Close
Enter your
text here
Posts By :

Doug Austin

eDiscovery Trends: EDRM Metrics Privilege Survey
 

As a member of the EDRM Metrics Project for the past four years, I have seen several accomplishments by the group to provide an effective means of measuring the time, money and volumes associated with eDiscovery activities, including:

  • Code Set: An extensive code set of activities to be tracked from Identification through Presentation, as well as Project Management.
  • Case Study: A hypothetical case study that illustrates at each phase why metrics should be collected, what needs to be measured, how metrics are acquired and where they’re recorded, and how the metrics can be used.
  • Cube: A simple graphical model which illustrates the EDRM phases, aspects to be tracked (e.g., custodians, systems, media, QA, activities, etc.) and the metrics to be applied (i.e., items, cost, volume, time).

The EDRM Metrics project has also been heavily involved in proposing a standard set of eDiscovery activity codes for the ABA’s Uniform Task Based Management System (UTBMS) series of codes used to classify the legal services performed by a law firm in an electronic invoice submission.

Now, we need your help for an information gathering exercise.

We are currently conducting a Metrics Privilege survey to get a sense throughout the industry as to typical volumes and percentages of privileged documents within a collection.  It’s a simple, 7 question survey that strives to gather information regarding your experiences with privileged documents (whether you work for a law firm, corporation, provider or some other organization).

If you have a minute (which is literally all the time it will take), please take the survey and pass along to your colleagues to do so as well.  The more respondents who participate, the more representative the survey will be as to the current eDiscovery community.  To take the survey, go to edrm.net or click here.  EDRM will publish the results in the near future.

So, what do you think?  What are your typical metrics with regard to privileged documents?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Judges’ Guide to Cost-Effective eDiscovery
 

Last week at LegalTech, I met Joe Howie at the blogger’s breakfast on Tuesday morning.  Joe is the founder of Howie Consulting and is the Director of Metrics Development and Communications for the eDiscovery Institute, which is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit research organization for eDiscovery.

eDiscovery Institute has just released a new publication that is a vendor-neutral guide for approaches to considerably reduce discovery costs for ESI.  The Judges’ Guide to Cost-Effective E-Discovery, co-written by Anne Kershaw (co-Founder and President of the eDiscovery Institute) and Joe Howie, also contains a foreword by the Hon. James C. Francis IV, Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of New York.  Joe gave me a copy of the guide, which I read during my flight back to Houston and found to be a terrific publication that details various mechanisms that can reduce the volume of ESI to review by up to 90 percent or more.  You can download the publication here (for personal review, not re-publication), and also read a summary article about it from Joe in InsideCounsel here.

Mechanisms for reducing costs covered in the Guide include:

  • DeNISTing: Excluding files known to be associated with commercial software, such as help files, templates, etc., as compiled by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, can eliminate a high number of files that will clearly not be responsive;
  • Duplicate Consolidation (aka “deduping”): Deduping across custodians as opposed to just within custodians reduces costs 38% for across-custodian as opposed to 21% for within custodian;
  • Email Threading: The ability to review the entire email thread at once reduces costs 36% over having to review each email in the thread;
  • Domain Name Analysis (aka Domain Categorization): As noted previously in eDiscoveryDaily, the ability to classify items based on the domain of the sender of the email can significantly reduce the collection to be reviewed by identifying emails from parties that are clearly not responsive to the case.  It can also be a great way to quickly identify some of the privileged emails;
  • Predictive Coding: As noted previously in eDiscoveryDaily, predictive coding is the use of machine learning technologies to categorize an entire collection of documents as responsive or non-responsive, based on human review of only a subset of the document collection. According to this report, “A recent survey showed that, on average, predictive coding reduced review costs by 45 percent, with several respondents reporting much higher savings in individual cases”.

The publication also addresses concepts such as focused sampling, foreign language translation costs and searching audio records and tape backups.  It even addresses some of the most inefficient (and therefore, costly) practices of ESI processing and review, such as wholesale printing of ESI to paper for review (either in paper form or ultimately converted to TIFF or PDF), which is still more common than you might think.  Finally, it references some key rules of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct to address the ethical duty of attorneys in effective management of ESI.  It’s a comprehensive publication that does a terrific job of explaining best practices for efficient discovery of ESI.

