Plato’s Cave: why most lawyers love paper and hate e-discovery and what this means to the future of legal education

April 9, 2022

Ralph_matrixTHIS BLOG WAS ORIGINALLY POSTED IN 2009. IT IS ONE OF MY ALL-TIME FAVORITES. To me it seems like a Classic, just as relevant today, in 2022, as when first written. We are still stuck in a cave of shadows and lies. Only the true facts, seeing things as they are, will set us free. Perhaps eDiscovery, and the change in perspective it can provide for lawyers, judges and others, can liberate us from propaganda, lies and shadows. Perhaps it can help lead us into the light.

_________________

matrixThe most famous allegory in all of Western Civilization is that of Plato’s Cave. This conceptual image is based on deep insights into the human condition. For millennium this analogy has allowed people to better understand each other and the world in which they live. As proof of its eternal veracity, I offer it as an explanation for why most lawyers today love paper and hate electronic discovery. The Socratic approach also points to a way out of the legal profession’s current crises of e-discovery competence; it suggests that a new form of education is imperative. The alternative may well be radical inter-generational disruptions and discontinuities in the practice of law.

Plato’s Cave

First a refresher on Plato’s Analogy of the Cave. It is found at the beginning of book seven on The Republic, which was written by Plato in 380 BC.  It takes the form of a dialogue between Socrates and Plato’s brother, Glaucon, concerning education. Socrates tells the story of prisoners who have been held captive in a cave all of their lives. They are chained so that they can only see shadows on the wall of people walking on a path behind them in front of  a fire. They can not directly see the people or the things that they carry. They can only see their shadows cast on the cave wall. That is all they have know all of their life and so they mistake the shadows for the people and things themselves. They are totally absorbed by the shadows and have become quite adept at interpreting what they supposedly mean. Here is a common graphic illustration of the cave set up.

Platos cave from The Republic

One day a prisoner is freed of his chains and taken out of the cave and dragged up into the light. After a long period of adjustment he is able to see in the new light filled world and discover that he had been mistaking shadows for reality. He returns to tell his prisoner friends, but has trouble adjusting to the dark and shadows. He cannot still see the fine distinctions that the prisoners make out in the flickering forms. They still cannot turn around or leave the cave. They still see only shadows and know nothing else. They do not believe their returning friend. He does not see the shadows as they do. They think he is quite mad. In fact, they hate him for his better-than-thou stories and would kill him if they could. To refresh your memory with more of the details of the story of Plato’s cave, watch this cool clay animation version. I am sure Socrates would have approved.

Want an even more detailed refresher of the story of Plato’s Cave? Then watch this longer video, featuring a reading of a translation of this segment of The Republic dialogue. Note how in today’s world the cave shadows have been replaced by television images and other mass media.

By the way, The Matrix movie is the latest popular cultural expression of this perennial idea. Check out this video which spells that out for you.

Now read the original words of Plato. After telling the story, Socrates explains to young Glaucon the significance of the analogy of the cave to life and education.

And again, do you think it at all strange, said I, if a man returning from divine contemplations to the petty miseries of men cuts a sorry figure and appears most ridiculous, if, while still blinking through the gloom, and before he has become sufficiently accustomed to the environing darkness, he is compelled in courtrooms or elsewhere to contend about the shadows of justice or the images that cast the shadows and to wrangle in debate about the notions of these things in the minds of those who have never seen justice itself?

It would by by no means strange, he said.  …

Then, if this is true, our view of these matters must be this, that education is not in reality what some people proclaim it to be in their professions. What they aver is that they can put true knowledge into a soul that does not possess it, as if they were inserting vision into blind eyes.

They do indeed, he said.

SocratesBut our present argument indicates, said I, that the true analogy for this indwelling power in the soul and the instrument whereby each of us apprehends is that of an eye that could not be converted to the light from the darkness except by turning the whole body. Even so this organ of knowledge must be turned around from the world of becoming together with the entire soul, like the scene-shifting periactus in the theatre, until the soul is able to endure the contemplation of essence and the brightest region of being. And this, we say, is the good, do we not?

Yes.

Of this very thing, then, I said, there might be an art, an art of the speediest and most effective shifting or conversion of the soul, not an art of producing vision in it, but on the assumption that it possesses vision but does not rightly direct it and does not look where it should, an art of bringing this about.

Yes, that seems likely, he said.

This quote is from my favorite translation from the ancient Greek by Edith Hamilton and Hunington Cairns, published by Princeton University Press as part of the Bollingen Series.

