- Discovery Resources - http://www.discoveryresources.org -
The SEC and e-Discovery
Posted By Guest Authors On March 6, 2012 @ 4:03 pm In Home Page Featured,Home Page Latest,Sound Evidence,Uncategorized | 1 Comment
Wallis Hampton, Counsel, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Affiliates
Elizabeth Russo, White Collar Crime Associate, Skadden, Arps
Canaan Himmelbaum, Account Executive, Fios Inc.
Recent years have seen dramatic shifts in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s approach to enforcement actions with respect to e-discovery. Beginning with its 2001 Seaboard Report, the SEC has heavily emphasized the importance of cooperation in investigations while simultaneously underscoring the perils of being perceived as uncooperative. In 2004, Stephen Cutler, the SEC’s Director of Enforcement at the time, noted that the SEC “seeks to recognize, in its charging and sanctioning decisions (and in its decisions not to charge and not to sanction), efforts by companies to police themselves, report problems to the government and establish a solid culture of compliance.” More recently, the SEC has begun utilizing cooperation credits and deferred prosecution agreements as incentives, both of which historically have been limited to criminal prosecutions. If these carrots aren’t sufficient, the SEC also wields a number of powerful sticks, including the threat of obstruction charges and the risk of SEC action against attorneys themselves.
A recent decision highlights the federal government’s interest in driving its own specifications for production. On February 3, 2011, in the case of National Day Laborer Organizing Network v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin entered an order resolving the parties’ dispute regarding the defendants’ form of production to the federal government. In particular, Judge Scheindlin required the defendants to reproduce previously produced spreadsheets in native format and previously produced text records in “static image file format together with their attachments.” Judge Scheindlin also required that all future productions be Bates-numbered and produced in TIFF format, with accompanying load files containing specified metadata fields and spreadsheets being produced in native format. These production standards track many of those used by the SEC.
Against the backdrop of this decision and the SEC’s own explicit push for greater cooperation , it stands to reason that counsel must be particularly careful when addressing e-discovery issues with the SEC, as mistakes can affect the regulators’ perception of whether one is cooperating, or, in a worst-case scenario, is actively trying to hinder an investigation. Thankfully, counsel need not act in a vacuum, as the SEC’s Enforcement Manual  includes e-discovery standards. The SEC also has issued Data Delivery Standards  that further outline its technical requirements for e-discovery. In recent matters before the SEC, it has been our experience that the agency’s default policy is to ask for complete compliance with the Data Delivery Standards. However, we have found the SEC’s personnel willing to engage in dialogue regarding alternative options and limitations on production capabilities. It’s also encouraging to realize that the SEC’s technical requirements are not particularly unusual, although they do contain some specific requirements that may vary from what one sees in traditional e-discovery.
The SEC’s more noteworthy requirements include the following:
What does all this mean for an attorney responding to an SEC request for ESI? Aside from the usual admonitions about document production, an attorney would be well-served to take several measures to ensure the client’s compliance with the request/subpoena.
First, and most importantly, counsel should take immediate steps to preserve all potentially relevant electronic and paper files. There are many dedicated companies who specialize in the preservation of documents. Counsel should recommend a firm of good repute to their client.
Second, counsel should read the subpoena or voluntary document request carefully. Either the subpoena or request will include guidelines for ESI production or the SEC will provide the Data Delivery Standards that the production team will need to understand as it begins the process of responding.
Third, involve IT personnel from the beginning. While the universe of potential IT staff available to do the job will depend upon the circumstances, counsel may often need to involve the client’s IT department as well as an outside vendor. The Enforcement Manual and the Data Delivery Standards are sprinkled with references to consulting the Division of Enforcement’s IT staff. To avoid any misunderstandings, IT experts from both sides should try to work through any technical issues before the productions occur.
Fourth, discuss any open e-discovery issues with SEC staff as early as possible. Indeed, the Enforcement Manual contemplates that the producing party may try to “negotiate alternative delivery standards” for some types of evidence. For instance, the Enforcement Manual is silent on the subject of horizontal and vertical de-duplication. The Manual provides that “[i]f copies of a document differ in any way, they are to be treated as separate documents and the subpoenaed entity or individual must produce each copy.” Because this provision does not explicitly address ESI, counsel should consider discussing the various de-duplication alternatives early on with SEC staff and determine whether there should be a “custodian append file” to track which custodians have duplicates of produced documents. Similarly, the Manual is silent on the use of search terms to locate potentially responsive ESI. As with normal litigation, if counsel intends to use search terms to identify potentially relevant documents, they will have to negotiate the specifics of those terms and the other search parameters with the SEC staff. They should confirm any agreements arising from those discussions in writing so that there is no question later about what the client was supposed to do. In our experience, SEC personnel are willing to entertain a dialogue about the use of search terms, although they may request terms of greater breadth or custodians and date ranges where search terms are not appropriate.
Finally, read the certification of completeness of production that the SEC requires. Broadly speaking, this requires a person to certify under penalty of perjury that he or she has made a diligent search of all files in his or her possession, custody or control that are reasonably likely to contain responsive documents and that those documents have either been produced or identified in a privilege log. Producing entities have similar obligations. Counsel should develop a collection and production protocol that will meet these standards.
In short, while ESI production issues in SEC investigations may appear to involve many hidden land mines, careful and proactive counsel should be able to avoid them by paying careful attention to SEC-specific standards and protocols, and by working to resolve any potential issues surrounding forms of production as early as possible.
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Affiliates, or of Fios, Inc.
 Stephen M. Cutler, Remarks to the Second Annual General Counsel Roundtable: Tone at the Top: Getting It Right , 3 December 2004.
Article printed from Discovery Resources: http://www.discoveryresources.org
URL to article: http://www.discoveryresources.org/uncategorized/the-sec-and-e-discovery/
URLs in this post:
 Enforcement Manual: http://www.sec.gov/divisions/enforce/enforcementmanual.pdf
 Data Delivery Standards: http://www.sec.gov/divisions/enforce/datadeliverystandards.pdf
 Remarks to the Second Annual General Counsel Roundtable: Tone at the Top: Getting It Right: http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/spch120304smc.htm
Copyright © 2008 Discovery Resources. All rights reserved.