So, what do you think?  How many of these practices have been implemented by your organization?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Deadline Extended to Vote for the Most Significant eDiscovery Case of 2010
 

Our ‘little experiment’ to see what the readers of eDiscoveryDaily think about case law developments in 2010 needs more time as we have not yet received enough votes yet to have a statistically significant result.  So, we’ve extended the deadline to select the case with the most significant impact on eDiscovery practices in 2010 to February 28.  Evidently, calling out the vote on the last business day before LegalTech is not the best timing.  Live and learn!

As noted previously, we have “nominated” five cases, which we feel were the most significant in different issues of case law, including duty to preserve and sanctions, clawback agreements under Federal Rule of Evidence 502, not reasonably accessible arguments and discoverability of social media content.  If you feel that some other case was the most significant case of 2010, you can select that case instead.  Again, it’s very important to note that you can vote anonymously, so we’re not using this as a “hook” to get your information.  You can select your case without providing any personal information.  However, we would welcome your comments as to why you selected the case you did and you can – optionally – identify yourself as well.

To get more information about the nominated cases (as well as other significant cases), click here.  To cast your vote, click here.

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

eDiscovery Trends: Announcing LTNY Thought Leader Series!

I lied.

OK, I didn’t really lie.  I told you on Monday that eDiscoveryDaily would be tweeting throughout LegalTech New York (LTNY) this week.  Which is what I intended to do; but, I forgot how crazy it can be at the show with so many meetings, sessions and exhibit hall time.  So, I only managed one tweet per day.  I’ll have a better plan for next year, I promise.  😉

One of the reasons that I only managed the one tweet per day is that, during that time, eDiscoveryDaily was conducting interviews with several eDiscovery industry thought leaders and we’re pleased to introduce the schedule for the series, which will begin on Monday, February 14.  Happy Valentine’s Day!

Here are the interviews that we will be publishing over the next few weeks:

Monday, February 14: Tom Gelbmann, Principal Analyst of Gelbmann & Associates and co-founder of the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM).  Since 1993, Tom has helped law firms and Corporate Law Departments realize the full benefit of their investments in Information Technology.

Wednesday, February 16: Alon Israely, Senior Advisor, BIA.  Alon has over fifteen years of experience in a variety of advanced computing-related technologies and currently oversees BIA’s product development for its core technology products.

Friday, February 18: Jim McGann, Vice President of Index Engines.  Jim has extensive experience with eDiscovery and Information Management in the Fortune 2000 sector and has worked for leading software firms that provided financial services and information management solutions.

Monday, February 21: Christine Musil, Director of Marketing of Informative Graphics Corporation (IGC).  Christine has applied her in-depth knowledge of IGC’s products and benefits to marketing initiatives, including branding, overall messaging, and public relations. She has also been a contributing author to a number of publications on archiving formats, redaction, and viewing technology in the enterprise.

Wednesday, February 23: Jack Halprin, Vice President eDiscovery and Compliance, Autonomy.  Jack serves as a subject matter expert and assists clients with building best practices and defensible processes around eDiscovery and compliance related issues and manages the product line strategy for Autonomy’s Legal Hold and Early Case Assessment solutions.

Friday, February 25: Deidre Paknad, President & CEO of PSS Systems.  A well-known thought leader in the legal and information governance domain, Deidre founded the Compliance, Governance and Oversight Council (CGOC), a professional community on retention and preservation that analyst firm IDC labeled a “think tank.” She has been a member of several Sedona working groups since 2005 and leads the EDRM IMRM working group.

Monday, February 28: George Socha, President of Socha Consulting LLC and co-founder of the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM).  As President of Socha Consulting LLC, George offers services as an eDiscovery expert witness, special master and advisor to corporations, law firms and their clients, and legal vertical market software and service providers in the areas of electronic discovery and automated litigation support.

