Close
Enter your
text here
Posts By :

Doug Austin

Electronic Discovery on a First Date – eDiscovery Trends

Amy Bowser-Rollins in her excellent Litigation Support Guru blog raised an interesting question this week.  How should we describe “electronic discovery” to someone who has never heard the term before or had very little exposure to the legal industry?

In her post Electronic Discovery on a First Date (you should especially check it out for the cute animation), she identifies various scenarios (a recent college graduate you just hired, curious or confused family members, your students, a stranger at a cocktail party) to answer the “what do you do for a living” question if you’re a litigation support provider.  Some of us refer to this as the “elevator speech” in that you should be able to describe what you do in the time span of an elevator ride (no more than thirty seconds).

Amy tackles the question by breaking down “electronic discovery” into components, as follows:

  • The practice of law
  • Attorneys, more specifically litigators
  • The discovery phase of a litigation matter, more specifically identifying, collecting, reviewing and producing documents
  • Client documents, more specifically documents in electronic format

I might argue that “electronic discovery” sometimes also includes searching and reviewing the documents produced to you in litigation as well, not always just your client documents, but the components that Amy uses are certainly predominant for a litigation support professional and certainly fit the standard Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) that most use when they think of electronic discovery.

She then provides some examples of how she might use those components to answer the question.  She uses the easiest document type for the layperson to identify with – email – to describe how she (or any typical litigation support person) helps litigators with the discovery process.  I won’t steal her thunder – check out the link to her post above to see the examples that she proposed.  Obviously, we all know that we work with more than just emails, so the example descriptions might be a bit oversimplified, but for the newbie, that’s probably the right way to start.

I can relate to Amy’s question with recent examples – explaining to my girlfriend on our first date what I do (a true “first date” scenario!) and explaining to a couple of recent entry-level candidates for positions at CloudNine Discovery.  It’s a question that many of us wrestle with and a timely topic.  Thanks, Amy!

So, what do you think?  If you’re a litigation support or eDiscovery professional, how do you describe to others what you do?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

If You’re Feeling “Innovative”, This is the Conference For You – eDiscovery Trends

When it comes to informative sites regarding eDiscovery, IT-Lex is one of our favorites.  We’ve referenced several of their stories over the past couple of years and have also conducted a two part thought leader interview with their president and editor-in-chief, Adam Losey.  Now, IT-Lex is hosting their first conference and, we’re happy to have Samir Mathur, Managing Director and General Counsel of IT-Lex to provide a guest post to tell you more about the their inaugural Innovate conference next Thursday and Friday, October 17 and 18:

IT-Lex is an Orlando-based not-for-profit focused on the advancement of technology law, and next week, we’re hosting our inaugural Innovate conference at the newly-opened Alfond Inn, in beautiful Winter Park, Florida. We’ve put together an impressive agenda, featuring panels covering electronic discovery, privacy and data security, and social media, and speakers including a member of the FBI’s Cyber Intrusions Squad, and – government shutdown permitting –  Peter Miller, the Chief Privacy Officer of the Federal Trade Commission.

But this being eDiscoveryDaily, I figure that anyone reading this is probably more interested in our eDiscovery-themed panels. We’re starting strong on Thursday, October 17th: Anthony Mendenhall, a 2013 law graduate from the University of Tennessee, won the first IT-Lex/Foley & Lardner writing contest, with an essay about whether our current discovery system, where the producing party is generally expected to pay for everything, violates procedural due process. It’s an interesting argument, and so Innovate will kick off with Anthony talking about his essay, and then discussing it with such luminaries as Judge Facciola, Judge Nolan and Ken Withers of the Sedona Conference ®.

The following morning, Friday October 18th, will begin with the eDiscovery A-Team, Jason Baron, Maura Grossman and Ralph Losey, getting together for the first time to talk about predictive coding. Will it be the game-changer that some hope it will, making review faster and simultaneously more cost-effective? We’ll see what these three all-stars have to say.

Later that day, we’ll have a couple of panels that will really appeal to the more advanced eDiscovery folks out there. Firstly, a discussion of Preservation and Collection: best practices to minimize the chance of spoliation; and again, keep costs down. Later is the panel entitled Clawbacks, Cooperation and Competence, where our esteemed panelists will discuss clawback agreements: a possible way of saying goodbye to the privilege log. They’ll also explain why “cooperation” doesn’t have to be a dirty word or a foreign concept to litigators.