Paper Lawyers

Lawyers today, much like the prisoners of Plato’s cave, love paper because that is all they have ever known. They grow up in a paper world. They learn how to read on paper. They study paper books. They go to law schools where they learn that legal documents are made of paper. Their professors are just like them. They surround themselves with great piles of paper literature and paper case law. They teach using paper books and paper flip charts and require students to write papers. When taking evidence and trial classes, law students are taught with paper documents, shown how to test the authenticity of paper records and how to have paper admitted into evidence.

paper doll cutouts

After school, older lawyers give them an endless supply of extra long paper, called legal pads, and do their best to keep them up to their neck in paper work. They are shown how to generate papers, copy papers, pile papers, file papers, notarize papers, shuffle papers, staple papers, clip papers, highlight papers, redact papers, watermark papers, and even add paper stickums to paper. They also learn how to keep paper calendars, speed-read large files full of papers, spot check papers, and carefully proof-read papers till they are perfect.

milton waddams

Some lawyers cover all of the furniture in their office with papers. A few even go so far as to put piles of paper on the floor creating an obstacle course to and from their desk, which is also entirely covered with papers. Papers make lawyers feel safe and secure. They provide status and prestige as a demonstration of productivity. They like to frame papers and put them on their walls. Some lawyers learn how to fax papers back and forth to each other. Some even learn how to email letters to each other and print out important ones to make them real.

Dunder Mifflin

Most judges and courts love paper too. Lawyers are required to serve papers on parties and opposing counsel, file papers with the court, and make paper trial exhibits. No witness exam is complete without marking papers, handing them to the clerk, opposing counsel, the judge, and then the witness. Some lawyers even blow up the special papers that they like to make them really, really big papers that everyone can easily see.

The trial lawyers are especially good with papers. They learn to chase paper trails, find tons of paper in other people’s filing cabinets, copy the paper, stamp the paper, produce the paper, and then explain the papers to a judge and jury. Some even learn advanced paper techniques such as Bates stamping papers to bring out their hidden order.

Lawyers live their entire life in a paper world. They start each day by reading a newspaper. When not doing paper work, they read paper books and magazines for fun. It is all paper, all the time, at work and at home. Lawyers are very adept at interpreting paper. They are the experts of paper forms. No paper is too lengthy or complex for them to figure out. Lawyers can and do stare at papers all day long

Just like the prisoners in Plato’s Cave, they do not know that their beloved papers are shadows, mere print outs of a greater electronic reality.

Electric Lawyers

Almost all of the papers that lawyers love come from computers. There, in the electronic realm, they live in their full native glory.  There, and only there, is all of their information intact, their metadata, interconnectedness, and search-ability. None of this information ever makes it to the printer. The paper printouts are just two dimensional depictions of parts of the original ESI, in the same way that shadows are just two dimensional depictions of the original 3D objects. Papers are pale substitutes for the original electronic creations.

Just as the prisoners in Plato’s cave saw only the shadows of the people and things that happened to pass on the path behind them, so too the lawyers see only the papers that happened to have passed through a printer. They thereby miss most of the information world. In truth, only a very, very small percentage of information is ever printed out. In fact, almost all businesses records today only exist in electronic form and are never reduced to paper. The world of electronic information is far larger, more complex, interconnected, and beautiful than the paper lawyers could ever imagine.

Some lawyers manage to escape from their paper prisons, embrace the new world of electronically stored information, and sing the body electric. The transition from the paper shadows to full ESI is not easy. At first, most are overwhelmed by the sheer complexity and volume of the electronic source behind the paper shadows they knew so well. They are dazed and confused by the full magnitude of the information. It takes them time to grow acclimated to the new metadata they can now perceive. It takes them time to understand the interconnectedness of all digital information and grasp how it can be instantly searched and processed. But when they do, a whole new world of languages and skills opens up to them. Slowly they become masters of the electronic world that most of their clients take for granted. They learn to speak in new technical languages and start to understand how the world around them really operates. They stop printing out their emails and start using spreadsheets. They learn to hack and hash. They enter the Internet unafraid and rejoice in the near infinite webwork of html. They are reborn in cyberspace. They become electric lawyers.

matrix neo

Just as in Plato’s story, some of the electric lawyers feel compassion for their paper brothers. They decide  to return to the cave to try to practice law in the shadows again and share their new-found knowledge. At first, their eyes cannot adjust. They cannot remember all of the false distinctions made by those who do not grasp that paper is a mere printout of a larger reality. They speak in a language that the paper lawyers call techno-talk gibberish or computerese. They are not understood. Indeed, they are laughed at as nerds and geeks. When they first began to return in the early 1980s, the ones Ken Withers calls the protodigitals, the paper lawyers saw only their keyboards. In their darkness they understood them as typewriters and ridiculed the computer lawyers as secretaries.

The tales by electric lawyers of a vast new world of digital information, of better and faster, are misunderstood and ridiculed. The paper lawyers do not believe their wild stories of a so-called information explosion. They ignore the need to include requests for ESI in discovery. They reject the new hash stamps of digital information and stubbornly cling to their Bates stamps. The papers lawyers stick to the paper discovery. If they even bother to request email at all, they take the paper print-outs as if they alone were real. They do not understand metadata. It is invisible to them. So they refuse to produce it, whatever it is.