Wednesday, March 2: Tom O’Connor, Director, Gulf Coast Legal Tech Center. Tom is a nationally known consultant, speaker and writer in the area of computerized litigation support systems.  A frequent lecturer on the subject of legal technology, Tom has been on the faculty of numerous national CLE providers and has taught college level courses on legal technology.

Friday, March 4: Craig Ball, Law Offices of Craig D. Ball, P.C.  Craig has delivered over 600 presentations and papers to continuing legal and professional education programs throughout the United States.  Craig’s articles on forensic technology and electronic discovery frequently appear in the national media and he also writes a monthly column on computer forensics and e-discovery for Law Technology News called “Ball in your Court”.

Thanks to everyone for their time in participating in these interviews, especially during a busy LegalTech week!

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

eDiscovery Trends: Wednesday LTNY Sessions
 

As noted Monday and yesterday, LegalTech New York 2011 (LTNY) is happening this week and eDiscoveryDaily is here to report about the latest eDiscovery trends being discussed at the show.  The show wraps up today and, by most accounts, the attitude at the show is considerably more upbeat over last year’s show.  Last chance to check out the show if you’re in the New York area!  If you can brave the weather, which hasn’t been THAT bad so far, there are still several sessions (both paid and free) available and over 240 exhibitors providing information on their products and services.

As noted the past two days, we have been interviewing several industry thought leaders to see what they think are the significant trends for 2011 and, which of those are evident at LTNY.  We have conducted several exciting interviews and will announce the series of thought leader interviews after the show and identify when each will be published.  Mark your calendars!

Perform a “find” on today’s LTNY conference schedule for “discovery” and you’ll get 37 hits (short day).  Here are some of today’s sessions in the main conference tracks:

10:30 – 11:45 AM:

Risk & Responsibility vs. Cost Control: Managing eDiscovery's Great Balancing Act

Discusses:

  • Framing the legal issues– identifying risks and responsibilities for companies and their counsel
  • A case study–quantifying the costs of eDiscovery
  • An open discussion regarding cost containment / alternative billing strategies:
  • Negotiations with opposing counsel
  • Custodian selection
  • Data selection
  • Culling options
  • Screen and produce
  • Automated review

Panelists are: Lisa Markey, Vice President, Information Risk Management, Barclays Capital; Stephanie Mendelsohn, Legal Director of Corporate Records & eDiscovery, Genentech and Jessica L. Watts, Discovery Counsel, Hewlett-Packard Company.  Moderator: James K. Wagner, Jr., Co-Founder and CEO, DiscoverReady.

Introduction to ESI Search

Discusses:

  • Content vs. Metadata Searching
  • Classification of ESI
  • Prerequisites for Content Searching
  • Extraction of textual content
  • Indexing of textual content
  • Implementation of Content Searching
  • Key considerations and differentiators
  • Search Intent
  • How does the desired goal of a search influence its implementation?
  • When does search have legal implications and when does it not?

Panelists are: Maura R. Grossman, Counsel, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz; Gene Eames, Director, Legal Search & Data Analytics, Pfizer and Rich Hoffman, Vice President of Research and Development, Unify Corporation.  Moderator: Rudy Rouhana, Director of Product Marketing, Daegis.

Criminal Investigations: Why the Rules, Risks, and Responsibilities are Different from eDiscovery in Civil Cases

Discusses:

  • Unique rules and eDiscovery issues involved in criminal investigations and why you need to be prepared
  • Dialog and discussions you need to have with the government at the beginning of and during an investigation
  • Production of documents and data to the government
  • Practices and procedures in place at the various government agencies

Panelists are: John Haried, Assistant National Discovery Coordinator, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, DOJ; Ross Goldstein, Trial Attorney, Office of Consumer Litigation, Civil Division DOJ and John McEnany, Associate United States Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, S.D.N.Y.  Moderator: George Kiersted, President, Kiersted Systems.

