Close
Enter your
text here
Posts By :

Doug Austin

eDiscovery Best Practices: What is “Reduping?”
 

As emails are sent out to multiple custodians, deduplication (or “deduping”) has become a common practice to eliminate multiple copies of the same email or file from the review collection, saving considerable review costs and ensuring consistency by not having different reviewers apply different responsiveness or privilege determinations to the same file (e.g., one copy of a file designated as privileged while the other is not may cause a privileged file to slip into the production set).  Deduping can be performed either across custodians in a case or within each custodian.

Everyone who works in electronic discovery knows what “deduping” is.  But how many of you know what “reduping” is?  Here’s the answer:

“Reduping” is the process of re-introducing duplicates back into the population for production after completing review.  There are a couple of reasons why a producing party may want to “redupe” the collection after review:

  • Deduping Not Requested by Receiving Party: As opposing parties in many cases still don’t conduct a meet and confer or discuss specifications for production, they may not have discussed whether or not to include duplicates in the production set.  In those cases, the producing party may choose to produce the duplicates, giving the receiving party more files to review and driving up their costs.  The attitude of the producing party can be “hey, they didn’t specify, so we’ll give them more than they asked for.”
  • Receiving Party May Want to See Who Has Copies of Specific Files: Sometimes, the receiving party does request that “dupes” are identified, but only within custodians, not across them.  In those cases, it’s because they want to see who had a copy of a specific email or file.  However, the producing party still doesn’t want to review the duplicates (because of increasing costs and the possibility of inconsistent designations), so they review a deduped collection and then redupe after review is complete.

Many review applications support the capability for reduping.  For example, FirstPass™, powered by Venio FPR™, suppresses the duplicates from review, but applies the same tags to the duplicates of any files tagged during first pass review.  When it’s time to export the collection, to either move the potentially responsive files on to linear review (in a product like OnDemand®) or straight to production, the user can decide at that time whether or not to export the dupes.  Those dupes have the same designations as the primary copies, ensuring consistency in handling them downstream.

So, what do you think?  Does your review tool support “reduping”?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Daily Celebrates its “Sixmonthiversary”
 

Six months ago yesterday, eDiscovery Daily was launched.  At the time of our launch, we pondered whether we were crazy to commit to a daily blog (albeit restricted to business days).  But, I guess it’s a sign of how much the eDiscovery industry has grown in that there has not been a shortage of topics to address; instead, the challenge has been selecting which topics to address.  And, so far, we haven’t missed a business day yet (knock on wood!).

Six months is 3.5 dog years, but I’m not sure what it is in blog years.  Nonetheless, we’ve learned to crawl, are walking pretty well and are getting ready to run!  We’ve more than doubled viewership since the first month, with our four biggest “hit count” days all coming in the last 5 weeks and have more than quadrupled our subscriber base during that time!

And, we have you to thank for our growth to date!  We appreciate the interest you’ve shown in the topics and will do our best to continue to provide interesting and useful eDiscovery news and analysis.  And, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic!

We also want to thank the blogs and publications that have linked to our posts and raised our public awareness, including Pinhawk, The Electronic Discovery Reading Room, Ride the Lightning, Litigation Support Blog.com, Adventures in Document Review, ABA Journal, ABC's of E-Discovery, Above the Law, EDD: Issues, Law, and Solutions, Law.com and any other publication that has picked up at least one of our posts for reference (sorry if I missed any!).  We really appreciate it!

For those of you who are relatively new to eDiscovery Daily, here are some posts back from the early days you may have missed.  Enjoy!

eDiscovery Searching 101: Don’t Get “Wild” with Wildcards

eDiscovery Searching 101: It's a Mistake to Ignore the Mistakes

First Pass Review: Of Your Opponent’s Data

eDiscovery Project Management: Applying Project Management Techniques to Electronic Discovery

eDiscovery Case Study: Term List Searching for Deadline Emergencies!