Innovate will close out with a Judicial Roundtable, at which our guests from the bench will offer their thoughts on the state of technology law today, and our audience will be able to ask any questions of the panel. To that end, any attendee can submit a question for any panel ahead of time by emailing innovate@it-lex.org, or tweeting us at @ITLexOrg. In order to keep things interactive, we’re not having any Power Point-based presentations – we want to emphasize discussion and audience involvement.

If you’re reading this post, then you’re likely already the kind of person whom we’d love to see at the conference! Please head to register online, and we look forward to welcoming you to Orlando and to Innovate.

Thanks, Samir, for the information!  It sounds like a very interesting and informative conference.  Check it out if you’re going to be in the area in Florida.

So, what do you think?  Will you be attending the inaugural Innovate conference?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

For Successful Discovery, Think Backwards – eDiscovery Best Practices

The Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) has become the standard model for the workflow of the process for handling electronically stored information (ESI) in discovery.  But, to succeed in discovery, regardless whether you’re the producing party or the receiving party, it might be helpful to think about the EDRM model backwards.

Why think backwards?

You can’t have a successful outcome without envisioning the successful outcome that you want to achieve.  The end of the discovery process includes the production and presentation stages, so it’s important to determine what you want to get out of those stages.  Let’s look at them.

Presentation

As a receiving party, it’s important to think about what types of evidence you need to support your case when presenting at depositions and at trial – this is the type of information that needs to be included in your production requests at the beginning of the case.

Production

The format of the ESI produced is important to both sides in the case.  For the receiving party, it’s important to get as much useful information included in the production as possible.  This includes metadata and searchable text for the produced documents, typically with an index or load file to facilitate loading into a review application.  The most useful form of production is native format files with all metadata preserved as used in the normal course of business.

For the producing party, it’s important to save costs, so it’s important to agree to a production format that minimizes production costs.  Converting files to an image based format (such as TIFF) adds costs, so producing in native format can be cost effective for the producing party as well.  It’s also important to determine how to handle issues such as privilege logs and redaction of privileged or confidential information.

Addressing production format issues up front will maximize cost savings and enable each party to get what they want out of the production of ESI.

Processing-Review-Analysis

It also pays to determine early in the process about decisions that affect processing, review and analysis.  How should exception files be handled?  What do you do about files that are infected with malware?  These are examples of issues that need to be decided up front to determine how processing will be handled.

As for review, the review tool being used may impact production specs in terms of how files are viewed and production of load files that are compatible with the review tool, among other considerations.  As for analysis, surely you test search terms to determine their effectiveness before you agree on those terms with opposing counsel, right?

Preservation-Collection-Identification

Long before you have to conduct preservation and collection for a case, you need to establish procedures for implementing and monitoring litigation holds, as well as prepare a data map to identify where corporate information is stored for identification, preservation and collection purposes.

As you can see, at the beginning of a case (and even before), it’s important to think backwards within the EDRM model to ensure a successful discovery process.  Decisions made at the beginning of the case affect the success of those latter stages, so don’t forget to think backwards!

So, what do you think?  What do you do at the beginning of a case to ensure success at the end?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

P.S. — Notice anything different about the EDRM graphic?

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Leaving Your Hard Drives in a Rental House is Negligent, Court Rules – eDiscovery Best Practices

In Net-Com Services, Inc. v. Eupen Cable USA, Inc., No. CV 11-2553 JGB (SSx) (C.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2013), the plaintiff’s destruction of evidence was negligent where its principal failed to take steps to preserve evidence he had stored in a home he rented to nonaffiliated lessees.

A principal of the plaintiff, Steve Moffatt, had custody and control over the company’s documents, which included its financial information. The company was using one accounting system but switched to another when it moved into a new location. When the employee looked for this data and could not find it, he assumed it had been “lost or stolen.” However, he did not report the loss to the company’s insurer or to the police.