1:45 – 3:00 PM:

Top 5 Ethical Concerns for Lawyers in eDiscovery

Discusses:

  • Appropriately supervise clients' discovery efforts (including potential conflicts around self collection)
  • Avoid conflicts of interest – attorney's and vendor's
  • Appropriately supervise document reviewers
  • Avoid serving as discovery process 30(b)(6) witness
  • Accurately represent clients' data storage paradigm and retrieval/restoration/review expenses

Panelists are: Conor R. Crowley, Partner and Sedona Conference® WG1 Steering Committee, Crowley Law Office; William A. Olshan, Managing Director, Office of the General Counsel, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.; Shannon Capone Kirk, eDiscovery Counsel, Ropes & Gray LLP; and Theresa Beaumont, eDiscovery Counsel, Google.  Moderator: Maureen O'Neill, VP, San Francisco Marketplace Leader, DiscoverReady.

In addition to these, there are other eDiscovery-related sessions today.  For a complete description for all sessions today, click here.

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

eDiscovery Trends: Tuesday LTNY Sessions
 

As noted yesterday, LegalTech New York 2011 (LTNY) is happening this week and eDiscoveryDaily is here to report about the latest eDiscovery trends being discussed at the show.  There’s still time to check out the show if you’re in the New York area with a number of sessions (both paid and free) available and over 240 exhibitors providing information on their products and services.

While at the show, we will also be interviewing several industry thought leaders to see what they think are the significant trends for 2011 and, which of those are evident at LTNY.  After the show, we will announce the series of thought leader interviews and identify when each will be published.  Mark your calendars!

Perform a “find” on today’s LTNY conference schedule for “discovery” and you’ll get 78 hits.  More eDiscovery sessions happening!  Here are some of the sessions in the main conference tracks:

10:30 – 11:45 AM:

Multinational Discovery: Privacy and Process

Discusses:

  • The evolving data privacy regulatory environment, including in Europe, AsiaPacific and South America
  • Common cross border scenarios and key "dos and don'ts" for maintaining data privacy compliance
  • Best practices for multinational discovery and additional resources

Panelists are: Amor Esteban, Partner, Shook Hardy Bacon LLP; Kathryn McCarthy, Counsel, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP; Matt Ward, Vice President Information Risk, Barclays Capital; and Peggy Kubicz Hall, Assistant General Counsel, 3M.  Moderator: Joe Looby, Senior Managing Director, FTI.

12:00 – 1:00 PM:

Town Hall Session: Understanding and Mitigating the Risks of Cloud Technology

You've heard the buzz about cloud technology. It's one of the newest computing frontiers and is generating massive interest from organizations seeking to outsource computing, applications and storage. It's true that migrating data to an external cloud can lead to sizable savings on capital and operational expenses. However, there are a host of potential security and privacy issues that can arise and expose organizations to unique risks.

Panelists are: Martin T. Tully, Partner, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP; Bennett B. Borden, Chair, Electronic Discovery and Information Governance Section, Williams Mullen; Michael E. Lackey, Jr., Partner, Mayer Brown LLP; and Patrick Oot, Special Counsel for Electronic Discovery, Office of the General Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission.  Moderator: Shannon Smith, Esq., eDiscovery Specialist, CommVault.

12:30 – 1:30 PM:

Plenary General Session: The Future of Litigation and E-discovery: Amending the Federal Rules and Beyond

Lawyers and IT executives want to know the facts and understand the implications for the future of litigation and discovery. This panel of distinguished judges participated in the 2010 Conference on Civil Litigation at Duke University and will examine important issues and FRCP reform aimed at easing the burden of discovery. Perspectives on planning and managing litigation and discovery to meet obligations in a manner that is defensible and proportionate to the amount in controversy will be discussed. Attend this session to hear predictions for what is to come and learn how you can contribute to FRCP reform initiatives and leverage the bench, the rules and technology to ease the burden of discovery.

Panelists are: Honorable James C. Francis, Magistrate Judge, Southern District of New York; Hon. Ron Hedges, Former United States Magistrate Judge; Honorable Andrew J. Peck, Magistrate Judge, Southern District of New York; Honorable David J. Waxse, US District Court, District of Kansas.  Moderator: Jack Halprin, Esq., Vice President, eDiscovery & Compliance, Autonomy, Inc.

