Close
Enter your
text here
Monthly Archives :

November 2010

eDiscovery Project Management: Maintain Good Records
 

Project documentation is a weakness that I’ve seen time and again in firms that I’ve helped.  And, I’ve seen it cause problems over and over again.

I’ve worked with attorneys who have done a great job of collecting and producing documents, but, nonetheless, they have trouble successfully resolving discovery disputes.   Why?  Because they didn’t keep records of what they did and how they did it.

I’ve seen litigation teams work on cases that came back to life after being dormant for five years.  No one knew what had already been done with the documents.  They had to start from scratch.

I’ve worked with litigation teams that lost team members, and in doing so lost the only people who had knowledge of certain case activities.

I’ve known litigation teams that couldn’t use significant evidence because they didn’t maintain adequate chain of custody documentation.

These problems cost litigation teams time and money, and in extreme situations, they can affect the outcome of a case  – all unfortunate results that can be avoided if good project records are kept. 

For each case, maintain a “case book”.  Start it at the beginning of a case with case overview information.  Create a form to capture this information:

  • Case name and parties
  • Date filed
  • Client
  • Client contact with phone and email
  • Information for each team member (name, position, phone and email)
  • Information for co-counsel (firm name and names, phone and email for individuals)
  • Information for opposing counsel (firm name and names, phone and email for individuals)
  • Schedule information (for example, discovery start and end dates, trial dates)

Create a section in the case-book for each document-handling task.  Create a form to capture this information:

  • Name of the task (for example, “Collecting Documents”)
  • The name, position and contact information for the person responsible
  • Start date, expected completion date, and actual completion date
  • The name, position and contact information for each team member that works on the task.
  • A section for notes and summary information

File task documentation in the case-book (for example, include budgets, schedules, forms, logs, chain of custody records and status reports).

Good record keeping doesn’t have to take a lot of time, and it can be invaluable.

What do you think?  Have you worked on a case where poor record keeping caused problems?  Please share any comments you might have or tell us if you’d like to know more about a topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Sanctions at an All-Time High

eDiscovery sanctions are at an all-time high, according to a Duke Law Journal law review article.  The article summarizes a study of 401 cases involving motions for sanctions related to discovery of electronically stored information (ESI) in federal courts through 2009, with a total of 230 sanction awards in those cases.  A link to the article can be found here.

In an increasing number of cases, more attention is focused on eDiscovery than on the merits, with a motion for sanctions becoming very common.  The sanctions imposed against parties in many of these cases have been severe, including adverse jury instructions, significant monetary awards and even dismissals. These sanctions have occurred despite the safe harbor provisions of Rule 37(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which have provided little protection to parties or counsel.

The study also found that defendants are sanctioned almost three times as often as the plaintiffs in a lawsuit (175 to 53). The most common type of misconduct to receive a sanction was failing to preserve relevant information (sanctions were granted in 90 cases). Often, multiple types of misconduct led to the sanctions. Other types of misconduct included a failure to produce information and delays in producing the information.

Other key notable stats:

  • 354 of the 401 cases where sanctions were requested and 198 of the 230 sanction awards have occurred since 2004;
  • The most common types of cases with sanctions are employment (17 percent), contract (16 percent), intellectual property (15.5 percent) and tort cases (11 percent);
  • 183 district court judges and 111 magistrate judges from 75 federal districts in 44 states, the Virgin Islands, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, have issued written opinions regarding e-discovery sanctions;
  • Cases involving e-discovery sanctions and sanction awards more than tripled between 2003 and 2004, from 9 to 29 sanction cases, and from 6 to 21 sanction awards;
  • There were more e-discovery sanction cases (97) and more e-discovery sanction awards (46) in 2009 than in any prior year – more than in all years prior to 2005 combined!!

The study also has a year-to-year breakdown of sanctions from 1981 through 2009, with a bar chart that illustrates the tremendous growth in sanction cases and awards in the last six years.  A partner and senior attorneys at King & Spaulding’s Discovery Center assisted the students in analyzing the cases and identifying the trends in sanctions.