SaaS and eDiscovery: Load Your Own Data

eDiscovery Case Law: Read Inadvertent Email, Get Disqualified from Case

Lesson of the day: When you receive an inadvertently sent privileged email, read it and don’t disclose receipt of it, you can get kicked off the case.

In Terraphase Engineering, Inc., et al. v. Arcadis, U.S., Inc, the court disqualified defendant’s in-house and outside counsel for their handling of a disputed privileged email that was inadvertently sent by the plaintiffs’ counsel to the defendant and shared with defendant’s outside counsel.  For more information regarding this case, check out this Law Technology News article.

When a group of employees left Arcadis to form a competing company, relations between the two soured quickly and led to litigation.  Just prior to filing their lawsuit, the plaintiffs’ attorney sent a strategy email to his clients, which contained an attachment that, according to the former employees, included “Plaintiffs’ privileged recitation of background and comments to and from legal counsel.” Unfortunately for the attorney (or maybe fortunately, as it turned out), the email system’s auto-complete function (which completes a saved email address as soon as you begin entering it) entered an old Arcadis email address for one of the employees, which wasn’t caught before sending. The email and the attachment went directly to Arcadis, which had been monitoring the plaintiffs’ email accounts since they resigned from the company.

Arcadis’ in-house counsel read the email and the attached document and apparently shared the email with their general counsel and Arcadis’ outside counsel (Gordon & Rees, LLP), neither of whom notified the plaintiffs’ attorney that they had received the email.  Arcadis’ counterclaim contained certain information that caused the plaintiffs to suspect that Arcadis and its counsel had reviewed their privileged communications, and Arcadis, when confronted, acknowledged that it had received the email and agreed to destroy all copies, but refused to identify who reviewed the e-mail.  Eventually, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a protective order to disqualify Arcadis’ counsel and prevent Arcadis from using the email or the attachment during the case, stipulating that attorneys are prohibited from using privileged material that they receive from an opposing party, and are under an ethical obligation to immediately notify the opposing party when such information is received.

Arcadis opposed the motion, arguing that in-house and outside counsel only conducted a cursory review of the email and attachment, and stated that it was not privileged because it was sent “unsolicited” to the plaintiff’s work e-mail, in which he had no reasonable expectation of privacy. Arcadis also argued because the information itself was not privileged and would be disclosed during discovery, the plaintiffs would suffer no irreparable harm. And, since there was no active litigation between the parties when Arcadis received the email, they argued that the rules of professional conduct did not apply.

The court rejected Arcadis’ arguments and ruled for the plaintiffs, disqualifying Arcadis’ outside counsel and the in-house counsel who reviewed the emails, also ruling that Arcadis’ general counsel must be “removed from all aspects of the day-to-day management of the case, including . . . making any substantive or strategic decisions with regard to the case.”.  Arcadis was also ordered to dismiss its counterclaim and the plaintiffs were awarded their costs and fees in connection with bringing the motion against Arcadis.

A copy of the order can be found here.

So, what do you think?  Have you ever been burned by an inadvertently sent email?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Deliberately Produce Wrong Cell Phone, Get Sanctioned
 

In Moreno v. Ostly, No. A127780, (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2011), the California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s award of monetary sanctions imposed against the plaintiff and her law firm in the amount of $13,500 for counsel and plaintiff’s discovery misconduct related to the preservation of text messages.

The plaintiff sued her former law firm employer alleging sexual harassment, retaliation and failure to pay back wages.  She claimed that a partner at the firm “forced himself on her sexually” on a daily basis and that she was fired when she notified the partner that she wished to sever the “intimate aspect of their relationship.”  In discovery, defendants sought copies of relevant e-mails and text messages between the plaintiff and the partner.  After the parties' meet and confer efforts failed, the court ordered the plaintiff to produce her personal computer and cell phone for inspection.  The inspection revealed that the cell phone produced was different from the one plaintiff had during her course of employment.  When questioned regarding the discrepancy, plaintiff’s counsel responded that the defendants would have to undertake further discovery efforts to determine what happened to the relevant equipment.  The plaintiff’s attorney conceded that many of the text messages on the prior phone had been used against the defendants before the EEOC, but had not been preserved prior to the disposal of the cell phone.

