Dell Makes "Mockery" of Court System

In one of the strongest rebukes I have read in an eDiscovery case involving email, Louisiana State Court Judge Rosemary Ledet did the following to Dell Computer:

1. Found Dell in contempt of court.
2. Stated that Dell made a "mockery" of the court system.
3. Fined the company $25,000 in sanctions.
4. Called Dell's actions "unconscionable"

The ruling needs to be seen as a warning to companies who do not respond quickly and effectively to court-ordered discovery requests.

In full disclosure, I need to state that InBoxer uses Dell to supply hardware.  InBoxer also competes with a division of Dell for email archiving and electronic discovery.  So, I am in an interesting place when it comes to commenting on Dell's apparent inability to use their own email archiving software to produce what the court demanded.  That being said, let's get some facts:

Southern Electronics Supply Inc. and Active Solutions LLC sued in 2007, claiming the crime surveillance system they developed for New Orleans was misappropriated by people within and with ties to the New Orleans' technology department. They also allege a conspiracy with Dell to sell the system.  Dell has disputed the allegations, as have other defendants, including Mayor Ray Nagin. (Associated Press)

A significant point in the case revolved around whether Michael Dell personally knew about the deal.  There was also a question about a supposed Dell had a meeting with New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin in June 2004.  A Dell employee stated in an affidavit that the meeting took place.  Both Dell and Nagin do not recall the meeting.

This set up a discovery request to find messages and other documents.  Yet, Dell's "piecemeal" disclosure of documents did not even include a search for the word "camera" in Michael Dell's email.

Plaintiffs' attorney Gladstone Jones said he "wasted my time" in Texas last week for Michael Dell's deposition because of the quality of the records' search. (AP)   Ledet called the company's conduct "unconscionable."  (Dell, of course, refutes this stating that they acted in good faith and produced 180,000 documents.)

"If anything, this is an indictment of Dell's own email archiving and management software that it purchased and has owned for some time," stated Howard Haile in DCIG.   "But, what is more surprising is Dell's lack of keyword search capabilities and inability to present relevant information in a timely manage, especially given that they own a software that allegedly can perform these tasks,"

I personally find it hard to believe that Dell's email archiving software does not have simple keyword search capabilities.  But, it will be interesting to see whether the product has problems or whether the attorneys failed to deliver what the courts need.

As I have said many times:  Anyone can copy a message into an email archive.  The challenge is to retrieve the message when you need it.