So, what do you think?  Have you been involved in any cases where sanctions have been requested or awarded?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Tips: Word’s Stupid “Smart Quotes”

I have run into this issue more times than I can count.

A client sends me a list of search terms that they want to use to cull a set of data for review in a Microsoft® Word document.  I copy the terms into the search tool and then, all hell breaks loose!!  Either:

The search indicates there is a syntax error

OR

The search returns some obviously odd results

And, then, I remember…

It’s those stupid Word “smart quotes”.  Starting with Office 2003, Microsoft Word, by default, automatically changes straight quotation marks ( ‘ or ” ) to curly quotes as you type. This is fine for display of a document in Word, but when you copy that text to a format that doesn’t support the smart quotes (such as HTML or a plain text editor), the quotes will show up as garbage characters because they are not supported ASCII characters.  So:

“smart quotes” aren’t very smart

will look like this…

âsmart quotesâ arenât very smart

As you can imagine, that doesn’t look so “smart” when you feed it into a search tool and you get odd results (if the search even runs).  So, you’ll need to address those to make sure that the quotes are handled correctly when searching for phrases with your search tool.

To disable the automatic changing of quotes to Microsoft Word smart quotes: For Office 2007, click the Microsoft Office icon button at the top left of Word, and then click the Word Options button to open options for Word.  Click Proofing along the side of the pop-up window, then click AutoCorrect Options.  Click the AutoFormat tab and uncheck the Replace “Smart Quotes” with “Smart Quotes” check box.  Then, click OK.

To replace Microsoft Word smart quotes already in a file: Often, however, the file you’ve received already has smart quotes in it.  If you’re going to use the terms in that file, you’ll need to copy them to a text editor first – Notepad or Wordpad (if Wordpad is in plain text document mode) should be fine.  Highlight the beginning quote and copy it to the clipboard (Ctrl+C), then Ctrl+H to open up the Find and Replace dialog, put your cursor in the Find box and press Ctrl+V to paste it in.  Type the “ character on the keyboard into the Replace box, then press Replace All to replace all beginning smart quotes with straight ones.  Repeat the process for the ending smart quotes.  You’ll also have to do this if you have any single quotes, double-hyphens, fraction characters (e.g., Word converts “1/2” to “½”), etc. that impact your terms.

So, what do you think?  Have you ever run into issues with Word smart quotes or other Word auto formatting options?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

From all of us at Trial Solutions…Have a Happy Thanksgiving!!

eDiscovery Project Management: Monitor the Work
 

It’s critical to know where you are on a project so you can compare your progress to your budget and schedule and make adjustments if necessary.  Sometime the unexpected will cause you to fall behind.  In some cases, you’ll be able to take steps to fix problems and get back on track.  For example, you may be able to simplify a task without sacrificing quality or the utility of the work.

 

Here’s an example.  I once managed a coding project that was having problems.  The rate at which the staff moved through the collection was much slower than I had estimated.  At that slower rate, the deadline was going to be missed and the costs were going to skyrocket.  I met with the staff to determine why the work was taking so much time.  We determined that there was one field of information that was causing trouble:  coders were required to record the country in which certain types of activity occurred.  It was easy enough to record “United States” when something happened in New York.  It wasn’t so easy for the staff to record “Botswana” when something happened in Ghanzi.  I spoke with an attorney about the problem.  She determined that what they really needed to know was whether an activity occurred in the US, in England, or somewhere else.  We simplified the coding rule and we were able to get back on track.  If we hadn’t been monitoring daily progress on the project, we would have faced significant schedule and budget problems.

Changing the rules might not always be an option.  Sometimes you’ll have to live with an extended schedule and higher costs.  Knowing that sooner rather than later is always better.  If you can’t adjust the rules, you can at least adjust the expectations of those for whom you are doing the work.

Put a mechanism in place for monitoring status.  Look at production rates and throughput every day and see how the numbers compare to the assumptions you made when you created your schedule and budget.   A missed deadline or unexpected costs should never be a surprise that comes at the end of a project.