The defendants filed a motion for terminating and monetary sanctions or, in the alternative, a willful suppression of evidence jury instruction.  The trial court awarded monetary sanctions, finding the plaintiff and her counsel deliberately withheld the fact that the plaintiff failed to preserve her cell phone data, causing opposing counsel and the court to expend unnecessary resources.  The court found plaintiff’s counsel’s conduct willful and his explanation citing a conflict between the duty of loyalty to the client and the duty of candor to opposing counsel and the court “not very credible.”

The court of appeals concluded the trial court's award of monetary sanctions was supported by substantial evidence, and was well within the discretion of the court.

So, what do you think?  Are you aware of any other blatant examples of evasive discovery?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: eDiscovery Case Law Update, by Littler Mendelson P.C.

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.

eDiscovery Trends: Despite What NY Times Says, Lawyers Not Going Away
 

There was a TV commercial in the mid-80’s where a soap opera actor delivered the line “I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV”.  Can you remember the product it was advertising (without clicking on the link)?  If so, you win the trivia award of the day!  😉

I’m a technologist who has been working in litigation support and eDiscovery for over twenty years.  If you’ve been reading eDiscovery Daily for awhile, you’ve probably noticed that I’ve written several posts regarding significant case law as it pertains to eDiscovery.  I often feel that I should offer a disclaimer before each of these posts saying “I’m not a lawyer, but I play one on the Web”.  As the disclaimer at the bottom of the page stipulates, these posts aren’t meant to provide legal advice and it is not my intention to do so, but merely to identify cases that may be of interest to our readers and I try to provide a basic recap of these cases and leave it at that.  As Clint Eastwood once said, “A man’s got to know his limitations”.

A few days ago, The New York Times published an article entitled Armies of Expensive Lawyers, Replaced by Cheaper Software which discussed how, using ‘artificial intelligence, “e-discovery” software can analyze documents in a fraction of the time for a fraction of the cost’ (extraneous comma in the title notwithstanding).  The article goes on to discuss linguistic and sociological techniques for retrieval of relevant information and discusses how the Enron Corpus, available in a number of forms, including through EDRM, has enabled software providers to make great strides in analytical capabilities using this large base of data to use in testing.  It also discusses whether this will precipitate a march to the unemployment line for scores of attorneys.

A number of articles and posts since then have offered commentary as to whether that will be the case.  Technology tools will certainly reduce document populations significantly, but, as the article noted, “[t]he documents that the process kicks out still have to be read by someone”.  Not only that, the article still makes the assumption that people too often make with search technology – that it’s a “push a button and get your answer” approach to identifying relevant documents.  But, as has been noted in several cases and also here on this blog, searching is an iterative process where sampling the search results is recommended to confirm that the search maximizes recall and precision to the extent possible.  Who do you think is going to perform that sampling?  Lawyers – that’s who (working with technologists like me, of course!).  And, some searches will require multiple iterations of sampling and analysis before the search is optimized.

Therefore, while the “armies” of lawyers many not need near as many members of the infantry, they will still need plenty of corporals, sergeants, captains, colonels and generals.  And, for those entry-level reviewing attorneys that no longer have a place on review projects?  Well, we could always use a few more doctors on TV, right?  😉

So, what do you think?  Are you a review attorney that has been impacted by technology – positively or negatively?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Spoliate Evidence, Don’t Go to Jail, but Pay a Million Dollars
 

As previously referenced in eDiscovery Daily, defendant Mark Pappas, President of Creative Pipe, Inc., was ordered by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm to  “be imprisoned for a period not to exceed two years, unless and until he pays to Plaintiff the attorney's fees and costs that will be awarded to Plaintiff as the prevailing party pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C).”.  Judge Grimm found that “Defendants…deleted, destroyed, and otherwise failed to preserve evidence; and repeatedly misrepresented the completeness of their discovery production to opposing counsel and the Court.”