Over the previous three years that the company was in operation, it was based in Moffatt’s home office. The company went out of business in October 2011, and as the company wound down, Moffatt stored all of the company’s computer hardware and software in his garage. Around that same time, in September or October 2011, Moffatt rented his home. The only precaution he took was to instruct his lessees not to throw any equipment or software away. Despite this instruction, he drove by the home either in September or October and noticed that the renters “had put a ‘big pile of office equipment and everything else in the front yard’” and were throwing them in dumpsters. As associate retrieved the computers’ hard drives from the renters’ trash in September 2011. The hard drives stored the company’s most recent accounting system; another back-up drive stored the same information, but it was most likely thrown out as well.

In 2012, during discovery, the court granted Eupen’s motion to compel “production of ‘missing accounting information,’ including financial data believed to be stored on purportedly ‘dead’ hard drives. Net-Com responded that the data “may no longer exist” and that its principals had had “no luck” accessing the information on the drives. The court ordered Net-Com to produce the missing information, aside from the company’s federal and state tax returns. It also required Net-Com “to produce ‘the computer hard drives containing potentially relevant ESI that Net-Com has been unable to restore’ to allow Eupen USA ‘to test Net-Com’s assertion that the information is inaccessible.’”

In July 2013, Eupen filed a motion for sanctions based on the loss of data and suggested that Net-Com “be precluded from offering evidence of its damages because its production of financial data was incomplete and insufficient due to the loss of information ‘allegedly contained on a computer hard drive that was apparently no longer functional.’” In response, Net-Com argued that no evidence existed that he hard drives had been “‘irreparably damaged’ such that their contents [were] irretrievable.’” The court declined to preclude the evidence but ordered Net-Com to send the hard drives to a vendor for forensic analysis.

Net-Com complied and submitted the drives to a vendor, Ai Networks. The vendor found “‘recoverable data on at least one of the hard drives,’” said it could retrieve it within three weeks, and estimated the cost to recover it would be between $2,000 and $3,000.

The court found that Net-Com’s duty to preserve arose at least by February 8, 2011, when it filed the lawsuit. The complaint alleged that Net-Com’s damages amounted to “millions of dollars”; therefore, the complaint placed the company’s financial and accounting data at issue. But “seven months after filing suit, Moffatt effectively abandoned the hardware and software containing Net-Com’s financial records by leaving the equipment and data in a garage in a house he rented out to third parties. Even if the eventual loss and destruction of evidence was not intentional, it was definitely negligent.”

The court found sanctions appropriate, noting that an adverse inference instruction is “‘adverse to the destroyer not because of any finding of moral culpability, but because the risk that the evidence would have been detrimental rather than favorable should fall on the party responsible for its loss.’” Although the court could not yet determine whether Eupen had been prejudiced, it ruled that Net-Com had to “bear the full cost of restoring and producing data on the hard drives” and ordered the company “to restore and produce any relevant data from the subject hard drives within fourteen days of the date of this Order.”

So, what do you think?  Were the sanctions severe enough?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).  For eDiscovery news and best practices, check out the Applied Discovery Blog here.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Despite Missing and Scrambled Hard Drives, Court Denies Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions – eDiscovery Case Law

In Anderson v. Sullivan, No. 1:07-cv-00111-SJM (W.D. Pa. 08/16/2013), a Pennsylvania court found “that no sanctions are warranted” despite the disappearance of one hard drive, “scrambling” of another hard drive and failure to produce several e-mails because the evidence was not relevant to the underlying claims and because there was no showing the defendants intentionally destroyed evidence.

In the underlying lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that she was retaliated against by officials employed by, or associated with, the Millcreek Township School District (“MTSD”) because she made several whistleblower reports against the District and its top administrators, including Dean Maynard (MTSD’s former Superintendent) for violation of her First Amendment rights and the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Act.  In January of 2007, Maynard inadvertently sent an email to an MTSD teacher, instead of to the intended recipient.  The email allegedly revealed previously undisclosed personal relationships that Maynard had with two people he had recommended for employment with the District.  Maynard disclosed this letter to the School Board and an investigation ensued, where several computers were examined, including those of Maynard and the plaintiff.

As part of this examination, MTSD’s IT department removed the original hard drives from the targeted employees’ computers and replaced them with a new hard drive onto which the employee’s active files would be copied so that the laptop would function without interruption; however, the original hard drive from Maynard’s computer was lost.

When the new hard drive that was installed in Maynard’s computer was examined by Anderson’s expert in approximately June 2011, the expert discovered the hard drive was “scrambled” possibly by some type of wiping software.

At summary judgment, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s claims did not qualify as whistleblower reports under the PWA because they did not disclose any non-technical violation of law.  After her claims were dismissed on summary judgment, the plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions due to the disappearance of one hard drive, “scrambling” of a second hard drive, and withholding 44 pages of e-mails from a 10,000-page production to conceal that one of the hard drives was missing.  Although this court entered summary judgment in favor of all defendants, they retained jurisdiction to adjudicate the motion for sanctions.

Because the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed as a matter of law, the court found that sanctions were not warranted on either hard drive because they could not have contained relevant evidence.  The court also determined that there was a lack of evidence suggesting that evidence was intentionally destroyed.  With regard to the 44 pages of e-mails that were not produced, the court found there was nothing in the record to suggest they were intentionally withheld or even were relevant to the plaintiff’s claims.  So, the court denied the motion for sanctions.

So, what do you think?  Should the motion for sanctions have been granted?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Five More Things to Know Before Moving eDiscovery to the Cloud – eDiscovery Best Practices

Yesterday, we covered the first five items in Joel Jacob’s article in Information Management.com (10 Things to Know Before Moving E-Discovery to the Cloud), which provides an interesting checklist for those considering a move to cloud computing.  Here are the remaining five items, with some comments from me.

6. Assess potential – and realistic – risks associated with security, data privacy and data loss prevention.  The author notes the importance of assessing security risks, and, of course, it’s important to understand how the cloud provider handles security and that there are clear-cut policies and objectives in place.  It’s also important to compare the cloud provider’s security mechanisms to your own security mechanisms.  Any cloud provider “worth their salt” should have a comprehensive security plan that meets or exceeds that of most organizations.

7. Develop an implementation plan, including an internal communication strategy.  The author advocates getting legal and IT on the same page, testing and conducting a proof of concept on work procedures and identifying quantifiable metrics for evaluating the system/service.  All solid ideas.

8. Leverage the success or adoption of other SaaS solutions in the organization to lessen resistance.  The author notes that “process of moving to the cloud and/or moving e-discovery to the cloud will need to be driven through cultural change management”.  However, they already likely use several SaaS based solutions.  Here are some of the most popular ones: Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, eBay and YouTube.  Oh, and possibly Google Docs and SalesForce.com as well.  That should address resistance concerns.

9. Run a pilot on a small project before moving to larger, mission-critical matters.  The author advocates finding a test data set or dormant case that has known outcomes, and running it in the new cloud solution.  The cloud provider should enable you to do so via a no risk trial (shameless plug warning, here’s ours), so that you can truly try it before you buy it, with your own data.

10. Understand you are still the ultimate custodian of all electronically stored information.  As the author notes, “The data belongs to you, and the burden of controlling it falls on you. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that no matter where the data is hosted, the company that owns it is ultimately responsible for it.”  That’s why it’s critical to address questions about where the data is stored and mechanisms for securing your company’s data.  If you can’t answer those questions to your satisfaction with the cloud provider you’re evaluating, perhaps they’re not the provider for you.

So, what do you think?  Have you implemented a SaaS based solution for eDiscovery?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

10 Things to Know Before Moving eDiscovery to the Cloud – eDiscovery Best Practices
 

Software as a Service (SaaS) accounted for 49 percent of all eDiscovery software revenues tracked in 2011, according to Gartner’s report, Market Trends: Automated, Analytical Approaches Drive the Enterprise E-Discovery Software Market.  Joel Jacob’s article in Information Management.com (10 Things to Know Before Moving E-Discovery to the Cloud) provides an interesting checklist for those considering a move to cloud computing.  Here they are, with some comments from me.

1.     Actively involve all stakeholders across multiple departments.  The article promotes involving “as many stakeholders and members of management as possible, typically from legal, IT, compliance, security and any other department that may be impacted by a new model”.  Legal should also include outside counsel when appropriate – they will often be the heaviest users of the application, so it should be easy for them to learn and use.

2.     Document and define areas of potential cost savings.  Jacob advocates considering the eDiscovery process as defined by the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM).  It’s easy to forget some of the cost savings and benefits that cloud computing can offer – not only reduction or elimination of hardware and software costs, but also reduction or elimination of personnel to support in-house systems, as well.