Just as in Plato’s story, the paper prisoners feel threatened by their electric brothers and sisters who speak a strange new language and live in a different world. They counter-attack in many ways. For instance, in the 1990s they persecuted electric lawyers who were the first to the Internet and accused them of broadcasting television ads without permission. One electric lawyer was even forced to submit his entire website to his state Bar association for approval as a television ad. His attempts to explain the world outside of the paper cave were futile. They saw the web show for themselves on the televisions sitting on their secretaries’ desks, which were actually computer monitors, but they did not understand the difference. The protodigital lawyer complied and printed out his whole website, disclaimers and all, consisting of thousands of pages of paper when so downgraded into two dimensions. Once the Bar governors saw the television add in the paper they loved and understood, they quibbled with a few terms, required a couple of revisions, and then approved his website, floridalawfirm.com, as a TV broadcast. The channel still remains, although the show has changed many times over the years.

Ostrich with Head in SandIn the Twenty First Century the paper lawyers continue to react as Plato predicted, albeit with more sophistication than before. They now spread rumors that electronic discovery is too expensive and will destroy our system of justice if not stopped. Other times they dismiss e-discovery as a mere fad that will pass. It is as if they really believed that people will soon abandon technology and return to the word of phone calls, ink, and parchment that they know and love. Flat screen computer monitors are starting to appear on cave walls everywhere, but they do not believe them. They live in denial.

When paper lawyers of today speak of computers at all, they speak only of computer viruses and threats to security. They attempt to clamp down on all employee computer use. They limit permissible software to ancient versions of Microsoft Office programs. They also try to make most of the Internet off-limits to all employees. They still pretend like only their clients’ paper records are real and only these papers contain information valuable for law suits. The only reason most clients have not left them years ago is that the senior in-house counsel are detached from the rest of the technologically sophisticated segments of the company. The senior in-house counsel are paper lawyers too and so they protect their own.

Ostrich head - careful, they bite

Some trial attorneys, with or without the permission of their clients, go so far as to enter into secret agreements with each other to ignore the alleged larger world outside the cave. They agree to look only at paper. Their often skeptical clients go along, intimidated by the rumors of runaway costs. Indeed, when paper lawyers dabble with ESI that they cannot ignore, they try to catch the fire through its shadows. That leads to mistakes, do overs, and wasteful expenses. It also often leads to sanctions and what appears to be unethical behavior. An ostrich can be mean when their head is removed from the sand against their will and they are forced to confront their own shadow.

Bray & Gillespie

A new order by Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding illustrates this later point perfectly. Bray & Gillespie Management LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co. 2009 WL 2407754 (M.D.Fla. August 3, 2009). Severe sanctions were entered against the plaintiff and its lawyers for not producing hotel guest attendance records. The plaintiff’s paper lawyers only looked for these records in warehouses full of papers. When they found them in segments, they only made selective disclosures of what they found.  They were caught and sanctioned. The whole thing could have been avoided by simply producing the electronic guest records that were, of course, at all times readily available in the plaintiff’s computer system. They did not even try to look there, even though a native production was specifically requested and ordered by the court.

As an excuse plaintiff had a legal secretary for in-house counsel file an affidavit where she said it was impossible to download or export the data from their software, IQWare. She actually swore that the only way to get the information was to print it out onto paper. This is of course absurd, as a ten second search shows that their software is just a customized MS SQL database. It would have been easy to copy the database and turn it over, but the lawyers and their assistants only understood paper. As a result, they will now almost certainly lose the case. Judge Spaulding has entered a report and recommendation that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice and fees taxed against the plaintiff, now in bankruptcy, and its lawyers, not in bankruptcy, for their intentional, bad faith withholding of evidence and defiance of court orders requiring production of electronic evidence.

Some Electric Lawyers Stay and Some Go

Some electric lawyers grow frustrated with paper law and disputes like we see in Bray & Gillespie. They leave the cave and the practice of law entirely. They go to work for high-tech companies, e-discovery vendors, or become consultants, and the like. They devise ways to make ESI accessible to lawyers by making ESI seem like paper. They learn to convert electronic information to pseudo-paper images called TIFF and JPEG files. They keep most of the metadata in separate load files and try to convince the paper lawyers to use these image files instead of the paper print-outs. They enjoy some success and whole industries have been started devoted to the creation of a netherworld of image files between ESI and paper. Special software has been devised to allow the paper lawyers to review the electronic files on computers as if they were paper. This kind of TIFF review is expensive, but it allows paper lawyers many of the comforts of the cave. They can keep their familiar Bates stamp and can easily make print-outs of any image files they see for use at paper trials.

electric headOther electric lawyers refuse to leave their firms, they refuse to go solo or join the world of vendors and consultants. They love the law firm culture for the same reason that paper lawyers love paper. It is all they have ever known. They remain in the practice of law and learn to hide the light and play the shadow games. They go along with the vendors go-between world of electronic TIFF image files. They stop crusading about the wonders of full digital reality and thus escape the ire of their partners, but they never give up on trying to subtly persuade them. Some are successful. It is a slow process. More and more lawyers free themselves from their paper chains. The electric lawyers learn to sidestep the reactionary rules and deal directly with the clients who understand. They leave the cave as needed to maintain their sanity.  They find sanctuary in their homes, families, and friends that are entirely out-of-cave and in the light.