However, ruling on the defendants’ appeal, District Court Judge Marvin J. Garbis declined to adopt the order regarding incarceration, stating: “[T]he court does not find it appropriate to Order Defendant Pappas incarcerated for future possible failure to comply with his obligation to make payment of an amount to be determined in the course of further proceedings.”

So, how much is he ordered to pay?  Now we know.

On January 24, 2011, Judge Grimm entered an order awarding a total of $1,049,850.04 in “attorney’s fees and costs associated with all discovery that would not have been un[der]taken but for Defendants' spoliation, as well as the briefings and hearings regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions.”  Judge Grimm explained, “the willful loss or destruction of relevant evidence taints the entire discovery and motions practice.” So, the court found that “Defendants’ first spoliation efforts corresponded with the beginning of litigation” and that “Defendants’ misconduct affected the entire discovery process since the commencement of this case.”

As a result, the court awarded $901,553.00 in attorney’s fees and $148,297.04 in costs.  Those costs included $95,969.04 for the Plaintiff’s computer forensic consultant that was “initially hired . . . to address the early evidence of spoliation by Defendants and to prevent further destruction of data”.  The Plaintiff’s forensic consultant also provided processing services and participated in the preparation of plaintiff’s search and collection protocol, which the court found “pertained to Defendants’ spoliation efforts.”

So, what do you think?  Will the defendant pay?  Or will he be subject to possible jail time yet again?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: No Sanctions for Scrubbing Computers Assumed to be Imaged
 

When scrubbing data from a computer drive related to litigation, it’s a good idea to make absolutely sure that there is another copy of that data, via backup or forensic image.  Don’t just take someone’s word for it.

In Federal Trade Commission v. First Universal Lending, LLC, No. 09-82322-CIV, (S.D. Fla. Feb. 17, 2011), the FTC investigated the defendants for their mortgage modification practices by alleging that defendants had violated the Federal Trade Commission Act and that defendants had acted in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule. For the duration of the investigation, the court appointed a temporary receiver who took control of defendants’ business premises.

During the discovery stage, the FTC wanted to preserve relevant data that was on defendants’ computers and servers by imaging them. When defendants’ were ask about the locations of all relevant computers and servers, they failed to reveal the location of servers with relevant data. As a result, these servers were not imaged and thus the data was not preserved. Due to misleading testimony by defendants, the receiver believed that all computers and servers had been imaged. Because of the incorrect belief that all of the relevant data had been preserved, the receiver permitted defendants to scrub the computers and sell them. It turned out that some of these were the ones that had not been imaged.

Defendants filed a motion to enjoin the prosecution and/or moved for dismissal of the case due to plaintiff’s spoliation of evidence. Defendants asserted that the FTC had either destroyed or caused to be destroyed computer evidence that would prove all of the defendants’ defenses.

The court found no basis for imposing sanctions against the FTC for the destruction of defendants’ computer system and denied defendants’ motion. The court established that it can impose an adverse inference against a party where the court finds that the party has engaged in spoliation of evidence. For this inference to be applicable there has to be a finding of bad faith. A court can make this finding through direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. If bad faith is based on circumstantial evidence, the following prerequisites must be present: (1) evidence once existed that could fairly be supposed to have been material to the proof or defense of a claim at issue in the case; (2) the spoliating party engaged in an affirmative act causing the evidence to be lost; (3) the spoliating party did so while it knew or should have known of its duty to preserve the evidence; and (4) the affirmative act causing the loss cannot be credibly explained as not involving bad faith by the reason proffered by the spoliator.

The court found that there was no direct evidence of bad faith. Further it pointed out that defendants failed to establish bad faith by circumstantial evidence, since the FTC had not destroyed the computer systems, but rather, the defendants did. The court went on to state, that even assuming, arguendo, that defendants destroyed the hard drives due to the receiver’s agent’s instruction, it did not change the fact that neither the receiver, nor the agent is the FTC.