What do you think?  Have you missed deadlines and exceeded budgets?  Could it have been avoided?  Please share your comments or let us know if you would like more information on a topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Facemail and eDiscovery

Email is dead.

So says Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.  “It’s too formal,” he declared, announcing his company’s new messaging service last week in San Francisco.

Facebook announced last week that it’s rolling out a new messaging system, including chat, text messaging, status updates and email (surprise!).  Zuckerberg touts it as a way of bringing messaging systems together in one place, so you don’t have to remember how each of your friends prefers to be contacted.  Will the integrated product (informally dubbed “Facemail”) that some have called “Gmail killer” be a serious threat to Gmail, MSN and Yahoo Mail?  Maybe.  With 500 million plus users, Facebook certainly has a head start towards a potentially large user base.

However, some caveats to consider from a business standpoint:

  1. Facemail messages will be clustered by sender instead of by subject, which they consider to be “antiquated”.  May be great from a social standpoint, but not so good when you need to follow the thread of a conversation with multiple people.
  2. Unified messaging is not an entirely new concept.  Just last year, Google introduced Google Wave, designed to “merge key features of media like e-mail, instant messaging, wikis, and social networking”.  Earlier this year, Google announced plans to scrap Google Wave after it failed to gain a significant following.  It will be interesting to see whether Facebook can succeed where Google failed.
  3. From an eDiscovery perspective, the potential concern is that Facebook plans to preserve these messages, regardless of the form in which they are generated, forever.  So, if your company has a retention policy in place, these communications will fall outside of that policy.

Is it time to panic?  It might be tempting to overreact and ban the use of Facemail and other outside email and social media sites, but that seems impractical in today’s social media climate.

A better approach is to have a policy in place to govern use of outside email, chat and social media that covers what employees should do (e.g., act responsibly and ethically when participating in online communities), what employees should not do (e.g., disclose confidential information, plagiarize copyrighted information, etc.) and the consequences for violating the policy (e.g., lost customers, firings, lawsuits, etc.).  We will talk more about a social governance policy in an upcoming post.  In the meantime, here is a reference to our September post for information on requesting information from Facebook via civil subpoena.

So, what do you think?  Does your company have a social governance policy?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

P.S. – So, what happened to the architect behind Google Wave, Lars Rasmussen?  He just joined Facebook.  Interesting, huh?  🙂

eDiscovery Trends: Sedona Conference Commentary on Proportionality
 

Last month, The Sedona Conference® made available its Commentary on Proportionality in Electronic Discovery, which is a project of The Sedona Conference Working Group on Electronic Document Retention & Production (WG1).  The commentary is initially being published as a "public comment version", giving participants in the legal industry an opportunity to provide comments that the editors will review and incorporate edits where appropriate into the final version.  A copy of the PDF publication can be downloaded here.

The commentary discusses the origins of the doctrine of proportionality, provides examples of its application and proposes principles for guidance, providing “a framework for the application of the doctrine of proportionality to all aspects of electronic discovery”.  Among other things, the publication identifies six Principles of Proportionality intended to provide that framework, using existing (Federal) rules and case law to support each principle.  These common-sense principles are:

  1. The burdens and costs of preservation of potentially relevant information should be weighed against the potential value and uniqueness of the information when determining the appropriate scope of preservation.
  2. Discovery should generally be obtained from the most convenient, least burdensome, and least expensive sources.
  3. Undue burden, expense, or delay resulting from a party’s action or inaction should be weighed against that party.
  4. Extrinsic information and sampling may assist in the analysis of whether requested discovery is sufficiently important to warrant the potential burden or expense of its production.
  5. Nonmonetary factors should be considered when evaluating the burdens and benefits of discovery.
  6. Technologies to reduce cost and burden should be considered in the proportionality analysis.

After stating the six principles above, the commentary goes on to discuss specific rules and case law that supports issues to consider such as the availability of information from other sources, waiver and undue delay, and burden versus benefit.  It then goes on to discuss the existing rules and case law that supports each principle.