Some electric lawyers are no longer satisfied with the compromise solution of hot-shadow TIFFs. They insist that the paper lawyers leave the cave entirely and deal directly with the original native forms. The clients of the paper lawyers are also not satisfied because the nether world of image review is expensive and they are asked to pay the bills. Some of the judges are also becoming dissatisfied with such pretend paper discovery. Yes, many judges have also been able to find their way out of the cave and see the light of full ESI. Once they return, they no longer tolerate the paper lawyers’ pretenses. They grow weary of the mistakes, hide-the-metadata blunders, last minute discovery requests, and the many sanctions motions that happen whenever paper lawyers play with the fire of ESI.

Education by Changing Direction, Not Inserting Vision

Although many lawyers have now escaped, the vast majority of the legal profession still live in the cave. Most lawyers are not able to keep up with technology, they are unable to deal with the electronic evidence underlying most lawsuits. They cannot adequately preserve it, collect it, process it, search it, or present it. In short, they cannot conduct e-discovery or comply with the new rules of procedure governing e-discovery because they do not know how. They only know and understand paper discovery and paper evidence. They are blind to the dynamics of electronic information.

If Plato’s theories of education are correct, this knowledge cannot simply be transmitted to them. There is no lecture or CLE program brilliant enough to insert vision into those habituated by a lifetime of paper. The mind is not a tabula rasa to be written upon by subject matter experts, especially by the time a person is an adult. As Plato said, learning requires “turning the whole body.” Lawyers must leave the caves, stop staring at the paper shadows, and make a change of direction. Lawyers must enter cyberspace and become familiar with computers and software of all kinds.  Then, and only then, will learned lectures, over time, be effective.

seeing new worlds

The Socratic process of learning by changing direction and action has already begun. Many lawyers and paralegals today are ready to change and leave the cave. The message has gotten through and they know that paper is only a small part of reality. Most lawyers already have a computer on their desk and use email throughout the day. They are ready to escape the paper chains.

All that they need now is an effective education that facilities the process of a new direction. We cannot use paper to awaken people from a paper induced trance. By logic only a cyberspace approach to education will be effective. Our current brick and mortar approach to e-discovery education is conceptually flawed. Online education is the answer. As Marshall McLuhan said: “The medium is the message.”

Not just any online education of course. It has to be good, it has to be effective. For online education to work, to turn people around in the Socratic sense, it needs to be interactive, hands on, creative, and include dialogues and community. It needs to be a high quality art form; in Plato’s words: “an art of the speediest and most effective shifting or conversion of the soul.” Of course, I do not mean anything religious by this, but I do mean a total transformation of perception, attitude, thinking, and action.

This new education will not come from law schools, they are tied up by paper bound professors. It will come from private companies that lead in technology. It needs to come soon, because society will not wait on the paper lawyers much longer.

Conclusion

Some of the protodigitals in all lines of work raised families and taught their children to read on computers, not paper. Unlike all of their friends who were raised by paper parents, they learned about the world by computers and other digital media. They grew up with computers around them at all times. These children of protodigitals are the postdigital generation. Some of these second generation nerds are starting to graduate from law schools now. (Postscript – see eg Losey.law by the author’s son)

Born into an all electric world, with electric parents, they have never known paper blinders. They see the shadows for the printouts that they are. They grew up using new software programs and computer games. They have blinding speed on the keyboard. Many now have an innate mastery of all software. If it plugs in, or has a battery, they understand it. The Internet is their playground. The information explosion and non-stop technology changes are their friends.

matrix kid bends spoon with his mind

That is all they have known their entire lives. They do not read the newspaper. They do not particularly like paper, they like pixels. The postdigitals write with paper as a novelty, the way their parents first used a computer.

Electronic discovery comes easy and natural to these second generation digitals. The protodigital lawyers, protodigital judges, and technology clients are their friends. The future of the law is in the hands of these postdigitals. They will serve the needs of the technology companies and people of today and tomorrow.

The only question now is whether the new education that the rest of the profession needs will come quickly enough. If not, the vast majority of the legal profession may be stuck in their caves while the world passes them by. They need help now to get out and be able to compete with the second generation digitals.

If not, there is likely to be a sudden shift in fortunes unlike the profession has ever seen before. The law firm rankings are likely to change rapidly and permanently over the next ten years. Moreover, once the winds of change become obvious, law firms of the future will be forced to put the paper dinosaurs out to pasture well before their prime. That will be the only way they can survive, the only way to try to regain their standing. Early retirement may become mandatory, especially for trial lawyers, as they are no longer able to understand what is really going on. The information in dispute may simply be beyond their ken.

Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan

The postdigitals are not tied by bonds of affection to the prisoners left behind in the same way that the protodigitals are. The postdigitals will carry the profession forward into the light of new technology and information, with or without the paper prisoners. The businesses and public that the profession serves will see to that. So too will the protodigital lawyers and judges.

Without a new kind of education, those still bound in the caves by paper chains may simply be left behind. Even if they want to get out, and I think many now do, they may be unable to. Even if they get out, they may be unable to function effectively. They may be overwhelmed by the volume and complexity of it all. No matter what their age, the paper bound lawyers may become irrelevant before their time. They may simply fade away along with the newspapers they love.