Furthermore, the court went on that to the extent that defendants’ position could be construed to seek to attribute blame to the FTC for the receiver’s instruction to scrub the computers based on the FTCs misstatement, there was no malicious motive on the FTC’s investigator evident. This was at most negligent, and negligence is not sufficient for an adverse inference instruction as a sanction for spoliation.

Further, the defendants did not demonstrate that the absence of the missing data was fatal to their defense because it was established that alternative sources of information existed.

At last, the court emphasized that the FTC was under no obligation to preserve defendants’ evidence, especially considering the fact that the FTC never had control or dominion over the computers – the receiver did.

So, what do you think?  What are your procedures for ensuring data backup before destruction?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: eLessons Learned Blog.

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.

eDiscovery Best Practices: No Bates, No Problem for Native Files

As today’s document collections are almost entirely electronic in a format used by the native application (i.e., “native files”), it has become more commonplace to produce those original native files to opposing counsel in eDiscovery.  Producing the native files saves costs in converting the files to be produced to an image format (either TIFF or PDF) before production.  And, for the recipients of a production, receiving native files enables them to also receive the metadata associated with those files (as it is contained within the files themselves).  If you don’t understand the benefits of receiving the underlying metadata, try reviewing an image of an Excel spreadsheet and see if you can understand how the numbers were calculated without the underlying formulas.  Not so easy, is it?

However, it seems to “upset the legal apple cart” when attorneys have to contemplate applying Bates numbers to native files.  Because many native file types are not stored in a typical paginated, document-oriented format, it is difficult to impossible to determine the number of pages for each file.  Because attorneys are so used to having a Bates stamp on each page of a document, many are still known to produce (and request production) in an image format, adding costs unnecessarily.  That would be like printing out every email in your Inbox before reading them.

It has become commonplace for parties to agree (and courts to accept) a file-level “Bates” or Unique Production Identifier (UPI) where each file is named with a prefix and a sequential number (just like a Bates number, only they’re not stamped in the file, but used as the file name).  These productions are usually accompanied by a data file, containing metadata for loading into a review tool, which includes the original file name and path of each file being produced.  This form of production has become common for any size of case.

If there’s a concern about referencing individual page numbers at deposition or trial, any files used as exhibits can still be converted to image (or printed) and a number applied.  You could simply use the UPI as the prefix, followed by a sequential number, so page 3 of the 11th file in the production could be stamped like this: PROD000011-00003.  This enables you to uniquely identify each native file, and still correlate the native file with pages when printed.

Of course, when you have to redact files, it’s still more common to convert those files to image and apply the redactions to the images, as redaction of native files (though performed in some cases) has not yet become a widespread practice.  One miracle at a time!

So, what do you think?  Are your productions routinely in native format?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Facebook’s Self-Collection Mechanism

One of the most enlightening revelations resulting from my interview with Craig Ball at LegalTech (published last Friday) was regarding a feature that he mentioned which Facebook added late last year that allows any user to download their information.  I thought it was such a significant bit of information that a post dedicated to the feature (in addition to the coverage in the interview) was warranted.

This feature is available via the Account Settings menu and enables users to collect their wall posts, friends lists, photos, videos, messaging, and any other personal content, save it into a Zip file and download the Zip file.  Craig also wrote about the feature in Law Technology News last month – that article is located here.

When you initiate the download, especially if you’re an active Facebook user, it may take Facebook a while to gather all information (several minutes or more, mine took about an hour).  Eventually, you’ll get an email to let you know that your information is packaged and ready for download.  Once you verify your identify by providing your password and click “Download Now”, you’ll get a Zip file containing a snapshot of your Facebook environment in a collection of HTML files with your Wall, Profile and other pages and copies of any content files (e.g., photos, videos, etc.) that you had uploaded.

Think about the significance of this for a moment.  Now, 500 million users of the most popular social network on the planet (which includes not just individuals, but organizations as well) have a mechanism to “self-collect” their data for their own use and safekeeping.  Or, they can “self-collect” for use in litigation.  In his article, Craig likens Facebook’s download function to Staples’ famous easy button.  How can an attorney argue an overly burdensome collection when you simply have to click a button?

