Last week I attended the ABA National Institute on E-Discovery in New York.  Here is part one of my summary of some key insights from the conference: 

  • Use of Social Media by Company Employees:  When companies allow their employees to access social media websites from corporate computers and information regarding company business is posted on such sites (sometimes in violation of company policy), that can present significant problems when such information is requested in discovery.  The recommendation of one of the panelists was that companies should prohibit access from corporate computers and posting of corporate information by employees.  But it was also reported that some companies are allowing access and even forming their own internal “social media” intranet sites where employees can have online conversations, conduct seminars, create groups, etc.  That can sometimes present challenges for implementing litigation holds and preserving and collecting data from these sites when required in litigation. 
  • Obtaining Social Media Discovery from Plaintiffs:  This can potentially be a fertile ground for discovery from named plaintiffs in putative class actions (but keep in mind that this may spark requests for such information from the defendant, depending on what the company’s policy is regarding employee access to and use of such sites).  Magistrate Judge Kristen Mix of the District of Colorado gave a very thorough presentation on this subject.  She explained that Facebook tends to fight civil subpoenas, based on the Stored Communications Act and Electronic Communications Privacy Act, although courts sometimes order compliance.  Facebook’s formal written policy is somewhat vague regarding its response to subpoenas: 

Responding to legal requests and preventing harm

We may share your information in response to a legal request (like a search warrant, court order or subpoena) if we have a good faith belief that the law requires us to do so. This may include responding to legal requests from jurisdictions outside of the United States where we have a good faith belief that the response is required by law in that jurisdiction, affects users in that jurisdiction, and is consistent with internationally recognized standards. We may also share information when we have a good faith belief it is necessary to: detect, prevent and address fraud and other illegal activity; to protect ourselves and you from violations of our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities; and to prevent death or imminent bodily harm.

While Facebook reportedly tends to fight civil subpoenas, it provides a “button” whereby a user can download his or her entire content for purposes of responding to discovery requests (or other purposes).  Requesting that the opposing party do this in a document request and if necessary seeking a court order requiring them to download the content themselves is often a more expeditious route than serving a subpoena on Facebook.  But there can be technical issues – sometimes the “button” will not work effectively for users that post a large amount of content on Facebook.  There also could be concerns about material being deleted by the user, which may or may not be retained by Facebook.  Judge Mix emphasized that many judges are not that familiar with social media sites and how they work because, to avoid any appearance of impropriety in becoming “friends” with lawyers and others, many judges tend to eschew entirely participation in these sites.  That makes it important to explain these things thoroughly in discovery hearings and any motion practice, and not assume the judge knows the basics of how social media sites work.

Tags: ABA, E-discovery
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Wystan Ackerman Wystan Ackerman

I am a partner at the law firm of Robinson+Cole in Hartford, Connecticut, USA.  My contact information is on the contact page of my blog.  I really enjoy receiving questions, comments, suggestions and even criticism from readers.  So please e-mail me if you…

I am a partner at the law firm of Robinson+Cole in Hartford, Connecticut, USA.  My contact information is on the contact page of my blog.  I really enjoy receiving questions, comments, suggestions and even criticism from readers.  So please e-mail me if you have something to say.  For those looking for my detailed law firm bio, click here.  If you want a more light-hearted and hopefully more interesting summary, read on:

People often ask about my unusual first name, Wystan.  It’s pronounced WISS-ten.  It’s not Winston.  There is no “n” in the middle.  It comes from my father’s favorite poet, W.H. (Wystan Hugh) Auden.  I’ve grown to like the fact that because my name is unusual people tend to remember it better, even if they don’t pronounce it right (and there is no need for anyone to use my last name because I’m always the only Wystan).

I grew up in Deep River, Connecticut, a small town on the west side of the Connecticut River in the south central part of the state.  I’ve always had strong interests in history, politics and baseball.  My heroes growing up were Abraham Lincoln and Wade Boggs (at that time the third baseman for the Boston Red Sox).  I think it was my early fascination with Lincoln that drove me to practice law.  I went to high school at The Williams School in New London, Connecticut, where I edited the school newspaper, played baseball, and was primarily responsible for the installation of a flag pole near the school entrance (it seemed like every other school had one but until my class raised the money and bought one at my urging, Williams had no flag pole).  As a high school senior, my interest in history and politics led me to score high enough on a test of those subjects to be chosen as one of Connecticut’s two delegates to the U.S. Senate Youth Program, which further solidified my interest in law and government.  One of my mentors at Williams was of the view that there were far too many lawyers and I should find something more useful to do, but if I really had to be a lawyer there was always room for one more.  I eventually decided to be that “one more.”  I went on to Bowdoin College, where I wrote for the Bowdoin Orient and majored in government, but took a lot of math classes because I found college math interesting and challenging.  I then went to Columbia Law School, where I was lucky enough to be selected as one of the minions who spent their time fastidiously cite-checking and Blue booking hundred-plus-page articles in the Columbia Law Review.  I also interned in the chambers of then-Judge Sonia Sotomayor when she was a relatively new judge on the Second Circuit, my only connection to someone who now has one-ninth of the last word on what constitutes the law of our land.  I graduated from Columbia in 2001, then worked at Skadden Arps in Boston before returning to Connecticut and joining Robinson+Cole, one of the largest Connecticut-based law firms.  At the end of 2008, I was elected a partner at Robinson+Cole.

I’ve worked on class actions since the start of my career at Skadden.  Being in the insurance capital of Hartford, we have a national insurance litigation practice and I was fortunate to have the opportunity to work on some prominent class actions arising from the 2004 hurricanes in Florida and later Hurricane Katrina, including cases involving the applicability of the flood exclusion, statutes known as valued policy laws, and various other issues.  My interest and experience in class actions gradually led me to focus on that area.

In Connecticut courts I’ve defended various kinds of class actions that go beyond insurance, including cases involving products liability, securities, financial services and consumer contracts.

My insurance class action practice usually takes me outside of Connecticut.  I’ve had the pleasure of working on cases in various federal and state courts and collaborating with great lawyers across the country.  While class actions are an increasingly large part of my practice, I don’t do exclusively class action work.  The rest of my practice involves litigating insurance coverage cases, often at the appellate level.  That also frequently takes me outside of Connecticut.  A highlight of my career thus far was working on Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, the U.S. Supreme Court’s first Class Action Fairness Act case.  I was Counsel of Record for Standard Fire on the cert petition, and had the pleasure of working with Ted Boutrous on the merits briefing and oral argument.

I started this blog because writing is one of my favorite things to do and I enjoy following developments in class action law, writing about them and engaging in discussion with others who have an in interest in this area.  It’s a welcome break from day-to-day practice, keeps me current, broadens my network and results in some new business.

When I’m not at my desk or flying around the country trying to save insurance companies from the plaintiffs’ bar, or attending a conference on class actions or insurance litigation (for more on those, see the Seminars/Programs page of this blog), I often can be found playing or reading with my young daughter, helping my wife with her real estate and mortgage businesses, reading a book about history or politics, or watching the Boston Red Sox (I managed to find bleacher seats for Game 2 of the 2004 World Series when Curt Schilling pitched with the bloody sock).  When the weather is good I also love to take the ferry to Block Island, Rhode Island and ride a bike or walk the trails there. If you go, I highly recommend the Clay Head Trail.

Read more about Wystan Ackerman
Show more Show less
Related Posts
Are Defendants Required To Create Datasets to Respond to Discovery Requests in Class Actions?
January 29, 2018
Insights From FDCC Program On December 2015 Amendments To Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
March 10, 2016
2015 Amendments to Federal Rules – Impact on Class Actions
November 20, 2015