That would be a shame, for they still have much to offer the future of our system of justice. I suspect that such a radical discontinuity would not be healthy. But, it may be inevitable. One way or another, radical change will come because the law must keep up with the society it serves.



Purple Rain of Sanctions Falls on the Record Company in the “Prince Case” for their Intentional Destruction of Text Messages

March 10, 2019

Honey, I know, I know
I know times are changing
It’s time we all reach out
For something new, that means you too.
Purple Rain
PRINCE Rogers Nelson
1958-2016

I know, I know, it used to be good enough just to save the relevant emails and ESI on company computers. Not any more. Times are changing. Important business is now conducted by phone text and other messages. It’s time we all reach out and save something new, save the texts, save the phones. That directive applies to everyone, that means you too. Prince record company executives recently found that out the hard way in District Court in Minneapolis. Paisley Park Enters. v. Boxill, No. 0:17-cv-01212, (D. Minn., 3/5/19) (copy here: Prince_Discovery_Order).

United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung sanctioned the record company defendant and its two top executives in a suit over the posthumous release of Prince’s “Deliverance” album. They were sanctioned because the plaintiff, the Prince Estate via Paisley Park, proved that the defendant executives intentionally destroyed text messages about the album. They denied bad intent and claim they did what they thought the law required, save the emails and office computer data. Defendants claimed they provided discovery from other sources of ESI, including their work computers, cooperated with a forensic data firm to ensure Plaintiffs obtained everything they sought, but, they further argue that Plaintiffs never asked to inspect their cell phones during this process. They claimed they did not know they also had to preserve their text messages.

One is reminded of the first verse to Purple Rain:
I never meant to cause you any sorrow
I never meant to cause you any pain
I only wanted to one time to see you laughing
I only wanted to see you
Laughing in the purple rain

Judge Tony Leung was not laughing, purple rain or not. He did not believe defendants’ good faith intent argument. He was no more impressed by their “times are changing,” “we didn’t know” argument than Prince was in Purple Rain. In today’s world preservation of email is not enough. If text messages are how people did business, which was the case in Paisley Park, then these messages must also be preserved. As Judge Leung put it:

In the contemporary world of communications, even leaving out the potential and reality of finding the modern-day litigation equivalent of a “smoking gun” in text messages, e-mails, and possibly other social media, the Court is baffled as to how Defendants can reasonably claim to believe that their text messages would be immune from discovery.

Perhaps what really got to the judge was that these record executives not only the deleted the texts, they wiped the phones and then they threw them away. This was all before suit was filed, but they knew full well at the time that the Estate was going to sue them for copyright violations.  As Judge Leung explained (emphasis added):  “An e-discovery lawyer for Plaintiffs’ law firm indicates that had Staley and Wilson not wiped and discarded their phones, it might have been possible to recover the deleted messages. (ECF No. 387, p. 2).” (Note: this is the first time I can recall this expression “e-discovery lawyer”  being used in an opinion.)

Text Message Spoliation Law

Judge Leung provides a good summary of the law.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that parties take reasonable steps to preserve ESI that is relevant to litigation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e). The Court may sanction a party for failure for failure to do so, provided that the lost ESI cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery. Id. Rule 37(e) makes two types of sanctions available to the Court. Under Rule 37(e)(1), if the adverse party has suffered prejudice from the spoliation of evidence, the Court may order whatever sanctions are necessary to cure the prejudice. But under Rule 37(e)(2), if the Court finds that the party “acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation,” the Court may order more severe sanctions, including a presumption that the lost information was unfavorable to the party or an instruction to the jury that it “may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the party.” The Court may also sanction a party for failing to obey a discovery order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b). Sanctions available under Rule 37(b) include an order directing that certain designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, payment of reasonable expenses, and civil contempt of court.

Pgs.6-7

There is no doubt that Staley and Wilson are the types of persons likely to have relevant information, given their status as principals of RMA and owners of Deliverance. Nor can there be any reasonable dispute as to the fact that their text messages were likely to contain information relevant to this litigation. In fact, Boxill and other third parties produced text messages that they sent to or received from Staley and Wilson. Neither party disputes that those text messages were relevant to this litigation. Thus, the RMA Defendants were required to take reasonable steps to preserve Staley and Wilson’s text messages.

The RMA Defendants did not do so. First, Staley and Wilson did not suspend the auto-erase function on their phones. Nor did they put in place a litigation hold to ensure that they preserved text messages. The principles of the “standard reasonableness framework” require a party to “suspend its routine document retention/destruction policy and put in place a ‘litigation hold’ to ensure the preservation of relevant documents.” Steves and Sons, Inc. v. JELD-WEN, Inc., 327 F.R.D. 96, 108 (E.D. Va. 2018) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). It takes, at most, only a few minutes to disengage the auto-delete function on a cell phone. It is apparent, based on Staley’s affidavit, that he and Wilson could have taken advantage of relatively simple options to ensure that their text messages were backed up to cloud storage. (ECF No. 395, pp. 7-9). These processes would have cost the RMA Defendants little, particularly in comparison to the importance of the issues at stake and the amount in controversy here. Failure to follow the simple steps detailed above alone is sufficient to show that Defendants acted unreasonably.