To submit a public comment, you can download a public comment form here, complete it and fax(!) it to The Sedona Conference® at 928-284-4240.  If, like me, you’re opposed to using 1990s technology to submit your comments, the publication also notes that you can also submit feedback by emailing them at rgb@sedonaconference.org.

So, what do you think?  Have you encountered any cases where proportionality of discovery requests are at issue? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: CGOC Information Governance Benchmark Report

Last month, at the EDRM Mid-Year Meetings, the Information Management Reference Model (IMRM) team within EDRM presented a status report for their project (as all of the project teams do during these meetings).  As a part of that presentation, the team presented findings from the first survey conducted by the Compliance, Governance and Oversight Council (CGOC) in collaboration with the IMRM of legal, records management (RIM) and IT practitioners in Global 1000 companies.  You can request a copy of the report here.

According to the CGOC report, there was an even distribution of respondents between legal, RIM and IT.  Just a few of the very interesting findings include:

    • Ineffective Disposal of Data: 75% of respondents identified the inability to defensibly dispose of data as the greatest challenge, leaving “massive” amounts of legacy data,
  • “People Glue” Compliance Processes: 70% of respondents depend on “liaisons and people glue” to support discovery and regulatory obligations within information management (as opposed to reliable and repeatable systems and processes),
  • Disconnect Between Legal, RIM and IT: There are big gaps between retention schedule development, legal hold communication, and information management.  Some key stats:
    • 77% said their retention schedules were not actionable as is or could only be applied to paper,
    • 75% of schedules included only regulatory record keeping requirements or long-range business information,
    • 66% did not describe legal holds by the records associated with them, and
    • 50% of IT departments never used the retention schedule when disposing of data.
  • Who’s In Charge?: Legal and RIM identified RIM as the organization responsible for “information management and disposal” whereas IT considered themselves responsible for this function.

These are just a handful of findings in this report, which clearly shows that most large organizations still feel that there is still much work to be done to achieve an effective information governance program.  The CGOC (and IMRM) have done a terrific job at compiling a comprehensive and informative report that illustrates the current state of affairs of information management in the corporate world.  Request your copy of the report to learn more!

So, what do you think?  How is your organization managing information governance?  Is it facing similar issues? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Project Management: Review the Work

Yesterday, we talked about resolving questions quickly and keeping team members informed about changes to procedures to minimize the chance for significant rework.  However, even with the best staff, mistakes happen — especially on projects that require a team of people.  There are two general types of errors you can expect:

  • Errors that are made because someone doesn’t properly understand the task.  They have misunderstood the procedures or misinterpreted a subjective component of the work.
  • Errors that are made simply because it is inevitable.  People have bad days.  They get tired.  Knowing how to do something doesn’t mean you will do it right every time.

The first type of error is easy to identify and fix.  Check initial work quickly and give immediate feedback.  I always distribute small batches of initial work at the beginning of a task – work that an individual can finish quickly.  Then I have that first initial batch for each person checked thoroughly and right away.  Misinterpretations of the procedures or the criteria are evident and can be dealt with right away, before a lot of work has been done.

Catching the second type of error is a little more difficult unless your schedule and budget permit you to check 100% of the work.  With a good staff, that’s probably overkill.  But, it’s important that work is spot-checked throughout the life of a project, and that an intelligent approach is used to isolate problems.  For example, if you find a few careless errors made by a staff member, see if you can isolate all of the work that person did on that day and check it completely.  Or perhaps you’ll identify a particular type of document or situation that caused problems, and you can take steps to isolate just those documents or situations.  Very often you can apply a systematic approach to finding and fixing errors.

What do you think?  Have you worked on projects where quality control reviews were absent or inadequate and work quality suffered?  Please share your comments or let us know if you would like more information on a topic.

eDiscovery Project Management: Resolve Questions Quickly
 

Even with the best procedures and thorough training, people who are new to a task will likely have questions.   Nuances in a document collection and unexpected situations will surface that don’t fit into your rules.  It is very important that questions are resolved quickly.  Most document work is repetitive.  Many questions, therefore, will apply to more than one document.  If a question is not resolved quickly, there is a good chance that many documents will be affected, and you may face significant rework.   This is especially the case in projects that are being handled by a team of people – for example, a document review project.  So, handle exceptions and questions as they come up and expand and modify the rules to accommodate what you are finding in practice in the document collection.

