Post on 21-Jun-2018
412.394.7711 | clarkhill.com
• General Principles of E-Discovery
• Authentication and Admission of ESI
• Expert Testimony: The Frye and Daubert Tests
412.394.7711 | clarkhill.com
• E-DISCOVERY
• Discoveryistheprocessinli0ga0onwherebothsidesexchangeevidence.E-discoveryisdiscoveryofelectronicallystoredinforma0on(“ESI”)
• Recentrevisionstofederalrulesarefocusedonbalancingtheneedfor
inves0ga0nganddevelopingclaimsagainstthesignificant,costlyburdenofcollec0ng,analyzingandproducingESI
.
412.394.7711 | clarkhill.com
FRCP 26(a)(1)#
Scopeofdiscoverableinforma0onisanynonprivileged,relevantmaGerthatis:• “propor0onaltotheneedsofthecase,considering
theimportanceof• theissuesatstakeintheac0on,• theamountincontroversy,• thepar0es’rela0veaccesstorelevant
informa0on,• thepar0es’resources,• theimportanceofthediscoveryinresolving
theissues,and• whethertheburdenorexpenseofthe
proposeddiscoveryoutweighsitslikelybenefit.”
412.394.7711 | clarkhill.com
Trail v. Lesko, No. GD-10-17249 (Allegheny Cty., July 3, 2012)!
Pa. R. C. P. 4011: No discovery, including discovery of ESI, shall be permitted which (a) is sought in bad faith; (b) would cause unreasonable annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense
412.394.7711 | clarkhill.com
Parties have a duty to collect and preserve all evidence that may be relevant to a pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation.
412.394.7711 | clarkhill.com
InrePradaxa(DabigatranEtexilate)ProductsLiabilityLi9ga9on,MDLNo.2385(S.D.Ill.Dec.9,2013)
KicapooTribeofIndiansoftheKickapooReserva9oninKansasv.NemahaBrownWatershedJointDistrictNo.7,No.06-CV-2248(D.Kan.Sept.23,2013)
Ewaldv.RoyalNorwegianEmbassy,No.11-cv-2116(D.Minn.Nov.20,2013)
PTSI,Inc.v.Haley,No.684WDA2012(Pa.Super.May24,2013)
Christouv.Beatport,LLC,No.10-2912(D.Colo.Jan.23,2013)
412.394.7711 | clarkhill.com
PREREQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF ESI
• Relevant—F.R.E.402,Pa.R.E.402• Authen0cated—F.R.E.901-02,Pa.R.E.901-02• Sa0sfytheoriginalwri0ngrule(“bestevidencerule”)oroneofitsexcep0ons.
—F.R.E.402,Pa.R.E.402
• Mustnotbehearsay,ormustqualifyunderahearsayexcep0onorexemp0on.F.R.E.801etseq.,Pa.R.E.801etseq.
• Theproba0vevalueoftheevidencemustnotbesubstan0allyoutweighedbythedangerofunfairprejudice,confusingtheissues,misleadingthejury,unduedelay,was0ng0me,orneedlesslypresen0ngcumula0veevidence.Fed.R.E.403,Pa.R.E.403.
412.394.7711 | clarkhill.com
AUTHENTICATION OF ESI#
• Authen0ca0onrequiresthatthepartyprofferingtheevidenceproduceabaseline(“primafacie”)showingthattheevidencereallyiswhatthatpartyclaimsittobe.
• Whethertheprofferedevidenceis,infact,thatthing,isforthejurytodecide.
412.394.7711 | clarkhill.com
METHODS OF AUTHENTICATING ESI
§ Tes0monyofawitnesswithknowledge.
§ ComparisonbyanExpertWitnessortheTrierofFact.
§ Dis0nc0vecharacteris0csinthecontent.
§ Dis0nc0vetechnicalcharacteris0cs.
412.394.7711 | clarkhill.com
AUTHENTICATING PARTICULAR KINDS OF ESI o Email–presenceofthewitness’semailaddressisnot,alone,sufficiently“dis0nc0ve”.
o Canauthen0cateawebsitewithassistanceofwebcataloguingservice.
o Instantmessaging,textmessaging
o Recordedvoice/voicemail
412.394.7711 | clarkhill.com
HOW DO YOU GET EVIDENCE OF AUTHENTICITY?
§ Forensicexpert§ RequestsforAdmissionorInterrogatories
§ Deposi0ontes0mony
412.394.7711 | clarkhill.com
• “Authen0city”andCyberBullying—Authen0ca0onofsocialmediaaccounts
§ Characteris0csofapar0cularpartyintheprofilemaynotbeenoughtolinkittotheparty,e.g.profilepicture,dateofbirth,etc.