With a social network behemoth like Facebook now offering this feature, will other social network and cloud solution providers soon follow?  Let’s hope so.  As Craig notes in his article, “maybe the cloud isn’t the eDiscovery headache some think”.  Spread the word!

So, what do you think?  Have you been involved in a case that could have benefited from a cloud-based self-collection tool?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Craig Ball of Craig D. Ball, P.C.
 

This is the ninth (and final) of the LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and asked each of them the same three questions:

  1. What do you consider to be the current significant trends in eDiscovery on which people in the industry are, or should be, focused?
  2. Which of those trends are evident here at LTNY, which are not being talked about enough, and/or what are your general observations about LTNY this year?
  3. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Craig Ball.  Craig is a prolific contributor to continuing legal and professional education programs throughout the United States, having delivered over 600 presentations and papers.  Craig’s articles on forensic technology and electronic discovery frequently appear in the national media, including in American Bar Association, ATLA and American Lawyer Media print and online publications.  He also writes a monthly column on computer forensics and e-discovery for Law Technology News called "Ball in your Court," honored as both the 2007 and 2008 Gold Medal honoree as “Best Regular Column” as awarded by Trade Association Business Publications International.  It’s also the 2009 Gold and 2007 Silver Medalist honoree of the American Society of Business Publication Editors as “Best Contributed Column” and their 2006 Silver Medalist honoree as “Best Feature Series” and “Best Contributed Column.””  The presentation, "PowerPersuasion: Craig Ball on PowerPoint," is consistently among the top rated continuing legal educational programs from coast-to-coast.

What do you consider to be the current significant trends in eDiscovery on which people in the industry are, or should be, focused?

Price compression is a major trend.  Consumers are very slowly waking up to the fact that they have been the “drunken sailors on leave” in terms of how they have approached eDiscovery and there have been many “vendors of the night” ready to roll them for their paychecks.  eDiscovery has been more like a third world market where vendors have said “let’s ask for some crazy number” and perhaps they’ll be foolish enough to pay it.  And, if they don’t pay that one, let’s hit them with a little lower number, mention sanctions, give them a copy of something from Judge Scheindlin or Judge Grimm and then try again.  Until finally, they are so dissolved in a pool of their own urine that they’re willing to pay an outrageous price.  Those days are coming to an end and smart vendors are going to be prepare to be able to demonstrate the value and complexity behind their offerings.

I am seeing people recognizing that the “gravy train” is over except for the most egregious challenging eDiscovery situations where numbers really have little meaning.  When you’re talking about tens of thousands of employees and petabytes of data, the numbers can get astronomical.  But, for the usual case, with a more manageable number of custodians and issues, people are waking up to the fact that we can’t keep reinventing this wheel of great expense, so clients are pushing for more rational approaches and a few forward thinking vendors are starting to put forward some products will allow you to quantify what your exposure is going to be in eDiscovery.  We’re just not going to see per GB processing prices that are going to be measured in the double and triple digits – that just can’t go, at least when you’re talking about the raw data on the input side.  So, I’m seeing some behind the firewall products, even desktop products, that are going to be able to allow lawyers and people with relatively little technical expertise to handle small and medium sized cases.  Some of the hosting services are putting together pricing where, though I haven’t really tested them in real world situations, are starting to sound rational and less frightening.

I’m continuing to see more fragmentation in the market and I would like to see more integrated products, but it’s still like packaging a rather motley crew of different pieces that don’t always fit together well at all.  You’ve got relatively new review tools, some strong players like Clearwell and stronger than they used to be players like Relativity.  You’ve got people “from down under” that are really changing the game like Nuix.  And, you’ve got some upstarts – products that we’ve really not yet heard of at all.  I’m seeing at this conference that any one of them has the potential of becoming an industry standard.  I’m seeing some real innovation, some real new code bases coming out and that is impressive to me because it just hadn’t been happening before, it’s been “old wine in new bottles” for several years.