Depending on the type of project you are managing, you may need to be prepared to answer two types of questions:

  • Questions about the mechanics of the task.  These types of questions are usually best handled by project managers and supervisors.
  • Questions about the substance of the task.  For example, in a document review project there are likely to be questions about the relevance of topics discussed in the documents.  These types of questions are usually best handled by an attorney who is familiar with the case and with the documents.

Make sure that you have the right people on hand to make decisions and answer questions.  If those people can’t be on the project site, make sure they are easily reached and readily available.

And, have a process in place for disseminating updated procedures and criteria to a team doing the work.  If one member of a team has a question, chances are other team members will encounter similar documents and have the same question.   You need to get information quickly into the hands of those doing the work.

What do you think?  Have you worked on projects that required rework because decision makers weren’t available?  Please share your comments or let us know if you’d like more information on a topic.

eDiscovery Searching: Types of Exception Files

Friday, we talked about how to address the handling of exception files through agreement with opposing counsel (typically, via the meet and confer) to manage costs and avoid the potential for spoliation claims.  There are different types of exception files that might be encountered in a typical ESI collection and it’s important to know how those files can be recovered.

Types of Exception Files

It’s important to note that efforts to “fix” these files will often also change the files (and the metadata associated with them), so it’s important to establish with opposing counsel what measures to address the exceptions are acceptable.  Some files may not be recoverable and you need to agree up front how far to go to attempt to recover them.

  • Corrupted Files: Files can become corrupted for a variety of reasons, from application failures to system crashes to computer viruses.  I recently had a case where 40% of the collection was contained in 2 corrupt Outlook PST files – fortunately, we were able to repair those files and recover the messages.  If you have readily accessible backups of the files, try to restore them from backup.  If not, you will need to try using a repair utility.  Outlook comes with a utility called SCANPST.EXE that scans and repairs PST and OST files, and there are utilities (including freeware utilities) available via the web for most file types.  If all else fails, you can hire a data recovery expert, but that can get very expensive.
  • Password Protected Files: Most collections usually contain at least some password protected files.  Files can require a password to enable them to be edited, or even just to view them.  As the most popular publication format, PDF files are often password protected from editing, but they can still be viewed to support review (though some search engines may fail to index them).  If a file is password protected, you can try to obtain the password from the custodian providing the file – if the custodian is unavailable or unable to remember the password, you can try a password cracking application, which will run through a series of character combinations to attempt to find the password.  Be patient, it takes time, and doesn’t always succeed.
  • Unsupported File Types: In most collections, there are some unusual file types that aren’t supported by the review application, such as files for legacy or specialized applications (e.g., AutoCad for engineering drawings).  You may not even initially know what type of files they are; if not, you can find out based on file extension by looking the file extension up in FILExt.  If your review application can’t read the files, it also can’t index the files for searching or display them for review.  If those files may be responsive to discovery requests, review them with the native application to determine their relevancy.
  • No-Text Files: Files with no searchable text aren’t really exceptions – they have to be accounted for, but they won’t be retrieved in searches, so it’s important to make sure they don’t “slip through the cracks”.  It’s common to perform Optical Character Recognition (OCR) on TIFF files and image-only PDF files, because they are common document formats.  Other types of no-text files, such as pictures in JPEG or PNG format, are usually not OCRed, unless there is an expectation that they will have significant text.

It’s important for review applications to be able to identify exception files, so that you know they won’t be retrieved in searches without additional processing.  FirstPass™, powered by Venio FPR™, is one example of an application that will flag those files during processing and enable you to search for those exceptions, so you can determine how to handle them.

So, what do you think?  Have you encountered other types of exceptions?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

  • 1
  • 2