2:00 – 3:15 PM:

Cloud, SharePoint and Social Media: Discovery on the Next Data Frontier

Includes discussion of:

  • The new challenges emerging with the rise of cloud computing, SharePoint adoption and social media
  • How do these data types differ from emails and other electronic documents, and how do they impact a reasonable discovery process?
  • The basic technical challenges for collecting, reviewing and producing relevant data from the cloud, SharePoint or social media sites
  • Recent case law involving these new data types
  • Best practices for managing these new data types as part of a holistic information management program

Panelists are: Larry Briggi, Director in the Electronic and Evidence Consulting, FTI; Barry Murphy, Co-Founder, Contributor, eDiscovery Journal; Principal, Murphy Insights; Leigh Isaacs, Firmwide Records Manager, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP; James Zucker, Associate, Hogan Lovells.

3:45 – 5:00 PM:

Predictive Coding: What you Need to Know

Includes discussion of:

  • An overview of the different types of predictive coding offerings available, including suggested coding, and how this differs from more traditional legal review technology
  • The processes needed to supplement the use of predictive coding as part of a defensible legal review workflow
  • Key gotchas for selecting and implementing predictive coding technology, including the role of the review attorneys

Panelists are: Jason R. Baron, Director of Litigation, National Archives and Records Administration; Manfred Gabriel, Managing Director, FTI; Ralph Colby Losey, Partner, Jackson Lewis, LLP; David Yerich, United Health.

In addition to these, there are other eDiscovery-related sessions today.  For a complete description for all sessions today, click here.

So, what do you think?  Are you planning to attend LTNY this year?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Welcome to LegalTech New York 2011!
 

Today is the start of LegalTech New York 2011 (LTNY) and eDiscoveryDaily is here to report about the latest eDiscovery trends being discussed at the show.  Over the next three days, we will provide a description each day of some of the sessions related to eDiscovery to give you a sense of the topics being covered.  If you’re in the New York area, I encourage you to check out the show – there are a number of sessions (both paid and free) available and over 240 exhibitors providing information on their products and services.

While at the show, we will also be interviewing several industry thought leaders to see what they think are the significant trends for 2011 and, which of those are evident at LTNY.  After the show, we will announce the series of thought leader interviews and identify when each will be published.  Mark your calendars!

Perform a “find” on today’s LTNY conference schedule for “discovery” and you’ll get 74 hits.  So, there is plenty to talk about!  Sessions in the main conference tracks include:

10:30 – 11:45 AM:

Proactive Information Governance to Reduce the Pain of eDiscovery

Discusses practices to:

  • Increase defensibility, accountability and transparency
  • Improve efficiency and reduce the volume of growing, uncontrolled information
  • Decrease risk of non compliance and reduce eDiscovery costs
  • Maximize the return on your technology investments and improve staff productivity
  • Adopt best practices and automate eDiscovery capabilities

Panelists are: Galina Datskovsky, Ph.D. CRM, SVP Information Governance, Autonomy, Inc.; Brett Durand, Director, Discovery Services, Pfizer, Inc.; Anthony Dianna, Partner, Mayer Brown, Inc,; and Debra Logan, VP, Distinguished Analyst, Gartner, Inc.  Moderator: Reed Irvin, VP Information Governance, Autonomy, Inc.

The 5 Most Important Things you Need to Consider when Bringing e-Discovery In-house

You have made the decision to in-source certain aspects of the e-Discovery process, or you're considering the potential benefits, but the next step is a challenge. In this session, we will address the five most important things to consider as you take on the responsibilities and risks of e-Discovery internally. We will look through the lenses of both legal and IT, and discuss how best to support the technology and business processes. We also evaluate sourcing models to address the risks. This is an ideal panel for corporate legal departments to attend along with their IT department leaders.

Panelists are: Andrew Sherman, Associate General Counsel, Rabobank; Glen McFarlane, Executive Director Legal & Compliance, JPMorgan Chase & Co.; Anthony Mosquera, Esq., Legal Division, Discovery Operations, Pfizer, Inc.  Moderator: Jeff Seymour, Principal, Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLP.

2:00 – 3:15 PM:

e-Discovery as a Repeatable Business Process

Given the significant potential expense of eDiscovery, organizations cannot allow service providers to operate carte blanche. In-house and outside counsel must understand the eDiscovery process in the context of legal compliance and the current matter, and they also must be answerable to the CFO. In short, eDiscovery must be comprehended operationally and financially and be subject to standards of accountability, efficiency, and effectiveness like any critical business process.

Panelists are: Vince Catanzaro, Senior Counsel, Global Discovery Manager, DuPont; Scott Carlson, Partner & Co-Chair eDiscovery, Seyfarth Shaw; Woods Abbott, Senior Manager – Legal Operations, Raytheon Company. Moderator: Kelli Brooks, National Partner-in-Charge, Evidence and Discovery Management, KPMG LLP.

3:45 – 5:00 PM:

The Emerging "Smart Discovery" Paradigm for Cost Management in e-Discovery – Case Studies and Case Law"

This panel discussion focuses on the cost problems typically associated with the eDiscovery process. Using case studies, and against the backdrop of relevant case law and recent legal research, the panelists will review some of the paradigmatic changes that are emerging in the conduct of eDiscovery. Fundamental to this new wave of approaches, collectively referred to as "Smart Discovery," is an iterative—rather than linear—approach to eDiscovery processes. Using iterative techniques, such as sampling, predictive coding technology, data stratification, prioritization of custodians and data sources, and targeted collections, counsel can make real-time adjustments as they learn more about the people, terminology, and issues related to the case. The Smart Discovery approach also compresses the process, seeking to identify responsive data as close to source as possible, and enabling early learning and utilization of the data. The potential for litigants is a smaller, more manageable corpus of collected data, improved relevancy, reduced review time, and ultimately, lower costs.

Panelists are: Jason R. Baron, Director of Litigation, National Archives and Records Administration; Brian A. Davis, Litigation Department Co-Chair, Choate, Hall & Stewart LLP; F. Eli Nelson, Senior Staff Attorney, Project Manager – Discovery and Litigation Technology, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP; Chris Paskach, National Partner-in-Charge, Forensic Technology Services, KPMG LLP. Moderator: Warwick Sharp, Vice President, Equivio.

In addition to these, there are other eDiscovery-related sessions today.  For a complete description for all sessions today, click here.

eDiscoveryDaily will also be “tweeting” periodically throughout LTNY, so feel free to check out our updates at twitter.com/TrialSolutions.

So, what do you think?  Are you planning to attend LTNY this year?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Vote for the Most Significant eDiscovery Case of 2010!
 

Since it’s awards season, we thought we would get into the act from an eDiscovery standpoint.  Sure, you have Oscars, Emmys and Grammys – but what about “EDDies”?  (I’ll bet you wondered what Eddie Munster could possibly have to do with eDiscovery, didn’t you?)

So, we’re conducting a ‘little experiment’ to see what the readers of eDiscoveryDaily think about case law developments in 2010.  This is our first annual “EDDies” award to select the case with the most significant impact on eDiscovery practices in 2010.  No cash or prizes being awarded, or even a statuette, but a chance to see what the readers think was the most important case of the year from an eDiscovery standpoint.

We have “nominated” five cases below, which we feel were the most significant in different issues of case law, including duty to preserve and sanctions, clawback agreements under Federal Rule of Evidence 502, not reasonably accessible arguments and discoverability of social media content.  We have a link to review more information about each case, and a link at the bottom of this post to cast your vote.

Very Important!  You can vote anonymously, so we’re not using this as a “hook” to get your information.  You can click on the link at the bottom, select your case and be done with it.  However, we would welcome your comments as to why you selected the case you did and you can – optionally – identify yourself as well.  eDiscoveryDaily will publish selected comments to reflect opinion of the voters as well as the vote results on February 7.  Click here to cast your vote now!

So, here are the cases:

Duty to Preserve/Sanctions

  • The Pension Committee of the Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities, LLC, 29010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4546 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010) (as amended May 28, 2010) – “Pension Committee”: The case that defined negligence, gross negligence, and willfulness in the electronic discovery context and demonstrated the consequences (via sanctions) resulting from those activities.  Judge Shira Scheindlin titled her 85-page opinion “Zubulake Revisited: Six Years Later”.  For more on this case, click here.
  • Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 2010 WL 3530097 (D. Md. 2010) – “Victor Stanley II”: The case of “the gang that couldn’t spoliate straight” where one of the defendants faced imprisonment for up to 2 years (subsequently set aside on appeal) and the opinion included a 12 page chart delineating the preservation and spoliation standards in each judicial circuit.  For more on this case, click here and here.

Clawback Agreements

  • Rajala v. McGuire Woods LLP, 2010 WL 2949582 (D. Kan. July 22, 2010) – “Rajala”: The case that addressed the applicability of Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) and (e) for “clawback” provisions for inadvertently produced privileged documents.  For more on this case, click here.

Not Reasonably Accessible

  • Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel, 2010 WL 2557250 (D.N.J. June 22, 2010) – “Major Tours”: The case that established a precedent that a party may obtain a Protective Order relieving it of the duty to access backup tapes, even when that party’s failure to issue a litigation hold caused the data not to be available via any other means.  For more on this case, click here.

Social Media Discovery

  • Crispin v. Christian Audigier Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 52832 (C.D. Calif. May 26, 2010) – “Crispin”: The case that used a 24 year old law (The Stored Communications Act of 1986) to address whether ‘private’ data on social networks is discoverable.  For more on this case, click here.

If you feel that some other case was the most significant case of 2010, you can select that case instead.  Other notable cases include:

  • Rimkus v. Cammarata, 2010 WL 645253 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2010): Where District Court Judge Lee Rosenthal examined spoliation laws of each of the 13 Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal.
  • Orbit One Communications Inc. v. Numerex Corp., 2010 WL 4615547 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2010): Magistrate Judge James C. Francis concluded that sanctions for spoliation must be based on the loss of at least some information relevant to the dispute (differing with “Pension Committee” in this manner).
  • DeGeer v. Gillis, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 97457(N.D. Ill. Sept. 17, 2010): Demonstration of inadvertent disclosure made FRE 502(d) effective, negating waiver of privilege.
  • Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 2010 WL 2640492 (D. Del. June 21, 2010): Defendants’ motion to compel the production of ESI for a period of 18 years was granted, with imposed cost-shifting.
  • E.E.O.C. v. Simply Storage Management, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 52766 (S.D. Ind. May 11, 2010): EEOC is ordered to produce certain social networking communications.
  • McMillen v. Hummingbird Speedway, Inc., No. 113-2010 CD (C.P. Jefferson, Sept. 9, 2010): Motion to Compel discovery of social network account log-in names and passwords was granted.

Click here to cast your vote now!  Results will be published in eDiscoveryDaily on February 7.

The success of this ‘little experiment’ will determine whether next year there is a second annual “EDDies” award.  😉

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

eDiscovery Case Law: When is Attorney-Client Communication NOT Privileged?

One answer: When it’s from your work email account, and your employer has a written policy that company email is not private and subject to audit.  Oh, and you’re suing your employer.

In Holmes v. Petrovich Dev. Co., LLC, 2011 WL 117230 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2011), a California court of appeals upheld a trial court ruling that emails from a plaintiff to her attorney via her company’s computer “did not constitute ‘confidential communication between client and lawyer’ within the meaning of Evidence Code section 952” and thus were not privileged.

The plaintiff, Gina Holmes worked as an executive assistant at Petrovich Development of Sacramento, California.  When hired, she read and signed the company’s policies regarding use of computers, which informed employees that they had no right of privacy to any personal information created or maintained on company computers, and that such information was subject to monitoring.

Holmes claimed Petrovich Development became hostile when it found out she was pregnant shortly after being hired in 2004 and used her company’s computer to communicate with an attorney, eventually quitting her job and suing her employer.  During the case, emails between her and her attorney were introduced at trial “to show Holmes did not suffer severe emotional distress, was only frustrated and annoyed, and filed the action at the urging of her attorney”.  Despite plaintiff’s protests that the emails were privileged, they were not excluded from evidence at trial.  Rather, the trial court ruled that the emails “were not protected … because they were not private.”  Because the plaintiff did not prevail on any of her claims, she appealed, claiming the court erred in failing to exclude the emails.

In a 3-0 decision by the Sacramento Third Appellate District, they affirmed the findings of the trial court, stating that the plaintiff’s use of the company computer after being expressly advised that her messages were not private was “akin to consulting her attorney in one of defendants’ conference rooms, in a loud voice, with the door open, yet unreasonably expecting that the conversation overheard … would be privileged.”.  The court also noted that “communication under these circumstances is not a “‘confidential communication between client and lawyer’ “ within the meaning of section 952 because it is not transmitted “by a means which, so far as the client is aware, discloses the information to no third persons other than those who are present to further the interest of the client in the consultation….”.

So, what do you think?  Was justice served?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Searching: For Defensible Searching, Be a "STARR"
 

Defensible searching has become a priority in eDiscovery as parties in several cases have experienced significant consequences (including sanctions) for not implementing a defensible search strategy in responding to discovery requests.

Probably the most famous case where search approach has been an issue was Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe , Inc., 250 F.R.D. 251 (D. Md. 2008), where Judge Paul Grimm noted that “only prudent way to test the reliability of the keyword search is to perform some appropriate sampling of the documents” and found that privilege on 165 inadvertently produced documents was waived, in part, because of the inadequacy of the search approach.

A defensible search strategy is part using an effective tool (with advanced search capabilities such as “fuzzy”, wildcard, synonym and proximity searching) and part using an effective approach to test and verify search results.

I have an acronym that I use to reflect the defensible search process.  I call it “STARR” – as in “STAR” with an extra “R” or Green Bay Packer football legend Bart Starr (sorry, Bears fans!).  For each search that you need to conduct, here’s how it goes:

  • Search: Construct the best search you can to maximize recall and precision for the desired result.  An effective tool gives you more options for constructing a more effective search, which should help in maximizing recall and precision.  For example, as noted on this blog a few days ago, a proximity search can, under the right circumstances, provide a more precise search result without sacrificing recall.
  • Test: Once you’ve conducted the search, it’s important to test two datasets to determine the effectiveness of the search:
    • Result Set: Test the result set by randomly selecting an appropriate sample percentage of the files and reviewing those to determine their responsiveness to the intent of the search.  The appropriate percentage of files to be reviewed depends on the size of the result set – the smaller the set, the higher percentage of it that should be reviewed.
    • Files Not Retrieved: While testing the result set is important, it is also important to randomly select an appropriate sample percentage of the files that were not retrieved in the search and review those as well to see if any responsive hits are identified as missed by the search.
  • Analyze: Analyze the results of the random sample testing of both the result set and also the files not retrieved to determine how effective the search was in retrieving mostly responsive files and whether any responsive files were identified as missed by the search performed.
  • Revise: If the search retrieved a low percentage of responsive files and retrieved a high percentage of non-responsive files, then precision of the search may need to be improved.  If the files not retrieved contained any responsive files, then recall of the search may need to be improved.  Evaluate the results and see what, if any, revisions can be made to the search to improve precision and/or recall.
  • Repeat: Once you’ve identified revisions you can make to your search, repeat the process.  Search, Test, Analyze and (if necessary) Revise the search again until the precision and recall of the search is maximized to the extent possible.

While you can’t guarantee that you will retrieve all of the responsive files or eliminate all of the non-responsive ones, a defensible approach to get as close as you can to that goal will minimize the number of files for review, potentially saving considerable costs and making you a “STARR” in the courtroom when defending your search approach.

So, what do you think?  Are you a “STARR” when it comes to defensible searching?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.