I also see some new ideas in collection.  I think people are starting to embrace what George Socha would like for me to aptly call the left side of the EDRM.  A lot of people have turned their heads away from the ugly business of selecting data to process and the collection of it and forensic and chain of custody issues and would gather it up any way they liked and process it.  But, I think there are some new and very viable ways that companies are offering for self-collection, for tracking of collection, for desk side interviews, and for generation and management of legal holds.  We’re seeing a lot of things emerging on that front.  Most of what I see in the legal hold management space is just awful.  That doesn’t mean it’s all awful, but most of it is awful.  It’s a lot of marketing speak, a lot of industry jargon, wrapped around a very uncreative, somewhat impractical, set of tools.  The question really is, are these things really much better than a well designed spreadsheet?  Certainly, they’re more scalable, but some have a “rushed to market” feel to me and I think it’s going to take them some time to mature.  Everyone is jumping on this Pension Committee bandwagon that Judge Scheindlin created for us, and not everyone has brought their Sunday best.

As for social media, it is a big deal because, if you’re paying attention to what’s happening with the generation about to explode on the scene, they simply have marginalized email.  Just as we are starting to get our arms around email, it’s starting to move off center stage.  And, I think the most important contribution to eDiscovery in 2010 has occurred silently and with little fanfare and I’d like to make sure you mention it.  In November, Facebook, the most important social networking site on the planet, very quietly provided the ability for you to package and collect, for personal storage, the entire contents of your Facebook life, including your Wall, your messaging, and your Facemail.  For all of the pieces of your Facebook existence, you can simply click and receive it back in a Zip file.  The ability to preserve and, ultimately, reopen and process that data is the most forward thinking thing that has emerged from the social networking world since there has been a social networking world.  How wonderful that Facebook had the foresight to say “you know, it would be nice if we could give people their entire Facebook stuff in a neat package in a moment in time”.

None of the others have done that yet, but I think that Facebook is so important that it’s going to make that a standard.  It’s going to need to be in Google Apps, it’s going to need to be in Gmail.  If you’re going to live your life “in the cloud”, then you’re going to have to have a way to grab your life from the cloud and move it somewhere else.  Maybe their portability was a way to head off antitrust, for all I know.  Whatever their motivation, I don’t think that most lawyers know that there is essentially this one-click preservation of Facebook.  If a vendor did it, you would hear about it in the elevators here at the show.  Facebook did it for free, and without any fanfare, and it’s an important thing for you to get out there.  The vendor that comes out with a tool that processes these packages that emerge, especially if they announce it when the Oscars come out {laugh}, is well positioned.

So, yes, social networking is important because it means that a lot of things change, forensics change.  You’re just not going to be able to do media forensics anymore on cloud content.  The cloud is going to make eDiscovery simpler, and that’s the one thing I haven’t heard anybody say, because you’ll have less you’ll need to delete and it’s much more likely to be gone – really gone – when you delete it (no forensics needed).  Collection and review can be easier.  What would you rather search, Gmail or Outlook?  Not only can Outlook emails be in several places, but the quality of a Google-based search is better, even though it’s not built for eDiscovery.  If I’m going to stand up in court and say that “I searched all these keywords and I saw all of the communications related to these keywords”, I’d rather do it with the force of Google than with the historically “snake bitten” engine for search that’s been in Outlook.  We always say in eDiscovery that you don’t use Outlook as a review and search tool because we know it isn’t good.  So, we take the container files, PSTs and OSTs and we parse them in better tools.  I think we’ll be able to do it both ways. 

I foresee a day not long off when Google will allow either the repatriation of those collections for use in more powerful tools or will allow different types of searches to be run on the Gmail collections other than just Gmail search.  You may be able to do searches and collect from your own Gmail, to place a hold on that Gmail.  Right now, you’d have to collect it, tag it, move it to a folder – you have to do some gyrations.  I think it will mature and they may open their API, so that there can be add-on tools from the lab or from elsewhere that will allow people to hook into Gmail.  To a degree, you can do that right now, by paying an upgrade fee for Postini, where they can download a PST with your Gmail content.  The problem with that is that Gmail is structured data, you really need to see the threading that Gmail provides to really appreciate the conversation that is Gmail.  Whereas, if you pull it down to PST (except in the latest version of Outlook, which I think 2010 does a pretty good job of threading), I don’t know if that is replicated in the Postini PST.  I’ll have to test that.