§ Griffinv.StateofMaryland,19A.3d415(M.D.2011)(reversingconvic0on)offers3avenuesforauthen0ca0onofsocialmedia
412.394.7711 | clarkhill.com
• “STOREDCOMMUNICATIONSACT(SCA)prohibitselectroniccommunica0onserviceprovidersandremotecompu0ngserviceprovidersfromknowinglydisclosingthecontentsofcustomer’selectroniccommunica0onsorsubscriberrecords.18U.S.C.A.2702(a)§ Flaggv.CityofDetroit,252F.R.D.346(E.D.Mich.2008),candirectthe
requesttothepartywhowrotethecommunica0ons,toobtainthemfromtheproviderandproducethem.
412.394.7711 | clarkhill.com
FRYE/DAUBERT
• FryeandDaubertarethetwoteststhatgoverntheadmissibilityofexperttes0mony,basedoncertainstandardsofreliability/acceptability.
• DAUBERTV.MERRELLDOWPHARMACEUTICALS,INC.,509U.S.579(1993)
412.394.7711 | clarkhill.com
DAUBERT
o Ifscien0fic,technical,orotherspecializedknowledgewillassistthetrieroffacttounderstandtheevidenceortodetermineafactinissue,awitnessqualifiedasanexpertbyknowledge,skill,experience,training,oreduca0on,maytes0fytheretointheformofanopinionorotherwise,if:• Thetes0monyisbaseduponsufficientfactsordata,• Thetes0monyistheproductofreliableprinciplesandmethods,
and• Thewitnesshasappliedtheprinciplesandmethodsreliablyto
thefactsofthecase.
412.394.7711 | clarkhill.com
FRYE/DAUBERT (CONT’D)
• FRYEV.UNITEDSTATES,293F.1013(D.C.Cir.1923)
§ “Generallyaccepted”isthebeginningandendofthetest.
§ Thiscreatesanissuewithnewornovelscien0fictes0mony.
• Pennsylvaniaisoneofveryfewstatesthats0lladherestotheFryestandard.§ Gradyv.Frito-Lay,Inc.,839A.2d1038(Pa.2003)
412.394.7711 | clarkhill.com
COMPUTER FORENSICS CASES
• PatrickCollins,Inc.v.JohnDoe1,2012U.S.Dist.LEXIS(E.D.N.Y.Nov.20,2012),holdingthatanIPaddressalonedoesnotiden0fyaperson.
• However,UnitedStatesv.Huether,673F.3d789(8thCir.2012)holdingacomputerforensicsexpertmayiden0fyaspecificpersonwhodownloadedinforma0ononpar0cularcomputersbasedontheuser’saccesstothecomputersandasimilarityoffilestructures.
412.394.7711 | clarkhill.com
• Geoloca0ondatafrom1999basedoncelltower“pings”forincomingcalls.• Thestate’scellphoneexpertwasaRadioFrequencyEngineerdealingwith
deviceslikecellphonesdesignedtoworkwithradiofrequency
412.394.7711 | clarkhill.com
• APPLICATIONOFFRYE§ UnderFRYE,the
prosecu0onwouldhavetoshowthatthemethodologyandtheconclusionsbytheirexpertwereacceptedwithinthe“generalscien0ficcommunity”
412.394.7711 | clarkhill.com
• APPLICATIONOFDAUBERT§ Daubertwillallowinnovelapproaches,solongasthescien0ficapproach
isbasedinsoundscien0ficprinciples.§ Thisexpert’stes0monyprobablywasnotbasedinsoundscience.
412.394.7711 | clarkhill.com
MOBILE FORENSICS CASES#
United States v. Banks, 93 F. Supp. 3d 1237 (D. Kan. 2015) (considering utility and limitations on expert testimony concerning cell-site data)
412.394.7711 | clarkhill.com
United States v. Evans, 892 F. Supp. 2d 949 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (allowing expert testimony about the general topic of how cellular networks operate, but disallowing expert testimony on the theory of “granulization”) United States v. Allums, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24224 (D. Utah 2009) (cell-site data in conjunction with Stingray) Murray v. Motorola, Inc., 2001 CA 8479 B, 2014 D.C. Super. LEXIS 16 (D.C. Super. Aug. 8, 2014) (considering admissibility of expert testimony that cell phones cause brain cancer under Frye analysis)