3.     Evaluate the e-discovery platform first and the cloud options second.  Clearly, the eDiscovery platform must meet the needs of the organization and the users or it doesn’t matter where it’s located.  However, it seems counter-productive to spend time evaluating platforms that could be ruled out because of the cloud options.  At the very least, identify any cloud “deal breakers” and eliminate any platforms that don’t fit with the required cloud model.

4.     Benchmark your existing e-discovery processes including data upload, processing, review and export.  This, of course, assumes you have an existing solution that you are considering replacing.  You will compare those benchmarks to those of the potential cloud solution when you perform a small pilot project (as we will discuss in an upcoming step).  The eDiscovery platform that you choose should ideally give you the option to load and export your own data, as well as providing good or better turnaround by the vendor (when compared to your internal staff) for performing those same functions when needed.

5.     Learn the differences between public and private clouds.  As the article notes, “[c]ompanies need to understand where there [sic] data will go, how it is protected, and if it is secured according to any industry specific regulations that apply (e.g., HIPPA, Sarbanes-Oxley, etc.).”  It’s especially important to know where your data will go – if it’s stored internationally, access to it may be subject to different rules.  As for how it is protected, here is some more information regarding how data can be protected in a cloud environment.

Tomorrow, we will cover items 6 through 10 of the checklist.  Oh, the anticipation!

So, what do you think?  Have you implemented a SaaS based solution for eDiscovery?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Rejects Defendant’s “Ultra-Broad” Request, Denies Motion to Compel Production – eDiscovery Case Law
 

In NOLA Spice Designs, LLC v. Haydel Enters., Inc., No. 12-2515 (E.D. La. Aug. 2, 2013), Louisiana Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr. denied a motion to compel a plaintiff and its principal (a third-party defendant) to produce their passwords and usernames for all websites with potentially relevant information and to compel a forensic examination of its computers.

In this trademark infringement case under the Lanham Act, the defendant moved to compel the plaintiff and its principal to produce “‘passwords and user names to all online websites related to the issues in this litigation, including social media, weblogs, financial information and records,’” and to “submit their computers to an exhaustive forensic examination . . . with ‘access to full electronic content [including] online pages and bank accounts, including without limitation, online postings, weblogs, and financial accounts, for a time period from October 13, 2009 to the present, including deleted and archived content.”  

The plaintiff and its principal refused to disclose passwords and user names based on “privacy and confidentiality objections.”  While acknowledging that the defendant is correct in stating that “there is no protectable privacy or confidentiality interest in material posted or published on social media”, Judge Wilkinson noted that the defendant’s citation and arguments “miss the point”.  Judge Wilkinson stated that “ultra-broad request for computer passwords and user names poses privacy and confidentiality concerns that go far beyond published social media matters and would permit Haydel to roam freely through all manner of personal and financial data in cyberspace pertaining to” the plaintiff and its principal.

With regard to the request for forensic examination of the computers of the plaintiff and its principal, Judge Wilkinson acknowledged that such an examination is “within the scope of ESI discovery contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1)(A).”  However, “such requests are also subject to the proportionality limitations applicable to all discovery under Rule 26(b)(2)(C), including the prohibition of discovery that is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or that could be obtained from some more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive source, or the benefit of which is outweighed by its burden or expense, when considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake and the importance of the proposed discovery to those issues.”  {emphasis added}

While “restrained and orderly computer forensic examinations” have been permitted when it’s been demonstrated that the producing party “has defaulted in its discovery obligations by unwillingness or failure to produce relevant information by more conventional means”, a party’s “mere skepticism that an opposing party has not produced all relevant information is not sufficient to warrant drastic electronic discovery measures”, added Judge Wilkinson.

As a result, Judge Wilkinson ruled that “this overly broad request seeking electronically stored information (ESI), which far exceeds the proportionality limits imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) – expressly made applicable to ESI by Rule 26(b)(2)(B) – is denied.” {emphasis added}

So, what do you think?  Did the defendant’s request exceed proportionality limits?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Can’t Agree on eDiscovery? Try Using an eMediator – eDiscovery Best Practices

The Rule 26(f) “meet and confer” conference is a requirement in Federal cases as of the rules changes of 2006 to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  It enables the parties in a lawsuit to discuss discovery and create a plan for the sharing of information during and before trial.  But, what if you can’t agree on how discovery should be handled?  Considering using an “eMediator”!

Allison Skinner and Peter Vogel recently wrote an article in Law Technology News (E-Mediation Can Simplify E-Discovery Disputes) that discusses the idea of using mediation for resolving discovery disputes.  As they note in the article, “What do lawyers fight about most in a civil lawsuit? E-discovery. So, it makes sense that mediation is appropriate for resolving discovery disputes.”

Some key recommendations from the article:

  • Lawyers for the litigants should agree to an eMediation at the outset of the case to develop a discovery plan that maximizes efficiency, reducing time and cost for the discovery process.
  • Expect for the eMediator to request the organization’s CIO (or CTO), general counsel, and outside counsel to participate at the beginning of the lawsuit.
  • Topics for which the eMediator will help facilitate discussion include naming the proper email custodians, identifying electronic evidence, and determining which evidence should be preserved to avoid spoliation claims later.
  • Like other instances of mediation, the discussion in an eMediation is confidential, the parties are given an opportunity to discuss eDiscovery candidly.  Your team can disclose information about the evidence without fear that they will later be deposed on the issues discussed during the mediation.
  • Each party should prepare an “eMediation Statement” to provide details about the dispute to help the eMediator understand the issues.
  • Be prepared to discuss search terms, databases, available technology, forms of production, and other issues for creating an eDiscovery plan of action with the mediator.

As the article notes, an eMediator “should be trained and experienced not only in eDiscovery, but in alternative dispute resolution” (ADR).  Depending on the type of litigation, the eMediator may also need to “have specialized knowledge in a particular practice area”.

Training programs for ADR are available at the American College of E-Neutrals, the University of California Hastings College of the Law, the Organization of Legal Professionals and The Sedona Conference.

For more on requirements and topics for the meet and confer, click here and here.

So, what do you think?  Have you ever used mediation for discovery issues?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

A Model for Reducing Private Data – eDiscovery Best Practices

Since the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) annual meeting just four short months ago in May, several EDRM projects (Metrics, Jobs, Data Set and the new Native Files project) have already announced new deliverables and/or requested feedback.  Now, the Data Set project has announced another new deliverable – a new Privacy Risk Reduction Model.

Announced in yesterday’s press release, the new model “is a process for reducing the volume of private, protected and risky data by using a series of steps applied in sequence as part of the information management, identification, preservation and collection phases” of the EDRM.  It “is used prior to producing or exporting data containing risky information such as privileged or proprietary information.”

The model uses a series of six steps applied in sequence with the middle four steps being performed as an iterative process until the amount of private information is reduced to a desirable level.  Here are the steps as described on the EDRM site:

  • Define Risk: Risk is initially identified by an organization by stakeholders who can quantify the specific risks a particular class or type of data may pose. For example, risky data may include personally identifiable information (PII) such as credit card numbers, attorney-client privileged communications or trade secrets.
  • Identify Available Data: Locations and types of risky data should be identified. Possible locations may include email repositories, backups, email and data archives, file shares, individual workstations and laptops, and portable storage devices. The quantity and type should also be specified.
  • Create Filters: Search methods and filters are created to ‘catch’ risky data. They may include keyword, data range, file type, subject line etc.
  • Run Filters: The filters are executed and the results evaluated for accuracy.
  • Verify Output: The data identified or captured by the filters is compared against the anticipated output. If the filters did not catch all the expected risky data, additional filters can be created or existing filters can be refined and the process run again. Additionally, the output from the filters may identify additional risky data or data sources in which case this new data should be subjected the risk reduction process.
  • Quarantine: After an acceptable amount of risky data has been identified through the process, it should be quarantined from the original data sets. This may be done through migration of non-risky data, or through extraction or deletion of the risky data from the original data set.

No EDRM model would be complete without a handy graphic to illustrate the process so, as you can see above, this model includes one that illustrates the steps as well as the risk-time continuum (not to be confused with the space-time continuum, relatively speaking)… 😉

Looks like a sound process, it will be interesting to see it in use.  Hopefully, it will enable the Data Set team to avoid some of the “controversy” experienced during the process of removing private data from the Enron data set.  Kudos to the Data Set team, including project co-leaders Michael Lappin, director of archiving strategy at Nuix, and Eric Robi, president of Elluma Discovery!

So, what do you think?  What do you think of the process?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.