Pgs. 8-9

But that is not all the RMA Defendants did and did not do. Most troubling of all, they wiped and destroyed their phones after Deliverance and RMA had been sued, and, in the second instance for Wilson, after the Court ordered the parties to preserve all relevant electronic information, after the parties had entered into an agreement regarding the preservation and production of ESI, and after Plaintiffs had sent Defendants a letter alerting them to the fact they needed to produce their text messages. As Plaintiffs note, had Staley and Wilson not destroyed their phones, it is possible that Plaintiffs might have been able to recover the missing text messages by use of the “cloud” function or through consultation with a software expert. But the content will never be known because of Staley and Wilson’s intentional acts. The RMA Defendants’ failure to even consider whether Staley and Wilson’s phones might have discoverable information before destroying them was completely unreasonable. This is even more egregious because litigation had already commenced.

Pg. 9

It is obvious, based on text messages that other parties produced in this litigation, that Staley and Wilson used their personal cell phones to conduct the business of RMA and Deliverance. It is not Plaintiffs’ responsibility to question why RMA Defendants did not produce any text messages; in fact, it would be reasonable for Plaintiffs to assume that Defendants’ failure to do so was on account of the fact that no such text messages existed. This is because the RMA Defendants are the only ones who would know the extent that they used their personal cell phones for RMA and Deliverance business at the time they knew or should have reasonably known that litigation was not just possible, but likely, or after Plaintiffs filed suit or served their discovery requests.

Furthermore, the RMA Defendants do not get to select what evidence they want to produce, or from what sources. They must produce all responsive documents or seek relief from the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (outlining process for obtaining protective order).

Pg. 12

Having concluded that the RMA Defendants did not take reasonable steps to preserve and in fact intended to destroy relevant ESI, the Court must next consider whether the lost ESI can be restored or replaced from any other source. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e).

Pg. 13

While it is true that Plaintiffs have obtained text messages that Boxill and other parties sent to or received from Staley and Wilson, that does not mean that all responsive text messages have been recovered or that a complete record of those conversations is available. In particular, because Wilson and Staley wiped and destroyed their phones, Plaintiffs are unable to recover text messages that the two individuals sent only to each other. Nor can they recover text messages that Staley and Wilson sent to third parties to whom Plaintiff did not send Rule 45 subpoenas (likely because they were not aware that Wilson or Staley communicated with those persons). The RMA Defendants do not dispute that text messages sent between Staley and Wilson are no longer recoverable.  . . .

At most, Plaintiffs now can obtain only “scattershot texts and [e-mails],” rather than “a complete record of defendants’ written communications from defendants themselves.” First Fin. Sec., Inc. v. Lee, No. 14 cv-1843, 2016 WL 881003 *5 (D. Minn. Mar. 8, 2016). The Court therefore finds that the missing text messages cannot be replaced or restored by other sources.

Pgs. 13-14

There is no doubt that Plaintiffs are prejudiced by the loss of the text messages. Prejudice exists when spoliation prohibits a party from presenting evidence that is relevant to its underlying case. Victor Stanley, 269 F.R.D. at 532. As set forth above, in the Court’s discussion regarding their ability to replace or restore the missing information, Plaintiffs are left with an incomplete record of the communications that Defendants had with both each other and third parties. Neither the Court nor Plaintiffs can know what ESI has been lost or how significant that ESI was to this litigation. The RMA Defendants’ claim that no prejudice has occurred is “wholly unconvincing,” given that “it is impossible to determine precisely what the destroyed documents contained or how severely the unavailability of these documents might have prejudiced [Plaintiffs’] ability to prove the claims set forth in [their] Complaint.” Telectron, Inc. v. Overhead Door Corp., 116 F.R.D. 107, 110 (S.D. Fl. 1987); see also Multifeeder Tech., Inc. v. British Confectionary Co. Ltd, No. 09-cv-1090, 2012 WL 4128385 *23 (D. Minn. Apr. 26, 2012) (finding prejudice because Court will never know what ESI was destroyed and because it was undisputed that destroying parties had access to relevant information), report and recommendation adopted in part and rejected in part by 2012 WL 4135848 (D. Minn. Sept. 18, 2012). Plaintiffs are now forced to go to already existing discovery and attempt to piece together what information might have been contained in those messages, thereby increasing their costs and expenses. Sanctions are therefore appropriate under Rule 37(e)(1).

Sanctions are also appropriate under Rule 37(e)(2) because the Court finds that the RMA Defendants acted with the intent to deprive Plaintiffs of the evidence. “Intent rarely is proved by direct evidence, and a district court has substantial leeway to determine intent through consideration of circumstantial evidence, witness credibility, motives of the witnesses in a particular case, and other factors.” Morris v. Union Pacific R.R., 373 F.3d 896, 901 (8th Cir. 2004). There need not be a “smoking gun” to prove intent. Auer v. City of Minot, 896 F.3d 854, 858 (8th Cir. 2018). But there must be evidence of “a serious and specific sort of culpability” regarding the loss of the relevant ESI. Id.