Office 2010 is a trend, as well.  Outlook 2010 is the first Microsoft tool that is eDiscovery friendly, by design.  I think Exchange 2010 is going to make our lives easier in eDiscovery.  We’re going to have a lot more “deleted” information hang around in the Windows 7 environment and in the Outlook 2010 and Exchange 2010 environment.  Data is not going away until you jump through some serious hoops to make it go away.

I think the iPad is also going to have quite an impact.  At first, it will be smoke and mirrors, but before 2011 bids us goodbye, I think the iPad is going to find its way into some really practical, gestural interfaces for working with data in eDiscovery.  I’ve yet to see anything yet but a half-assed version of an app.  Everyone rushed out and you wanted some way to interface with your product, but they didn’t build a purpose-built app for the iPad to really take advantage of its strengths, to be able to gesturally move between screens.  I foresee a day where you’ll have a ring of designations around the screen and you’ll flip a document, like a privileged document, into the appropriate designation and it will light up or something so that you know it went into the correct bin – as if you were at a desk and you were moving paper to different parts of the desk.  Sometimes, I wonder why somebody hasn’t thought of this before.  I’ve done no metrics, I’ve done no ergonomic studies to know that the paper metaphor serves the task well.  But, my gut tells me that we need to teach lawyers to walk before they can run, to help them interact with data in a metaphor that they understand in a graphical user interface.  Point and click, drag and drop, pinch and stretch, which are three dimensional concepts translated into a two dimensional interface. The interface of the iPad is so intuitive that a three year old could figure it out.  Just like Windows Explorer impacted the design of so many applications (“it’s an Explorer-like interface”), the iPad will do the same.

Which of those trends are evident here at LTNY, which are not being talked about enough, and/or what are your general observations about LTNY this year?

{Interviewed on the second afternoon of LTNY}  I think that the show felt well attended, upbeat, fresher that it has in two years.  I give the credit to the vendors showing up with some genuinely new products, instead of renamed, remarketed new products, although there’s still plenty of that.  There were so many announcements of new products before the show that you really wonder how new is this product?  But, there were some that really look like they were built from the ground up and that’s impressive.  There’s some money being spent on development again, and that’s positive.  The traffic was better, I’m glad we finally eliminated the loft area of the exhibit hall that would get so hot and uncomfortable.  I thought the traffic flow was very difficult in a positive way, which is to say that there were a lot of warm bodies out there, walking and talking and looking.

Henry Dicker and his team should be congratulated and I wouldn’t be surprised if they set a record over the past several years at this show.  The budgets were showing, money was freed up and that’s a positive for everyone in this industry.  Also, the quality of the questions being put forward in the educational tracks are head and shoulders better, more incisive and insightful and more advanced.  We’re starting to see the results of people working at the “201 level”, but we still don’t have enough technologists here, it’s still way too lawyer heavy.  This is the New York market, everybody is chasing after the Fortune 500, but everything has to be downward scalable too.  A good show.

What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

The first week of June, I’m going to be teaching a technology for lawyers and litigation support professionals academy with an ultra all star cast of a very small, but dedicated faculty, including Michael Arkfeld, Judge Paul Grimm, Judge John Facciola, and others.  It’s called the eDiscovery Training Academy and will be held at the Georgetown Law School. It’s going to be rigorous, challenging, extremely technical and the hope is that the people emerge from that week genuinely equipped to talk the talk and walk the walk of productive 26(f) conferences and real interaction with IT personnel and records managers.  We’re going to start down at the surface of the magnetic media and we’re going to keep climbing until we can climb no further.

Thanks, Craig, for participating in the interview!

And to the readers, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic!