Close
Enter your
text here
Posts By :

Tom O'Connor

Litigate or Settle? Info You Need to Make Case Decisions: eDiscovery Best Practices, Part Three

Editor’s Note: Tom O’Connor is a nationally known consultant, speaker, and writer in the field of computerized litigation support systems.  He has also been a great addition to our webinar program, participating with me on several recent webinars.  Tom has also written several terrific informational overview series for CloudNine, including eDiscovery and the GDPR: Ready or Not, Here it Comes (which we covered as a webcast), Understanding eDiscovery in Criminal Cases (which we also covered as a webcast), ALSP – Not Just Your Daddy’s LPO, Why Is TAR Like a Bag of M&M’s? and eDiscovery for the Rest of Us (which we also covered as a webcast).  Now, Tom has written another terrific overview regarding information you need to make case decisions titled Litigate or Settle? Info You Need to Make Case Decisions that we’re happy to share on the eDiscovery Daily blog.  Enjoy! – Doug

Tom’s overview is split into four parts, so we’ll cover each part separately.  Part one was published on Monday and part two was published on Tuesday.  Here’s the third part.

eDiscovery Considerations

So where does eDiscovery fall in this discussion? Where does it fall in the list of factors noted above which influence the decline of trials? How do we use eDiscovery to decide if a case should be settled?

First of course is the proportionality analysis that is so much a part of the current rules. Simply put, is a settlement offer reasonable within the scope of the monetary value of the litigation? If it is wildly disproportionate to the amounts in controversy, then you will need to decline the settlement offer. If it is reasonable, but not quite acceptable, then it is appropriate to make a counter-proposal.

Current eDiscovery tools for ECA and EDA can help make this determination as you are able to quickly and accurately review documents to assess damage claims and potential liability issues. Accurately identifying the documents to be handled should be a routine part of the Rule 26(f) conference and subsequent discovery plan and thus give you a confident assessment of the economic value of the case very early on.

Second is the timing of any proposed settlement. After the 26(f) conference and attendant issues have been resolved, have you received enough information to evaluate any offer or make a proposal? Or do you need more time to continue discovery and make such an assessment? This is where eDiscovery and ECA can be especially helpful since the FRCP encourage discovery and assessment of ESI at an early stage which can help in this decision.

Third, you must ask whether negotiations will be fruitful. All negotiations and any ultimate settlement require some degree of compromise by both parties and a critical factor in that process may be knowing when is the right time to negotiate.

If you have a sense in your case that emotions are running high and no negotiations are possible it may better to proceed with your ECA and simply wait until the case evolves more before attempting a settlement.

Fourth is the cost of eDiscovery which is the classic proportionality analysis. The  process of eDiscovery, and thus eventually trial, will be expensive and if that expense is more than the value of the case, settlement to avoid the ultimate costs of litigation is likely a better choice.

Remember that the review portion of the eDiscovery process is typically 2/3 of the eventual total cost so your initial costs of preservation, collection, processing and ECA can give you a good ballpark figure for your total eDiscovery costs. That figure, in turn, can drive an assessment of whether settlement negotiations are in order.

Fifth if the outcome of the case is unpredictable, that is if your case appears to be a toss-up, you may be better off with a settlement. Essentially this is a risk assessment of the ultimate cost of expenses, court fees and attorney fees if you don’t win.

Finally, consider the hard to define value of business goodwill. Sometimes a reputation in the business community as being a reasonable person has a value that can’t be quantified. Your legal action may be justified, even necessary, but extensive publicity about ongoing litigation may outweigh those factors.  When parties understand that a reputation in the business community has an inherent value, settlement may be a good choice.

We’ll publish Part 4 – Conclusions – tomorrow.

So, what do you think?  Does your firm have a formal process for deciding whether to litigate or settle a case?  As always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Litigate or Settle? Info You Need to Make Case Decisions: eDiscovery Best Practices, Part Two

Editor’s Note: Tom O’Connor is a nationally known consultant, speaker, and writer in the field of computerized litigation support systems.  He has also been a great addition to our webinar program, participating with me on several recent webinars.  Tom has also written several terrific informational overview series for CloudNine, including eDiscovery and the GDPR: Ready or Not, Here it Comes (which we covered as a webcast), Understanding eDiscovery in Criminal Cases (which we also covered as a webcast), ALSP – Not Just Your Daddy’s LPO, Why Is TAR Like a Bag of M&M’s? and eDiscovery for the Rest of Us (which we also covered as a webcast).  Now, Tom has written another terrific overview regarding information you need to make case decisions titled Litigate or Settle? Info You Need to Make Case Decisions that we’re happy to share on the eDiscovery Daily blog.  Enjoy! – Doug

Tom’s overview is split into four parts, so we’ll cover each part separately.  Part one was published yesterday.  Here’s the second part.