Pgs. 15-16

The Court can draw only one conclusion from this set of circumstances: that they acted with the intent to deprive Plaintiffs from using this information. Rule 37(e)(2) sanctions are particularly appropriate as to Wilson, RMA, and Deliverance for this reason as well.

Pg. 17

The Court believes that Plaintiffs’ request for an order presuming the evidence destroyed was unfavorable to the RMA Defendants and/or for an adverse inference instruction may well be justified. But given the fact that discovery is still on-going, the record is not yet closed, and the case is still some time from trial, the Court believes it more appropriate to defer consideration of those sanctions to a later date, closer to trial. See Monarch Fire Protection Dist. v. Freedom Consulting & Auditing Servs., Inc., 644 F.3d 633, 639 (8th Cir. 2011) (holding that it is not an abuse of discretion to defer sanction considerations until trial). At that point, the trial judge will have the benefit of the entire record and supplemental briefing from the parties regarding the parameters of any such instruction or presumption.

The Court will, however, order the RMA Defendants to pay monetary sanctions pursuant to Rules 37(b), and 37(e) and the Court’s pretrial scheduling orders.

Pgs. 18-19

The Court will therefore order, pursuant to Rules 37(b)(2)(C), 37(e)(1), and 37(e)(2) and the Court’s pretrial scheduling orders, the RMA Defendants to pay reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees and costs, that Plaintiffs incurred as a result of the RMA Defendants’ misconduct. The Court will order Plaintiffs to file a submission with the Court detailing such expenses and allow the RMA Defendants the opportunity to respond to that submission. In addition, pursuant to Rule 37(e)(2) and the Court’s pretrial scheduling order, the Court will also order the RMA Defendants to pay into the Court a fine of $10,000. fn3 This amount is due within 90 days of the date of this Order.

Pg. 20

Let’s close with the original music of Prince.

 

 


Happy Birthday to Abraham Lincoln, America’s First Tech-Lawyer

February 12, 2019

Lincoln in his lawyer phaseAbraham Lincoln was born on February 12, 1809. He was probably our greatest President. Putting aside the tears honest Abe must now be shedding over his political party, it is good to remember Lincoln as an exemplar of a U.S. lawyer. All lawyers would benefit from emulating aspects of his Nineteenth Century legal practice and Twenty First Century thoughts on technology. He was honest, diligent, a deep thinker and ethical. Very ethical. He did not need to be lectured on Cooperation and Rule 1. He also did not need to be told to embrace technology, not hide from it. In fact, he was a prominent Tech-Lawyer of his day, well known for his speaking abilities on the subject. Near the end of his legal career Abe was busy pushing technology and his vision of the future. Sound familiar dear readers? It should. Most of you are like that.

Close up of Lincoln's face on April 10, 1865

Lincoln Was a Technophile

Lincoln was as obsessed with the latest inventions and advances in technology as any techno-geek e-discovery lawyer alive today. The latest things in Lincoln’s day were mechanical devices of all kinds, typically steam-powered, and the early electromagnetic devices, then primarily the telegraph. Indeed, the first electronic transmission from a flying machine, a balloon, was a telegraph sent from inventor Thaddeus Lowe to President Lincoln on June 16, 1861. Unlike Lincoln’s generals, he quickly realized the military potential of flying machines and created an Aeronautics Corps for the Army, appointing Professor Lowe as its chief. See Bruce, Robert V., Abraham Lincoln and the Tools of War. Below is a copy of a handwritten note by Lincoln introducing Lowe to General Scott.

Lincoln's handwritten introduction of Professor Lowe

At the height of his legal career, Lincoln’s biggest clients were the Googles of his day, namely the railroad companies with their incredible new locomotives. These newly rich, super-technology corporations dreamed of uniting the new world with a cross-country grid of high speed transportation. Little noticed today is one of Lincoln’s proudest achievements as President, the enactment of legislation that funded these dreams, the Pacific Railway Act of 1862. The intercontinental railroad did unite the new world, much like the Internet and airlines today are uniting the whole world. A lawyer as obsessed with telegraphs and connectivity as Lincoln was would surely have been an early adopter of the Internet and an enthusiast of electronic discovery.  See: Abraham Lincoln: A Technology Leader of His Time (U.S. News & World Report, 2/11/09).

Abraham Lincoln loved technology and loved to think and talk about the big picture of technology, of how it is used to advance the dreams of Man. In fact, Lincoln gave several public lectures on technology, having nothing to do with law or politics. The first such lecture known today was delivered on April 6, 1858, before the Young Men’s Association in Bloomington, Illinois, and was entitled “Lecture on Discoveries and Inventions.” In this lecture, he traced the progress of mankind through its inventions, starting with Adam and Eve and the invention of the fig leaf for clothing. I imagine that if he were giving this speech today (and I’m willing to try to replicate it should I be so invited) he would end with AI and blockchain.

In Lincoln’s next and last lecture series first delivered on February 11, 1859, known as “Second Lecture on Discoveries and Inventions,” Lincoln used fewer biblical references, but concentrated instead on communication. For history buffs, see the complete copy of Lincoln’s Second Lecture, which, in my opinion, is much better than the first. Here are a few excerpts from this little known lecture:

The great difference between Young America and Old Fogy, is the result of Discoveries, Inventions, and Improvements. These, in turn, are the result of observation, reflection and experiment.

Writing – the art of communicating thoughts to the mind, through the eye – is the great invention of the world. Great in the astonishing range of analysis and combination which necessarily underlies the most crude and general conception of it, great, very great in enabling us to converse with the dead, the absent, and the unborn, at all distances of time and of space; and great, not only in its direct benefits, but greatest help, to all other inventions.

I have already intimated my opinion that in the world’s history, certain inventions and discoveries occurred, of peculiar value, on account of their great efficiency in facilitating all other inventions and discoveries. Of these were the arts of writing and of printing – the discovery of America, and the introduction of Patent-laws.

Can there be any doubt that the lawyer who wrote these words would instantly “get” the significance of the total transformation of writing, “the great invention of the world,” from tangible paper form, to intangible, digital form?  Can there be any doubt that a lawyer like this would understand the importance of the Internet, the invention that unites the world in a web of inter-connective writing, where each person may be a printer and instantly disseminate their ideas “at all distances of time and of space?”

Lincoln standing by his generals in the field; close up

Abraham Lincoln did not just have a passing interest in new technologies. He was obsessed with it, like most good e-discovery lawyers are today. In the worst days of the Civil War, the one thing that could still bring Lincoln joy was his talks with the one true scientist then residing in Washington, D.C., the first director of the Smithsonian Institution, Dr. Joseph Henry, a specialist in light and electricity. Despite the fact that Henry’s political views were anti-emancipation and virtually pro-secession, Lincoln would sneak over to the Smithsonian every chance he could get to talk to Dr. Henry. Lincoln told the journalist, Charles Carleton Coffin:

My visits to the Smithsonian, to Dr. Henry, and his able lieutenant, Professor Baird, are the chief recreations of my life…These men are missionaries to excite scientific research and promote scientific knowledge. The country has no more faithful servants, though it may have to wait another century to appreciate the value of their labors.

Bruce, Lincoln and the Tools of War, p. 219.

Lincoln was no mere poser about technology and inventions. He walked his talk and railed against the Old Fogies who opposed technology. Lincoln was known to be willing to meet with every crackpot inventor who came to Washington during the war and claimed to have a new invention that could save the Union. Lincoln would talk to most of them and quickly separate the wheat from the chaff. As mentioned, he recognized the potential importance of aircraft to the military and forced the army to fund Professor Lowe’s wild-eyed dreams of aerial reconnaissance. He also recognized another inventor and insisted, over much opposition, that the army adopt his new invention: Dr. Richard Gatling. His improved version of the machine gun began to be used by the army in 1864, and before that, the Gattling guns that Lincoln funded are credited with defending the New York Times from an invasion by “anti-draft, anti-negro mobs” that roamed New York City in mid-July 1863. Bruce, Lincoln and the Tools of War, p. 142.

As final proof that Lincoln was one of the preeminent technology lawyers of his day, and if he were alive today, surely would be again, I offer the little known fact that Abraham Lincoln is the only President in United States history to have been issued a patent. He patented an invention for “Buoying Vessels Over Shoals.” It is U.S. Patent Number 6,469, issued on May 22, 1849. I could only find the patent on the USPTO web, where it is not celebrated and is hard to read. So as my small contribution to Lincoln memorabilia in the bicentennial year of 2009, I offer the complete copy below of Abraham Lincoln’s three page patent. You should be able to click on the images with your browser to enlarge and download.

Lincoln Patent Pg. 1
Lincoln Patent Pg. 2Lincoln Patent Pg. 3 (Drawings)

The invention consisted of a set of bellows attached to the hull of a ship just below the water line. After reaching a shallow place, the bellows were to be filled with air that buoyed the vessel higher, making it float higher and off the river shoals. The patent application was accompanied with a wooden model depicting the invention. Lincoln whittled the model with his own hands. It is on display at the Smithsonian and is shown below.

Lincoln Hand-Carved Wooden Model of Patent

Lincoln Filing Invention at Patent Office (fictionalized depiction)

Conclusion

On Abe Lincoln’ birthday it is worth recalling the long, prestigious pedigree of Law and Technology in America. Lincoln is a symbol of freedom, emancipation. He is also a symbol of Law and Technology.  If Abe were alive today, I have no doubt he would be, among other things, a leader of Law and Technology.

Stand tall friends. We walk in long shadows and, like Lincoln, we shall overcome the hardships we face. As Abe himself was fond of saying: down with the Old Fogies; it is young America’s destiny to embrace change and lead the world into the future. Let us lead with the honesty and integrity of Abraham Lincoln. Nothing less is acceptable.


%d bloggers like this: