument was “work product,” and that argument was not sufficient to support its claimed “expectation of confidentiality.”

Finally, Boston Scientific argued that the work product doctrine itself protected the presentations from disclosure. Judge Erickson easily disposed of that argument, noting that work product protection “is waived by intentional disclosure to an adversary,” and that the government was indeed Boston Scientific’s “adversary,” even though the Department of Justice later declined to intervene in the case.

The court’s decision was correct. Although Boston Scientific’s attorneys came up with several creative arguments in an attempt to protect the “presentations” from discovery, none of them had any merit. Although a defendant in a False Claims Act case is free to communicate with the Department of Justice, the defendant cannot assume that those communications will remain secret, particularly from the relator who has brought the very lawsuit under investigation by the Department. The relator is entitled to know about those communications, especially if they are relevant to the merits of the relator’s case (which they almost always will be). Accordingly, Judge Erickson reached the correct result and established useful precedent on this recurring issue.

ARTICLE BY Jonathan Tycko of Tycko & Zavareei LLP.

For more on qui tam cases, see the National Law Review Litigation / Trial Practice page.

Preparing your Company for Discovery with Cloud Faxing

Discovery refers the process by which documents and other material are sought, collected and examined, usually for use as legal evidence in a civil or criminal case.

Organizations that fail to produce discoverable material can face severe penalties, so it is critical that companies have a sufficient infrastructure in place to ensure discovery obligations are met.

For most types of discoverable material — such as emails, invoices, spreadsheets — deploying a document review platform can keep the discovery process quick and inexpensive. But other documents, such as hard copy faxes, can be trickier to manage.

Potential issues with legacy fax records

Traditional desktop fax machines are still commonplace in many office environments. Although fax records in most organizations are stored as hard copies, as far as discovery obligations are concerned, all faxes — whether sent or received — could potentially be discoverable material. Therefore, it is critical that organizations treat fax documents the same as any other types of documents.

But when a discovery request is issued, having to scour through mountains of paper fax records can be time-consuming, tedious and stressful for the staff involved. So how can the process be improved? When it comes to preparing for discovery, there are three routes you can take with regard to your fax review:

1. Take the risk with legacy fax

But by sticking with your legacy fax system, when a discovery request comes in, your organization may not be prepared and could descend into panic — panic that could be avoided.

Such an unmethodical and frantic data recovery process can not only cause huge disruption to staff productivity but could also result in a late response to a discovery request which could lead to regulatory penalties for your organization.

2. Implement a paper-to-electronic fax policy

Your second option is to implement a new ‘paper-to-electronic’ fax archival policy; each time an employee sends or receives a paper fax document, they must file the hard copy in a secure filing system and then scan and save an electronic copy of the fax making sure to include any metadata.

This will create an electronic library of all client-related faxes that is readily available in the event of discovery request.

While this solution avoids the chaos of combing through paper records, it is time-consuming, and its success relies entirely on the attention and care taken by staff members. As such, it is highly vulnerable to human error. One misfiled or incomplete document could jeopardize your discovery process.

3. Adopt a cloud-fax solution

The final option is to trade in your organization’s legacy faxing infrastructure for a fully hosted, cloud fax solution. This will allow your employees to send and receive faxes by email (or from a user-friendly platform), directly from their computers or even their mobile devices.

Many cloud fax systems will automatically save electronic records of faxes sent or received by your organization, along with metadata, in a secure storage base. Therefore, should your company receive a discovery request, you may be able to leverage a cloud fax system to quickly respond while minimizing disruption to your business operation.

Traditional paper-based fax isn’t going away anytime soon, but its days are definitely numbered. For forward-thinking organizations that value efficiency, accuracy, and privacy there’s only one fax solution that is able to offer true peace of mind, and that’s cloud fax.

eFax® is a registered trademark of j2 Cloud Services™, Inc. and j2 Global Holdings Ltd.

This post was written by David Hold of eFax.

The Culling Fields: Date Range and Custodian Culling

This is part Six of the continuing series on two-filter document culling. This is very important to successful, economical document review.

First Filter – Date Range and Custodian Culling

Even when you collect in bulk, and do not keyword filter before you put custodian ESI in the review database, in most cases you should filter for date range and custodian. It is often possible for an attorney to know, for instance, that no emails before or after a certain date could possibly be relevant. That is often not a highly speculative guessing game. It is reasonable to filter on this time-line basis before the ESI goes in the database. Whenever possible, try to get agreement on date range screening from the requesting party. You may have to widen it a little, but it is worth the effort to establish a line of communication and begin a cooperative dialogue.

The second thing to talk about is which custodians you are going to include in the database. You may put 50 custodians on hold, and actually collect the ESI of 25, but that does not mean you have to load all 25 into the database for review. Here your interviews and knowledge of the case should allow you to know who the key, key custodians are. You rank them by your evaluation of the likely importance of the data they hold to the facts disputed in the case. Maybe, for instance, in your evaluation you only need to review the mailboxes of 10 of the 25 collected.

Again, disclose and try to work that out. The requesting party can reserve rights to ask for more, that is fine. They rarely do after production has been made, especially if you were careful and picked the right 10 to start with, and if you were careful during review to drop and add custodians based on what you see. If you are using predictive coding in the second filter stage, the addition or deletion of data mid-course is still possible with most software. It should be robust enough to handle such mid-course corrections. It may just slow down the ranking for a few iterations, that’s all.

To be continued …….

Article By Ralph C. Losey of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Part 1: Two-Filter Document Culling: Advanced Document Review Technique

Part 2: License to Cull: Why Efficient and Effective Document Review is Important to Our System of Justice

Part 3: The Culling Fields: Some Software is Better than Others at Efficient Document Culling

Part 4: To Cull a Mockingbird: Popular, but Risky, “Keyword” Collection Filter

Part 5: I’d Tell You My Keywords, But Then I’d Just Have to Cull You

Part 6: The Culling Fields: Date Range and Custodian Culling

Jurors Use Social Media To Research Case Details [VIDEO]

Jurors sometimes use social media sites to research case details, but surprisingly, doing so is not always grounds for reversal of a verdict. This video outlines case examples of this behavior, along with practical steps you can take to reduce the risk of having social media impact your next case.

Article By IMS Expert Services Blog Author at IMS ExpertServices
© Copyright 2002-2015 IMS ExpertServices, All Rights Reserved.

Gone, But Not Forgotten – A Deactivated Facebook Account Can Be Discoverable

Courts have long grappled with social media in a legal context. The struggle to understand social media issues — and to craft coherent applicable legal policy — renders Crowe v. Marquette Transportation Co. Gulf-Inland, LLC amusing to show how the less-than-honest actions of an employee-plaintiff can make these difficult legal questions fairly simple for a court.

In May of 2014, Brannon Crowe sued Marquette Transportation, his employer, for an injury to his knee that he claimed to have suffered in an accident at work. Interestingly, however, Crowe allegedly sent a co-worker a message on Facebook which stated that he received the injury during a fishing trip, and not at work. When confronted with the message to the co-worker by opposing counsel during a deposition, Crowe stated the account the message was sent from was Brannon “CroWe,” and it couldn’t be his because he didn’t have a capital “W” in his last name.

At the deposition, Crowe also said that he no longer had an account after the previous October, and his response to a discovery request for the contents of his account was that, in addition to such a request being vague, overbroad and unduly burdensome, he didn’t presently have a Facebook account. The court ordered Crowe to provide the contents of his account for the court to review in camera to determine if the contents of the account should indeed be discoverable. Later, however, Crowe’s counsel submitted to the court 4,000 pages of Facebook account information from the Brannon CroWe account, with an interesting wrinkle – the records of the account indicate that the account was deactivated – not deleted – four days after the discovery request for the account’s contents.

The court was understandably unamused, and suggested that the in camera review of 4,000 pages of Facebook account information would be a waste of time since this account information should have been produced earlier in response to Marquette’s request. The contradiction with Crowe’s testimony alone was enough to render the account information discoverable. Rather than review the documents fully in camera, the court ordered Crowe to turn over every single page of the Facebook account history to Marquette, as well as any login information for any Facebook accounts Crowe had at that time or in the past, and Crowe was ordered to consent to any authorization for Marquette to subpoena his Facebook information.

In effect, Crowe made the contents of the account discoverable through his attempts to keep it from being discovered, and that made the court’s decision on the issue clear. Luckily for Crowe, he only deactivated the account rather than deleted it, since he had a duty to preserve evidence in litigation. Spoliation of evidence is the negligent or intentional destruction or alteration of evidence that may be required in a lawsuit. Even though the evidence doesn’t look good for Crowe in the present case, had he deleted the account entirely, he would have been subject to the spoliation inference, which is a negative evidentiary inference in favor of the opposing party. A showing that a party has destroyed relevant evidence can lead to punitive sanctions against him as well.

Social media provides an abundant resource of data about a litigant, and both employers and employees alike should be a wary of even private messages sent to others in that context. When employees raise issues against employers in a legal setting, their interactions with coworkers on social media may be discoverable. This case also raises questions about how far those involved in legal proceedings can or should go to protect themselves with regard to their social media accounts. As courts become increasingly comfortable with the legal implications of social media and technology, issues such as evidence spoliation through deactivation and deletion will become more and more prominent as a trap for the unwary.

ARTICLE BY Brittany Blackburn Koch of McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

Register for the 9th Annual National Institute on E-Discovery – May 15th in New York City

Remaining current is critical to successful litigation. This program is relevant for both in-house and outside counsel who are involved in litigation and the discovery process. E-Discovery is a rapidly evolving field with laws and regulations that are constantly changing. Attendees of this program will gain practical knowledge that may be implemented immediately in day-to-day operations.

Additional Information Institute Brochure

Noted practitioners and jurists will address:

Practical tips for managing litigation holds

Preserving personal data devices in light of the varying interpretations of “possession, custody, and control”

Judges’ perspectives on the Proposed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure amendments

Recent court decisions, as reviewed by one of the industry’s leading authorities on E-Discovery case law

Meeting ethical obligations related to securing clients’ E-Discovery data

The unique aspects of cross-border E-Discovery between the U.S., and the European Union, Latin America, Asia-Pacific, and Canada

May 15th in NYC: Attend the ABA's Ninth Annual National Institute on E-Discovery

Additional Information Institute Brochure

Noted practitioners and jurists will address:

Practical tips for managing litigation holds

Preserving personal data devices in light of the varying interpretations of “possession, custody, and control”

Judges’ perspectives on the Proposed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure amendments

Recent court decisions, as reviewed by one of the industry’s leading authorities on E-Discovery case law

Meeting ethical obligations related to securing clients’ E-Discovery data

The unique aspects of cross-border E-Discovery between the U.S., and the European Union, Latin America, Asia-Pacific, and Canada

May 15th in NYC: Attend the ABA’s Ninth Annual National Institute on E-Discovery

Additional Information Institute Brochure

Noted practitioners and jurists will address:

Practical tips for managing litigation holds

Preserving personal data devices in light of the varying interpretations of “possession, custody, and control”

Judges’ perspectives on the Proposed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure amendments

Recent court decisions, as reviewed by one of the industry’s leading authorities on E-Discovery case law

Meeting ethical obligations related to securing clients’ E-Discovery data

The unique aspects of cross-border E-Discovery between the U.S., and the European Union, Latin America, Asia-Pacific, and Canada

Expert Witness Soap Opera Plays Out in Federal Court as Daubert Motions Fail

A federal magistrate judge has found himself at the center of a soap opera – literally.

As a battle brews between two Spanish-language television networks over copyright claims to the substance of their respective soap operas, Miami Federal Court Judge Jonathan Goodman has found himself faced with having to evaluate experts on telenovelas.

A telenovela, which combines the Spanish words for “television” and “novel,” is actually slightly different from a typical soap opera in that it has a limited run, or an end. Telenovelas are basically novels that play out on television and are popular throughout Mexico, Latin America, Europe, and Asia.

These are just a few of the factual intricacies that Judge Goodman found himself learning about as he attempted to rule on the admissibility of the telenovela experts that both parties offered in the recent U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida case of Latele Television, C.A. v. Telemundo Communications Group, LLC, et al.

For plaintiff, expert Dr. Tomás López-Pumarejo, a Brooklyn College professor and author of a “pioneering book on television serial drama,” is expected to testify that after performing a detailed literary analysis of the two telenovelas in question, he found substantial and striking similarities between the two shows and “leaves – in my opinion – no doubt that [El Rostro de Analía] is a remake of [María María].”

Contradicting López-Pumarejo is expert witness Dr. Carolina Acosta-Alzuru, a University of Georgia professor and author of a book on Venezuelan telenovelas. Acosta-Alzuru is expected to testify that the dissimilarities between El Rostro de Analía and María María “in terms of core plot development, triangle structure, character design, telenovela subgenre, and qualitative characteristics of dialogue far outweigh the limited similarities in the triggering plot.”

Plaintiff, however, told the court that defendant actually hired the author of María María, which originally aired in 1989, to develop El Rostro de Analía and “that the copyright infringement is so obvious that the public and press have designated El Rostro as a remake or retelling of María María.”

However, according to one Mexican actress, the practice of remaking a successful telenovela from the past is not unusual. Adriana Llabrés, who stars on the telenovela Yo No Creo En Los Hombres, tells BullsEye that recreating a new telenovela from one that was previously successful is something that happens all the time, including on her own show, which has been remade twice.

“Most of the soap operas are remakes, and they have been for the past few years,” Llabrés explained to BullsEye. “The writer agrees with the director as to what they want to keep from the past versions based in accordance with the public’s perceived desires. They then may adapt the story to suit the tastes of the viewers.”

What allegedly appears to be different in this case is that while the original writer and new director may have collaborated, the original copyright holder was allegedly left out of the equation.

Considering all of this comparative television evidence and dissecting these two programs, however, will not be a task that Judge Goodman will need to undertake immediately, as he is faced with more than one Daubert motion. Goodman is the judge, not the jury; he is the gatekeeper, not the ultimate umpire on these issues.

**The Daubert Decisions**

In his December 15 Omnibus Order on Daubert Motions, Goodman explained that his role as gatekeeper “is not intended to supplant the adversary system or the jury’s role because, as Daubert explained, ‘vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.’”

Goodman found that both parties will have “ample opportunity” to cross-examine and attempt to impeach the other’s expert witnesses and that it would be inappropriate for the court to exclude either side’s telenovela expert.

“There is no doubt that the three Daubert motions all generate significant challenges to the proposed expert testimony,” Goodman wrote. “Nevertheless, the Undersigned deems the legal assaults to relate more to the weight of the experts’ opinions and to their credibility, rather than the threshold issue of admissibility.”

Specifically in addressing the qualifications of plaintiff’s expert Dr. López-Pumarejo, the court refuted defendants’ contention that Dr. López-Pumarejo offered only “impermissible legal conclusions” that are the “ultimate issue in the case” and based on the “insufficient methodology” by which he examined only a small percentage of the two telenovela scripts. Dr. López-Pumarejo’s conclusion that María María and El Rostro de Analía were “substantially similar” was formulated after he reviewed 33 episodes of the former and 53 episodes of the latter, totaling about 23 percent of the combined telenovelas’ aired content.

“This alleged deficiency may well generate fodder for fruitful cross-examination but the Undersigned views the objection insufficient to support a request to flat-out exclude his testimony,” Goodman wrote, citing Oceania Cruises, 654 F.3d at 1193- “in most cases, objections to the inadequacies of a study are more appropriately considered an objection going to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility.”

Goodman notes that he expects defendants to rigorously cross-examine Dr. López-Pumarejo about his failure to review even a quarter of the telenovelas’ materials and that it is this cross-examination that will provide “sufficient protection” to the parties and to overall fairness of the trial.

In the same manner, the court addresses plaintiff’s complaints and corresponding Daubert challenges to defense expert Dr. Acosta-Alzuru. The court notes that despite plaintiff’s claims that Dr. Acosta-Alzuru is unqualified as an expert, the professor has presented numerous lectures to U.S. State Department officials in Venezuela on her various studies of Spanish-language telenovelas and is the only expert who actually reviewed all 376 hours of the two TV shows, producing summary recaps and plot diagrams of each episode.