Modern Litigation History

First, let’s consider the rise in class action and MDL litigation.  In 1962, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren appointed a special committee to improve the efficiency of the legal system. Alfred P. Murrah, CJ of the 10th Circuit, was named chairman and his committee members came up with then revolutionary solutions that are still used today, ideas such as combining depositions and discovery and combining lawsuits involving similar complicated claims into a single case.

By 1967, backlogs in the Federal court system had been cleared and the committee discovered large numbers of similar, complex cases were common across the U.S. court system. They recommended that a permanent panel be set up to handle these types of matters and Congress created the JPML in 1968.

Now, by some estimates, as many as one in every seven civil lawsuits filed in federal court are or will become part of a multi district litigation and these cases involve as many as 60% of all plaintiffs in Federal civil suits.  Since a high number of these cases settle, the number of trial associated with these litigants is also dramatically lessened.

Second, since the 1986 U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, all of which encouraged the use of summary judgment, the increase in summary judgement motions has increased and seems clearly linked to the decrease in the number of trials.

Third, let’s consider that a high number of cases are now resolved by nonjudicial means, through alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods such as compulsory mediation or arbitration clauses in contracts.

Fourth, changes in the FRCP which emphasize docket management have led many judges to become more active in management of the case before them.  FRCP 16 in particular was amended to require judges to monitor closely the management of cases (The Proposed FRCP Amendments Intended to Foster “Judicial Management”) and these changes have helped push early case resolution.

Finally, of course, the overall cost of litigation has risen dramatically. Bluntly put, the cost of making a wrong decision on whether to litigate wrong is getting more expensive. A seminal study of both federal and state court data in 2004 by DecisionSet found that making a wrong decision on litigating can cost a plaintiff about $43,000 and for defendants, who were less often wrong about going to trial, the cost could easily exceed $1 million.

We’ll publish Part 3 – eDiscovery Considerations – on Thursday.

So, what do you think?  Does your firm have a formal process for deciding whether to litigate or settle a case?  As always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Litigate or Settle? Info You Need to Make Case Decisions: eDiscovery Best Practices

Editor’s Note: Tom O’Connor is a nationally known consultant, speaker, and writer in the field of computerized litigation support systems.  He has also been a great addition to our webinar program, participating with me on several recent webinars.  Tom has also written several terrific informational overview series for CloudNine, including eDiscovery and the GDPR: Ready or Not, Here it Comes (which we covered as a webcast), Understanding eDiscovery in Criminal Cases (which we also covered as a webcast), ALSP – Not Just Your Daddy’s LPO, Why Is TAR Like a Bag of M&M’s? and eDiscovery for the Rest of Us (which we also covered as a webcast).  Now, Tom has written another terrific overview regarding information you need to make case decisions titled Litigate or Settle? Info You Need to Make Case Decisions that we’re happy to share on the eDiscovery Daily blog.  Enjoy! – Doug

Tom’s overview is split into four parts, so we’ll cover each part separately.  Here’s the first part.

Introduction

I have heard a great deal of anecdotal discussion lately about fewer and fewer cases going to trial, with an implied criticism that the cost of eDiscovery is somehow at the root of this phenomenon.  Indeed, the national decline in trials, both criminal and civil, has been noted in law journal articles, bar association studies and judicial opinions.

I decided to investigate both of these statements and was surprised by what I found. First, the decrease in cases going to trial is nothing new and in fact far pre-dates the eDiscovery changes to the FRCP.  Second, there are several clear reasons for this decline, all unrelated to any eDiscovery issues.

We’ll explore these reasons and other issues in this paper, as follows:

  1. Background
  2. Modern Litigation History
  3. eDiscovery Considerations
  4. Conclusions

Background

Each year the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOC) is required to provide a report of statistical information on the caseload of the federal courts for the 12-month period ending March 31.  According to AOC statistics, from 1962 through 1985, federal civil trials doubled, increasing every year. Trials then began declining in 1986 with a dramatic decline commencing in 1990. By 2006 there were only half the number of federal civil trials that there were in 1962 and since 2006, civil trials have continued to decline although at a much slower pace.

This phenomenon was so well known by the late 90’s that it was actually termed the “vanishing trial” by numerous commentators and led to many dire pronouncements about the future of the US legal system. Typical was a 2005 pronouncement by Chief Judge William G. Young of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts that “[t]he American jury system is dying. It is dying faster in the federal courts than in the state courts. It is dying faster on the civil side than on the criminal, but it is dying nonetheless.”  (What the Vanishing Trial Lawyer Means for In-House Counsel, and 5 Things They Can Do, Corporate Counsel, Oct. 14, 2016)

But the AOC report for 2017 also showed that the number of civil case filings was actually up 6%, a trend that has been present during the same period that the number of trials declined. Which clearly begs the question, if case filings continue to rise but trials continue to decline, what is going on in between those two events to cause the decline?

We’ll publish Part 2 – Modern Litigation History – tomorrow.

So, what do you think?  Does your firm have a formal process for deciding whether to litigate or settle a case?  As always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily 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 for the Rest of Us: eDiscovery Best Practices, Part Four

Editor’s Note: Tom O’Connor is a nationally known consultant, speaker, and writer in the field of computerized litigation support systems.  He has also been a great addition to our webinar program, participating with me on several recent webinars.  Tom has also written several terrific informational overview series for CloudNine, including eDiscovery and the GDPR: Ready or Not, Here it Comes (which we covered as a webcast), Understanding eDiscovery in Criminal Cases (which we also covered as a webcast), ALSP – Not Just Your Daddy’s LPO and Why Is TAR Like a Bag of M&M’s?. Now, Tom has written another terrific overview regarding eDiscovery for the smaller cases titled eDiscovery for the Rest of Us that we’re happy to share on the eDiscovery Daily blog (and will cover later this month in a webcast).  Enjoy! – Doug

Tom’s overview is split into four parts, so we’ll cover each part separately.  Part One was published last Tuesday, Part Two was published last Thursday and Part Three was published on Tuesday.  Here’s the final part, Part Four.

The EDna Challenge, 2016

In 2016, Craig Ball revisited the Edna challenge with a new set of parameters and a panel at the annual ILTA conference on which I was privileged to be a participant. The panel sought what Craig called “… a re-examination of EDna options circa 2016 on a bigger budget.” https://craigball.net/2016/04/15/edna-still-cheap-and-challenged/ .

In this new challenge, Edna had a Zip file on a thumb drive containing collected ESI in various formats: 10 custodians with ESI PSTs for six of them, four MBOX take outs from Gmail for the other four and a combination of  word processed documents, spreadsheets, PowerPoint documents, PDFs and a few scanned paper documents for all ten. She estimated the contents will unzip to about 10-12 GB with somewhere between 50,000 to 100, 000 documents total.

The goal was to conduct a paperless privilege and responsiveness review of the material in-house, sharing the task with an associate and legal assistant.  All staff had high-end, big screen desktop PC running Windows 8.1 with MS Office 2016 and Adobe Acrobat 11 Pro installed and the office’s network file server had ample space for the document collection.

The specific goals were:

  • Efficient workflow
  • Robust search
  • Ability to process relevant metadata
  • Simple document tagging and production identification
  • Effective tracked deduplication
  • Review may take up to 90 days, and the case may not conclude for up to two years.  All review, hosting and production costs must be borne by the budget.

Edna didn’t own a review tool and was willing to spend up to $5,000.00 total for software, vendor services, SaaS, etc.  Craig’s only restrictions on responses were “She won’t spend a penny more.  You can’t loan her your systems or software.  You can’t talk her out of it.  Pricing must mirror real-world availability, not a special deal.”

The good news was that the increase in budget accompanied by the shift to Web based solutions made a dramatic change in the responses. As one independent analyst noted, if kept to 3 months hosting, more than 70% of the companies he worked with could meet the challenge. Brad Jenkins, CEO of CloudNine (the host of this article) noted that the CloudNine software would allow Edna  “… access to a complete eDiscovery platform for processing, review, and production. She can upload her data for automated native processing, review her data in CloudNine’s integrated review tool, and produce her data in almost any format.”  All for under the limit of the challenge.

What’s Next?

The next step in the market of technology for the rest of us is growth of Internet based tools.  We are now seeing even more budget conscious solutions in a SaaS environment, solutions that work with common native format files where you host your own data with programs installed locally that are able to accommodate smaller data collections.

Some of these are well-established companies such as Relativity or Ipro Tech and others are newer companies such as CloudNine, Digital War Room, Logikcull, CS Disco and Everlaw. Some of them also incorporate some form of front-end analytics to significantly reduce the amount of data to be processed as well as TAR or predictive coding technology to enable faster review of documents.

Conclusion

But the ultimate solution is more than just knowing the rules, avoiding e-jargon and understanding the technology. In our estimation, it is the process not the technology.

We are not alone in this appraisal. Technologist John Martin once commented, “It’s the archer not the arrow.” Craig Ball says, “The key consideration is workflow”.

The fact is that technology is not the key to successful management of e-discovery in small cases. Rather, the single most effective way to keep eDiscovery costs low is to work with your opposition in a cooperative manner so you can stipulate to the use of low cost solutions.

We all must change to the new paradigm of working in the digital world. In the words of The Hon. Lee Rosenthal, former Chair of the Standing Committee of the Judicial Conference, “Litigation habits and customs learned in the days of paper must be revisited and revised. The culture of bench and bar must adjust.”

Craig Ball described it as “throwing down the gauntlet in the Edna Challenge when he said, “So, how about it e-discovery industry? Can you divert your gaze from the golden calf long enough to see the future and recall the past? Sam Walton became the richest man of his era by selling to more for less. There’s a fast-growing need…and a huge emerging market.  The real Edna Challenge is waiting for the visionaries who will meet the need and serve this market.”

I think we’re very close to being there.

So, what do you think?  Do smaller litigation cases get shortchanged when it comes to eDiscovery technology?  As always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily 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 for the Rest of Us: eDiscovery Best Practices

Editor’s Note: Tom O’Connor is a nationally known consultant, speaker, and writer in the field of computerized litigation support systems.  He has also been a great addition to our webinar program, participating with me on several recent webinars.  Tom has also written several terrific informational overview series for CloudNine, including eDiscovery and the GDPR: Ready or Not, Here it Comes (which we covered as a webcast), Understanding eDiscovery in Criminal Cases (which we also covered as a webcast), ALSP – Not Just Your Daddy’s LPO and Why Is TAR Like a Bag of M&M’s?. Now, Tom has written another terrific overview regarding eDiscovery for the smaller cases titled eDiscovery for the Rest of Us that we’re happy to share on the eDiscovery Daily blog (and will cover later this month in a webcast).  Enjoy! – Doug

Tom’s overview is split into four parts, so we’ll cover each part separately.  Here’s the first part.

Introduction

With the high number of eDiscovery vendors and the huge amount of ED conferences, webinars and seminars, you might ask why we would talk about eDiscovery for “the rest of us”.  eDiscovery was initially seen as the exclusive domain of large firms with large cases in Federal court.  But the fact is that firms of all sizes now must know how to handle electronic discovery efficiently and cost-effectively. Why?

First, most attorneys in private practice are employed by law firms with fewer than 20 lawyers and, in fact, half of all U.S lawyers in private practice are solo practitioners.  Smaller firms mean smaller cases. With the increase in digital activity by people in all areas of their lives, we are now seeing e-discovery become an issue in domestic disputes, employment cases and even criminal matters. All case types handled by small firms.

And the initial Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing ESI have now been emulated in over 2/3 of the states with even an agreed-upon e-discovery exchange protocol between the offices of the U.S. Attorney and the Federal Defenders for criminal cases finding its way into state matters. Coast-to-coast, from California to Florida and from states as populous as New Jersey to mostly rural states such as Louisiana and Alabama, e-discovery is now a local issue.

Indeed, when Bruce Olson and I first gave a presentation called eDiscovery for Small Cases at the ABA TechShow in March of 2010, we didn’t expect much of a turnout.  But the room was packed and we both realized we had struck a nerve.

Why?  Bruce and I called it the Small Case Dilemma.  We’ll explore that issue and others in this paper, as follows:

  1. eDiscovery: The Early Years
  2. The EDna Challenge, 2009
  3. The Ernie Challenge
  4. The EDna Challenge, 2016
  5. What’s Next?
  6. Conclusion

We’ll publish Part 2 – eDiscovery: The Early Years and The EDna Challenge, 2009 – on Thursday.

So, what do you think?  Do smaller litigation cases get shortchanged when it comes to eDiscovery technology?  As always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Why Is TAR Like a Bag of M&M’s?, Part Four: eDiscovery Best Practices

Editor’s Note: Tom O’Connor is a nationally known consultant, speaker, and writer in the field of computerized litigation support systems.  He has also been a great addition to our webinar program, participating with me on several recent webinars.  Tom has also written several terrific informational overview series for CloudNine, including eDiscovery and the GDPR: Ready or Not, Here it Comes (which we covered as a webcast), Understanding eDiscovery in Criminal Cases (which we also covered as a webcast) and ALSP – Not Just Your Daddy’s LPO.  Now, Tom has written another terrific overview regarding Technology Assisted Review titled Why Is TAR Like a Bag of M&M’s? that we’re happy to share on the eDiscovery Daily blog.  Enjoy! – Doug

Tom’s overview is split into four parts, so we’ll cover each part separately.  The first part was covered last Tuesday, the second part was covered last Thursday and the third part was covered this past Tuesday.  Here’s the final part, part four.

Justification for Using TAR

So where does this leave us? The idea behind TAR – that technology can help improve the eDiscovery process – is a valuable goal. But figuring out what pieces of technology to apply at what point in the workflow is not so easy, especially when the experts disagree as to the best methodology.

Is there a standard, either statutory or in case law to help us with this determination?  Unfortunately, no. As Judge Peck noted on page 5 of the Hyles case mentioned above, “…the standard is not perfection, or using the “best” tool, but whether the search results are reasonable and proportional.”

FRCP 1 is even more specific.

These rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts, except as stated in Rule 81. They should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.  (emphasis added)

The Court in any given matter decides if the process being used is just.  And although we have seen ample evidence that computers are faster than humans, speed may not always equate to accuracy. I’ll leave aside the issue of accuracy for another day since two of the most interesting case studies, the EDI/Oracle study and the most recent Lex Geek “study” in which a human SME scored exactly the same number of accurate retrievals as the computer system.

I am most interested in pointing out that few if any studies or case law opinions address the issue of inexpensive.  To his credit, Judge Peck did note in footnote 2 on page 3 of the Hyles opinion that “…some vendor pricing models charge more for TAR than for keywords.” but went on to note that typically those costs are offset by review time savings.  With all due respect to Judge Peck, to whose opinion I give great credence, I am not sure that is necessarily the case.

Most case studies I have seen emphasize speed or accuracy and don’t even mention cost. Yet the increased emphasis on proportionality in eDiscovery matters makes this third requirement more important than ever. Maura Grossman does provide for this concern in her Broiler Chicken protocol but only to the extent that a concerned party should bring any issues to the Special Master.

The proportionality issue is an important one. Principle 4 of the Sedona Conference Commentary on Proportionality in Electronic Discovery states that “The application of proportionality should be based on information rather than speculation.” Absent specific statistics regarding TAR costs, it seems we are all too often engaging in speculation about the true cost a specific technology.

I am mindful of the decision in the case of In Re State Farm Lloyds in March of 2017 (covered by eDiscovery Daily here), in which the Texas Supreme Court, deciding a matter involving the form of production and noting it’s parity with the Federal Rules, remarked that one party made an assertion of an “… extraordinary and burdensome undertaking … without quantifying the time or expense involved.”   Meaningful case studies and their statistics about the actual costs of various technologies would go a long way towards resolving these sort of disputes and fulfilling the requirement of FRCP 1.

Conclusions

Although the use of TAR has been accepted in the courts for several years, there is still a great deal of confusion as to what TAR actually is. As a result, many lawyers don’t use TAR at all.

In addition, the lack of definitions makes pricing problematic. This means that the several of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are difficult if not impossible to implement including FRCP 1 and FRCP 26(b)(1).

It is essential for the proper use of technology to define what TAR means and to determine not only the different forms of TAR but the costs of using each of them.  Court approval of technology such as predictive coding, clustering and even AI all depend on clear concise information and cost analysis.  Only then will technology usage be effective as well as just, speedy and inexpensive.

So, what do you think?  How would you define TAR?  As always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Image Copyright © Mars, Incorporated and its Affiliates.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Why Is TAR Like a Bag of M&M’s?, Part Three: eDiscovery Best Practices

Editor’s Note: Tom O’Connor is a nationally known consultant, speaker, and writer in the field of computerized litigation support systems.  He has also been a great addition to our webinar program, participating with me on several recent webinars.  Tom has also written several terrific informational overview series for CloudNine, including eDiscovery and the GDPR: Ready or Not, Here it Comes (which we covered as a webcast), Understanding eDiscovery in Criminal Cases (which we also covered as a webcast) and ALSP – Not Just Your Daddy’s LPO.  Now, Tom has written another terrific overview regarding Technology Assisted Review titled Why Is TAR Like a Bag of M&M’s? that we’re happy to share on the eDiscovery Daily blog.  Enjoy! – Doug

Tom’s overview is split into four parts, so we’ll cover each part separately.  The first part was covered last Tuesday and the second part was covered last Thursday.  Here’s part three.

Uses for TAR and When to Use or Not Use It

Before you think about using more advanced technology, start with the basic tools early on: dedupe, de-nist, cull by dates and sample by custodians. Perhaps even keyword searches if your case expert fully understands case issues and is consistent in his or her application of that understanding.

When you have all (or at least most) of your data at the outset, some examples are:

  • Review-for-production with very large data sets
  • First pass review for Responsive/Not Responsive
  • First pass review for Privileged/Not Privileged
  • Deposition preparation
  • Working with an expert witness

Then when you are ready to move on to more advanced analytics, get an expert to assist you who has legal experience and can explain the procedure to you, your opponent and the Court in simple English.

Advanced tools may also be helpful when all of the data is not yet collected, but you need to:

  • Identify and organize relevant data in large datasets
  • When the objective is more than just identifying relevance or responsiveness
  • If you need to locate a range of issues
  • If you have a very short deadline for a motion or hearing

There are several operational cautions to keep in mind however.

  1. TAR isn’t new: it’s actually the product of incremental improvements over the last 15 years
  2. TAR isn’t one tool: just as there is no one definition of the tools, there is likewise no single approach to how they’re employed
  3. TAR tools do not “understand” or “read” documents. They work off of numbers, not words

And when do you NOT want to use TAR? Here is a good example.

This is a slide that Craig Ball uses in his presentation on TAR and eDiscovery:

Image Copyright © Craig D. Ball, P.C.

The point is clear. With large data sets that require little or no human assessment, TAR … and here we are specifically talking about predictive coding …. is your best choice. But for the close calls, you need a human expert.

How does this work with actual data? The graphic below from the Open Source Connections blog shows a search result using a TAR tool in a price fixing case involving wholesale grocery sales.  The query was to find and cluster all red fruits.

Image Copyright © Open Source Connections blog

What do see from this graphic?  The immediate point is that the bell pepper is red, but it is a vegetable not a fruit. What I pointed out to the client however was there were no grapes in the results.  A multi modal approach with human intervention could have avoided both these errors.

We’ll publish Part 4 – Justification for Using TAR and Conclusions – on Thursday.

So, what do you think?  How would you define TAR?  As always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Image Copyright © Mars, Incorporated and its Affiliates.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Why Is TAR Like a Bag of M&M’s?, Part Two: eDiscovery Best Practices

Editor’s Note: Tom O’Connor is a nationally known consultant, speaker, and writer in the field of computerized litigation support systems.  He has also been a great addition to our webinar program, participating with me on several recent webinars.  Tom has also written several terrific informational overview series for CloudNine, including eDiscovery and the GDPR: Ready or Not, Here it Comes (which we covered as a webcast), Understanding eDiscovery in Criminal Cases (which we also covered as a webcast) and ALSP – Not Just Your Daddy’s LPO.  Now, Tom has written another terrific overview regarding Technology Assisted Review titled Why Is TAR Like a Bag of M&M’s? that we’re happy to share on the eDiscovery Daily blog.  Enjoy! – Doug

Tom’s overview is split into four parts, so we’ll cover each part separately.  The first part was covered on Tuesday.  Here’s part two.

History and Evolution of Defining TAR

Most people would begin the discussion by agreeing with this framing statement made by Maura Grossman and Gordon Cormack in their seminal article, Technology-Assisted Review in E-Discovery Can Be More Effective and More Efficient Than Exhaustive Manual Review, (XVII RICH. J.L. & TECH. 11 (2011):

Overall, the myth that exhaustive manual review is the most effective—and therefore, the most defensible—approach to document review is strongly refuted. Technology-assisted review can (and does) yield more accurate results than exhaustive manual review, with much lower effort.

A technology-assisted review process may involve, in whole or in part, the use of one or more approaches including, but not limited to, keyword search, Boolean search, conceptual search, clustering, machine learning, relevance ranking, and sampling.

So, TAR began as a process and in the early stage of the discussion, it was common to refer to various TAR tools under the heading “analytics” as illustrated by the graphic below from Relativity.

Copyright © Relativity

That general heading was often divided into two main categories

Structured Analytics

  • Email threading
  • Near duplicate detection
  • Language detection

Conceptual Analytics

  • Keyword expansion
  • Conceptual clustering
  • Categorization
  • Predictive Coding

That definition of Predictive Coding as part of the TAR process held for quite some time. In fact, the current EDRM definition of Predictive Coding still refers to it as:

An industry-specific term generally used to describe a Technology-Assisted Review process involving the use of a Machine Learning Algorithm to distinguish Relevant from Non-Relevant Documents, based on a Subject Matter Expert’s Coding of a Training Set of Documents

But before long, the definition began to erode and TAR started to become synonymous with Predictive Coding. Why?  For several reasons I believe.

  1. The Grossman-Cormack glossary of 2013 used the phrase Coding” to define both TAR and PC and I think various parties then conflated the two. (See No. 2 below)

  1. Continued use of the terms interchangeably. See EG, Ralph Losey’s TARCourse,” where the very beginning of the first chapter states, “We also added a new class on the historical background of the development of predictive coding.”  (which is, by the way, an excellent read).
  2. Any discussion of TAR involves selecting documents using algorithms and most attorneys react to math the way the Wicked Witch of the West reacted to water.

Again, Ralph Losey provides a good example.  (I’m not trying to pick on Ralph, he is just such a prolific writer that his examples are everywhere…and deservedly so). He refers to gain curves, x-axis vs y-axis, HorvitsThompson estimators, recall rates, prevalence ranges and my personal favorite “word-based tf-idf tokenization strategy.”

“Danger. Danger. Warning. Will Robinson.”

  1. Marketing: the simple fact is that some vendors sell predictive coding tools. Why talk about other TAR tools when you don’t make them? Easier to call your tool TAR and leave it at that.

The problem became so acute that by 2015, according to a 2016 ACEDS News Article, Maura Grossman and Gordon Cormack trademarked the terms “Continuous Active Learning” and “CAL”, claiming those terms’ first commercial use on April 11, 2013 and January 15, 2014. In an ACEDS interview earlier in the year, Maura stated that “The primary purpose of our patents is defensive; that is, if we don’t patent our work, someone else will, and that could inhibit us from being able to use it. Similarly, if we don’t protect the marks ‘Continuous Active Learning’ and ‘CAL’ from being diluted or misused, they may go the same route as technology-assisted review and TAR.”

So then, what exactly is TAR? Everyone agrees that manual review is inefficient, but nobody can agree on what software the lawyers should use and how. I still prefer to go back to Maura and Gordon’s original definition. We’re talking about a process, not a product.

TAR isn’t a piece of software. It’s a process that can include many different steps, several pieces of software, and many decisions by the litigation team. Ralph calls it the multi-modal approach: a combination of people and computers to get the best result.

In short, analytics are the individual tools. TAR is the process you use to combine the tools you select.  The next consideration, then, is how to make that selection.

We’ll publish Part 3 – Uses for TAR and When to Use or Not Use It – next Tuesday.

So, what do you think?  How would you define TAR?  And, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Image Copyright © Mars, Incorporated and its Affiliates.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

Why Is TAR Like a Bag of M&M’s?: eDiscovery Best Practices

Editor’s Note: Tom O’Connor is a nationally known consultant, speaker, and writer in the field of computerized litigation support systems.  He has also been a great addition to our webinar program, participating with me on several recent webinars.  Tom has also written several terrific informational overview series for CloudNine, including eDiscovery and the GDPR: Ready or Not, Here it Comes (which we covered as a webcast), Understanding eDiscovery in Criminal Cases (which we also covered as a webcast) and ALSP – Not Just Your Daddy’s LPO.  Now, Tom has written another terrific overview regarding Technology Assisted Review titled Why Is TAR Like a Bag of M&M’s? that we’re happy to share on the eDiscovery Daily blog.  Enjoy! – Doug

Tom’s overview is split into four parts, so we’ll cover each part separately.  Here’s the first part.

Introduction

Over the past year I have asked this question several different ways in blogs and webinars about technology assisted review (TAR). Why is TAR like ice cream? Think Baskin Robbins? Why is TAR like golf? Think an almost incomprehensible set of rules and explanations. Why is TAR like baseball, basketball or football? Think never ending arguments about the best team ever.

And now my latest analogy. Why is TAR like a bag of M&M’s?  Because there are multiple colors with sometimes a new one thrown in and sometimes they have peanuts inside but sometimes they have chocolate.  And every now and then you get a bag of Reese’s Pieces and think to yourself, “ hmmmm, this is actually better than M&M’s. “

Two recent cases spurred this new rumination on TAR. First came the decision in Winfield, et al. v. City of New York, No. 15-CV-05236 (LTS) (KHP) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2017) (covered by eDiscovery Daily here), where Magistrate Judge Parker ordered the parties to meet and confer on any disputes with regards to a TAR process “with the understanding that reasonableness and proportionality, not perfection and scorched-earth, must be their guiding principles.”  More recently is the wonderfully crafted validation protocol (covered by ACEDS here) from Special Master Maura Grossman in the In Re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, (Jan. 3, 2018) matter currently pending in the Northern District of Illinois.

Both of these cases harkened back to Aurora Cooperative Elevator Company v. Aventine Renewable Energy or Independent Living Center of Southern California v. City of Los Angeles, a 2015 where the court ordered the use of predictive coding after extensive discovery squabbles and the 2016 decision in Hyles v. New York City (covered by eDiscovery Daily here) where by Judge Peck, in declining to order the parties to use TAR, used the phrase on page 1 of his Order, “TAR (technology assisted review, aka predictive coding) … “.

Which brings me to my main point of discussion. Before we can decide on whether or not to use TAR we have to decide what TAR is.  This discussion will focus on the following topics:

  1. History and Evolution of Defining TAR
  2. Uses for TAR and When to Use or Not Use It
  3. Justification for Using TAR
  4. Conclusions

We’ll publish Part 2 – History and Evolution of Defining TAR – on Thursday.

So, what do you think?  How would you define TAR?  And, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Image Copyright © Mars, Incorporated and its Affiliates.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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

ALSP – Not Just Your Daddy’s LPO, Part Four: eDiscovery Trends

Editor’s Note: Tom O’Connor is a nationally known consultant, speaker, and writer in the field of computerized litigation support systems.  He has also been a great addition to our webinar program, participating with me on several recent webinars.  Tom also wrote a terrific four part informational overview on Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) titled eDiscovery and the GDPR: Ready or Not, Here it Comes (and participated with me on a webcast on the same topic) and wrote another terrific five part informational overview on Understanding eDiscovery in Criminal Cases.  Now, Tom has written another terrific overview regarding Alternative Legal Service Providers titled ALSP – Not Just Your Daddy’s LPO that we’re happy to share on the eDiscovery Daily blog.  Enjoy! – Doug

Tom’s overview is split into four parts, so we’ll cover each part separately.  We covered part one on March 8 and parts two and three last Monday and Thursday.  Here’s the final part, part four.

What does this mean for the future of ALSPs?

According to the Thomson Reuters report, ALSPs are likely to continue to expand as the complexity and specialization of legal services grows. Additionally, we can expect that even more areas of ALSP specialization will develop. Some of the AM Law 50 and Fortune 50 may still choose to keep their work in-house due to their high level of internal resource or pains endured in the past with ALSPs, but the overall market for ALSP services in the rest of the legal profession should continue to expand.

Specifically, the report showed that while only 38 percent of law firms use a litigation support ALSP now, another 15 percent said they would be likely to use them in the next year. And among regulatory risk and compliance services for corporations, the number of users increases 13 percent for new users within the next year.

The biggest driver? Technology. Firms and companies interviewed for the report identified a number of different technologies they hoped ALSPs would use in the near future, including:

  • artificial intelligence,
  • contract management,
  • process mapping, and
  • workflow technology.

Eric Laughlin, Managing Director of Legal Services at Thomson Reuters, noted that in many cases, these are technologies that are still in the nascent stages in firms or legal departments, saying:

“I think it shows that while legal departments and law firms either haven’t been able to adopt yet because of budget, or perhaps because of the scale, they have high expectations that ALSPs will use technology to their advantage.”

Will there be growth pains? Undoubtedly.  The Thomson Reuters report mentions several areas that law firms and corporations would like clarified before adopting ALSPs, including:

  • 59 percent of law firms that do not use ALSPs cited data security as the main reason,
  • 54 percent of law firms cited quality of service as an inhibitor,
  • 43 percent of corporate users also cited quality of service as a negative, and
  • 43 percent of corporate users cited failure to actually reduce costs as the most negative factor.

The Legaltech New York panel mentioned earlier highlighted these factors, with security getting the most attention. However, the panel suggested these issues may revolve mainly around market education and getting potential customers more familiar with and gaining experience using ALSPs, rather than being insurmountable barriers to continued growth.

The panel also discussed the potential growth in the ALSP market and opined that ALSPs may be viewed as complementary, rather than competitive to firms, helping firms be more efficient and competitive. Since an ALSP is not a law firm, it can often provide one or more services that law firms might offer, but at a lower cost with increased expertise, flexibility, and speed.

Also, because they do not have to adhere to the structure and hierarchy of a law firm, an ALSP can more quickly change business practices to increase efficiency using technology or other innovative practices. Since clients have traditionally preferred having a single point of contact for all their legal business, this would seem to open the door to the opportunity for the law firm or GC to partner with ALSPs to offer cost-effective models for their clients.

What will that future ALSP included hierarchy look like?  First and foremost, it will require good project management skills. Well known legal consultant Casey Flaherty, Principal of the legal operations consulting company Procertas, was recently quoted as saying:

“Most successful users of ALSPs will tell you that… once they took time to train the provider and work to establish a common understanding for the product, the returns on the investment were spectacular.”

So more and more, ALSPs will become partners in legal work more than merely hired vendors. And like all partners in the legal process, the relationship will be ongoing and not simply oriented around one deliverable task.

“The future is now,” Fenwick & West LLP’s Robert Brownstone, who led the Legaltech panel on ALSPs, tells any and everyone who will listen. Brownstone often points out that “it is the rare law firm or legal department that can adequately ramp up – and keep up – on technology, project management and innovation. By planting their flag, ALSPs have provided legal departments not only with a wider array of choices but also a lever to pressure law firms to adjust to the new normal.”

So, while the future appears to be bright for ALSPs, the future also appears to be now.

So, what do you think?  Have you used an ALSP before?  And, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Also, it’s notable that Tom’s post is today because I (Doug) want to thank JD Supra and its readership for CloudNine being named the Readers’ Choice Top Firm in eDiscovery for the second straight year!  And, Tom and I were named two of the top four authors in the Readers’ Choice awards for eDiscovery!  I’m honored to be named for the second year in a row!  Distribution of our posts via JD Supra has continued to grow our readership greatly and I really appreciate our partnership with JD Supra and thank all of you for reading our blog, whether it’s via JD Supra or the “old fashioned way” via our site!  Thank you so much!

And, today our blog has been around for 7 1/2 years!  And, we are up to 1,942 lifetime posts!  Thanks to all of you of support and readership of the blog and making it all possible.  We wouldn’t write it if y’all didn’t read it!  :o)

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

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