“The mere fact that she has not written a telenovela herself is insufficient to preclude her expert testimony, [nor is she] subject to exclusion as an expert merely because she is not a ‘literary expert’ or an expert on copyright infringement,” Goodman wrote. “Moreover, Acosta carefully addressed the existence of unprotectible scène à faire even though she did not use that specific term. Latele can certainly question her at trial about her unfamiliarity with the term, but it has not convinced the Undersigned that Acosta’s unfamiliarity with a few legal terms is reason enough to exclude her, especially given her substantial background in telenovela analysis.”

Cash and Clichés

A scène à faire, French for a “scene that must be done,” is a scene that is rather obligatory or necessary for the story or genre, and in copyright law, this term refers to a creative work that is unprotected because of this mandated or necessitated role.

Perhaps every romantic comedy has to have a love triangle, every action movie a chase scene, and every tragedy a tragic death. Copying such plot twists can be no copyright infringement.

However, the question for the Latele v. Telemundo jury will be whether or not the story is told differently. They will have full exposure to both sides’ expert testimony and perhaps hours of dramatic television ahead.

How much money Telemundo made as a result of El Rostro is also in dispute and subject to differing expert witness interpretations. Defendants retained CPA expert Ben Sheppard to refute the report of plaintiff expert Steven Berwick regarding the apportionment of Telemundo profits to the show and of the amount that would be attributable to the copyright-infringing portions thereof in the event that liability is, in fact, found.

Judge Goodman denied plaintiff’s Daubert motion to exclude expert witness Sheppard, citing similar reasons as stated above and saying that cross-examination and jury instruction shall cure any alleged deficiencies in the expert analysis. As for defendants’ omnibus motion in limine to exclude Berwick’s opinions, which was not a Daubert motion, the judge will decide in a separate order.

Defendants have until February 10, 2015, to fulfill plaintiff’s discovery demands.

When it comes to the copyright claims between two TV shows, do we even need experts to testify as to “substantial similarities,” or should we simply let laypeople and juries decide if two shows are too similar to have avoided copyright infringement?

ARTICLE BY

Ryan Thompson, Esq.

IMS ExpertServices

“STOP”: Four Tips For Document Preservation When Facing Potential Litigation

In today’s digital environment, it is crucial that employers act fast when faced with a suit (or the threat of suit) by an employee or ex-employee. When potential litigation is on the horizon, the first step should always be to contact legal counsel. The next step should protecting documentation that might be relevant to the dispute. Keep in mind this acronym to make sure you are following that right steps for documentation preservation:

Search for employees that might possess information pertaining to the dispute. This might include supervisors, managers, or people who shared a workspace with the claimant, but it might also include others not under the direct supervision of the company, such as independent contractors or consultants that worked with the claimant.

Think about all sources of information – smart phones, tablets, cloud-based servers, thumb drives, work email accounts, etc. Once the sources are identified, consider whether you have and can maintain access to them. In some cases, it may require notifying the claimant that he must turn over password information or relinquish his work-issued devices, but it is highly suggested you contact legal counsel before proceeding with this step.

Order a litigation hold on relevant information. Instruct employees to not destruct, forward or edit the relevant documentation in any way. In-house destruction procedures (such as shredding or the automatic email deletion) should be cancelled until further notice from counsel. Litigation hold instructions should be made in writing and provide explicit instructions. The instructions should identify the type of materials and date ranges that are subject to the hold. A litigation hold should also identify to whom questions or concerns about the hold can be directed.

Present all information to counsel. He or she will then determine exactly what information needs to be preserved and for how long. Do not think that you, as an employer, know what information is important. By getting rid of documentation, even without ill intent, you may be hurting your ability to present a defense to the claims.

No employer likes facing employee-related litigation, but it is important to “STOP” and take time to ensure document preservation in the wake or threat of a suit.

Tag: discovery

Qui Tam Defendants’ Presentations to Government During Investigation Unprotected from Discovery in Other Lawsuits, Federal District Court Ruled

Like this: