Close
Enter your
text here

Analysis

Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Overrule Plaintiff’s Objections to Discovery Requests

Cooperation in Predictive Coding Exercise Fails to Avoid Disputed Production: eDiscovery Case Law
 In Dynamo Holdings v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Docket Nos. 2685-11, 8393-12 (U.S. Tax Ct. July 13, 2016), Texas Tax Court Judge Ronald Buch ruled denied the respondent’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents Containing Certain Terms, finding that there is “no question that petitioners satisfied our Rules when they responded using predictive coding”.

Case Background

In this case involving various transfers from one entity to a related entity where the respondent determined that the transfers were disguised gifts to the petitioner’s owners and the petitioners asserted that the transfers were loans, the parties previously disputed the use of predictive coding for this case and, in September 2014 (covered by us here), Judge Buch ruled that “[p]etitioners may use predictive coding in responding to respondent’s discovery request. If, after reviewing the results, respondent believes that the response to the discovery request is incomplete, he may file a motion to compel at that time.”

At the outset of this ruling, Judge Buch noted that “[t]he parties are to be commended for working together to develop a predictive coding protocol from which they worked”.  As indicated by the parties’ joint status reports, the parties agreed to and followed a framework for producing the electronically stored information (ESI) using predictive coding: (1) restoring and processing backup tapes, (2) selecting and reviewing seed sets, (3) establishing and applying the predictive coding algorithm; and (4) reviewing and returning the production set

While the petitioners were restoring the first backup tape, the respondent requested that the petitioners conduct a Boolean search and provided petitioners with a list of 76 search terms for the petitioners to run against the processed data.  That search yielded over 406,000 documents, from which two 1,000 document samples were conducted and provided to the respondent for review.  After the model was run against the second 1,000 documents, the petitioners’ technical professionals reported that the model was not performing well, so the parties agreed that the petitioners would select an additional 1,000 documents that the algorithm had ranked high for likely relevancy and the respondent reviewed them as well.  The respondent declined to review one more validation sample of 1,000 documents when the petitioner’s technical professionals explained that the additional review would be unlikely to improve the model.

Ultimately, using the respondent’s selected recall rate of 95 percent, the petitioners ran the algorithm against the 406,000 documents to identify documents to produce (followed by a second algorithm to identify privileged materials) and, between January and March 2016, the petitioners delivered a production set of approximately 180,000 total documents on a portable device for the respondent to review and included a relevancy score for each document – ultimately, the respondent only found 5,796 to be responsive (barely over 3% of the production) and returned the rest.

On June 17, 2016, the respondent filed a motion to compel production of the documents identified in the Boolean search that were not produced in the production set (1,353 of 1,645 documents containing those terms they claimed were not produced), asserting that those documents were “highly likely to be relevant.”  Ten days later, the petitioner filed an objection to the respondent’s motion to compel, challenging the respondent’s calculations of documents that were incorrectly produced by noting that only 1,360 of documents actually contained those terms, that 440 of them had actually been produced and that many of the remaining documents predated or postdated the relevant time period.  They also argued that the documents were selected by the predictive coding algorithm based on selection criteria set by the respondent.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Buch noted that “[r]espondent’s motion is predicated on two myths”: 1) the myth that “manual review by humans of large amounts of information is as accurate and complete as possible – perhaps even perfect – and constitutes the gold standard by which all searches should be measured”, and 2) the myth of a perfect response to the respondent’s discovery request, which the Tax Court Rules don’t require.  Judge Buch cited Rio Tinto where Judge Andrew Peck stated:

“One point must be stressed – it is inappropriate to hold TAR [technology assisted review] to a higher standard than keywords or manual review.  Doing so discourages parties from using TAR for fear of spending more in motion practice than the savings from using from using TAR for review.”

Stating that “[t]here is no question that petitioners satisfied our Rules when they responded using predictive coding”, Judge Buch denied the respondent’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents Containing Certain Terms.

So, what do you think?  If parties agree to the predictive coding process, should they accept the results no matter what?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. 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.

Court Rules that Judges Can Consider Predictive Algorithms in Sentencing: eDiscovery Trends

Score one for big data analytics.  According to The Wall Street Journal Law Blog, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled last week that sentencing judges may take into account algorithms that score offenders based on their risk of committing future crimes.

As noted in Court: Judges Can Consider Predictive Algorithms in Sentencing (written by Joe Palazzolo), the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling, upheld a six-year prison sentence for 34-year-old Eric Loomis, who was deemed a high risk of re-offending by a popular tool known as COMPAS (Correctional Offender  Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions), a 137-question test that covers criminal and parole history, age, employment status, social life, education level, community ties, drug use and beliefs.

“Ultimately, we conclude that if used properly, observing the limitations and cautions set forth herein, a circuit court’s consideration of a COMPAS risk assessment at sentencing does not violate a defendant’s right to due process,” wrote Justice Ann Walsh Bradley of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

During his appeal in April after pleading guilty to eluding an officer and no contest to operating a vehicle without the owner’s consent, Loomis challenged the use of the test’s score, saying it violated his right to due process of law because he was unable to review the algorithm and raise questions about it.  Loomis, a registered sex offender, had been then sentenced to six years in prison because his score on the COMPAS test noted he was a “high risk” to the community.

As part of the ruling, Justice Bradley ordered state officials to inform the sentencing court about several cautions regarding a COMPAS risk assessment’s accuracy: (1) the proprietary nature of COMPAS has been invoked to prevent disclosure of information relating to how factors are weighed or how risk scores are to be determined; (2) risk assessment compares defendants to a national sample, but no crossvalidation study for a Wisconsin population has yet been completed; (3) some studies of COMPAS risk assessment scores have raised questions about whether they disproportionately classify minority offenders as having a higher risk of recidivism; and (4) risk assessment tools must be constantly monitored and re-normed for accuracy due to changing populations and subpopulations.

And, the court also had guidance for how the scores should be used, as well:

“Although it cannot be determinative, a sentencing court may use a COMPAS risk assessment as a relevant factor for such matters as: (1) diverting low-risk prison-bound offenders to a non-prison alternative; (2) assessing whether an offender can be supervised safely and effectively in the community; and (3) imposing terms and conditions of probation, supervision, and responses to violations.”

So, while the sentencing judge may take COMPAS scores into consideration, they can’t use it to justify making a sentence longer or shorter, or serve as the sole factor in determining whether someone should be sentenced to prison or released into the community.  As Judge Bradley wrote in her opinion, “Using a risk assessment tool to determine the length and severity of a sentence is a poor fit”.

So, what do you think?  Should algorithms that have a significant effect on people’s lives be secret?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. 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.

Here’s One Group of People Who May Not Be a Fan of Big Data Analytics: eDiscovery Trends

Most of us love the idea of big data analytics and how it can ultimately benefit us, not just in the litigation process, but in business and life overall.  But, there may be one group of people who may not be as big a fan of big data analytics as the rest of us: criminals who are being sentenced at least partly on the basis of predictive data analysis regarding the likelihood that they will be a repeat offender.

This article in the ABA Journal (Legality of using predictive data to determine sentences challenged in Wisconsin Supreme Court case, written by Sony Kassam), discusses the case of 34-year-old Eric Loomis, who was arrested in Wisconsin in February 2013 for driving a car that had been used in a shooting.  He ultimately pled guilty to eluding an officer and no contest to operating a vehicle without the owner’s consent. Loomis, a registered sex offender, was then sentenced to six years in prison because a score on a test noted he was a “high risk” to the community.

During his appeal in April, Loomis challenged the use of the test’s score, saying it violated his right to due process of law because he was unable to review the algorithm and raise questions about it.

As described in The New York Times, the algorithm used is known as COMPAS (Correctional Offender  Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions).  Compas is an algorithm developed by a private company, Northpointe Inc., that calculates the likelihood of someone committing another crime and suggests what kind of supervision a defendant should receive in prison. The algorithm results come from a survey of the defendant and information about his or her past conduct.  Company officials at Northpointe say the algorithm’s results are backed by research, but they are “proprietary”. While Northpointe does acknowledge that men, women and juveniles all receive different assessments, the factors considered and the weight given to each are kept secret.

The secrecy and the use of different scales for men and women are at the heart of Loomis’ appeal, which an appellate court has referred to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which could rule on the appeal in the coming days or weeks.

Other states also use algorithms, including Utah and Virginia, the latter of which has used algorithms for more than a decade.  According to The New York Times, at least one previous prison sentence involving Compas was appealed in Wisconsin and upheld.  And, algorithms have also been used to predict potential crime hot spots: Police in Chicago have used data to identify people who are likely to shoot or get shot and authorities in Kansas City, Mo. have used data to identify possible criminals.  We’re one step closer to pre-crime, folks.

So, what do you think?  Should algorithms that have a significant effect on people’s lives be secret?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. 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.

Data May Be Doubling Every Couple of Years, But How Much of it is Original?: Best of eDiscovery Daily

Even those of us at eDiscovery Daily have to take an occasional vacation (which, as you can see by the picture above, means taking the kids to their favorite water park); however, instead of “going dark” for a few days, we thought we would take a look back at some topics that we’ve covered in the past.  Today’s post takes a look back at the challenge of managing duplicative ESI during eDiscovery.  Enjoy!

______________________________

According to the Compliance, Governance and Oversight Council (CGOC), information volume in most organizations doubles every 18-24 months (now, it’s more like every 1.2 years). However, just because it doubles doesn’t mean that it’s all original. Like a bad cover band singing Free Bird, the rendition may be unique, but the content is the same. The key is limiting review to unique content.

When reviewers are reviewing the same files again and again, it not only drives up costs unnecessarily, but it could also lead to problems if the same file is categorized differently by different reviewers (for example, inadvertent production of a duplicate of a privileged file if it is not correctly categorized).

Of course, we all know the importance of identifying exact duplicates (that contain the exact same content in the same file format) which can be identified through MD5 and SHA-1 hash values, so that they can be removed from the review population and save considerable review costs.

Identifying near duplicates that contain the same (or almost the same) information (such as a Word document published to an Adobe PDF file where the content is the same, but the file format is different, so the hash value will be different) also reduces redundant review and saves costs.

Then, there is message thread analysis. Many email messages are part of a larger discussion, sometimes just between two parties, and, other times, between a number of parties in the discussion. To review each email in the discussion thread would result in much of the same information being reviewed over and over again. Pulling those messages together and enabling them to be reviewed as an entire discussion can eliminate that redundant review. That includes any side conversations within the discussion that may or may not be related to the original topic (e.g., a side discussion about the latest misstep by Anthony Weiner).

Clustering is a process which pulls similar documents together based on content so that the duplicative information can be identified more quickly and eliminated to reduce redundancy. With clustering, you can minimize review of duplicative information within documents and emails, saving time and cost and ensuring consistency in the review. As a result, even if the data in your organization doubles every couple of years, the cost of your review shouldn’t.

So, what do you think? Does your review tool support clustering technology to pull similar content together for review? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. 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.

The Number of Files in Each Gigabyte Can Vary Widely: eDiscovery Best Practices

Now and then, I am asked by clients how many documents (files) are typically contained in one gigabyte (GB) of data.  When trying to estimate the costs for review, having a good estimate of the number of files is important to provide a good estimate for review costs.  However, because the number of files per GB can vary widely, estimating review costs accurately can be a challenge.

About four years ago, I conducted a little (unscientific) experiment to show how the number of pages in each GB can vary widely, depending on the file formats that comprise that GB.  Since we now tend to think more about files per GB than pages, I have taken a fresh look using the updated estimate below.

Each GB of data is rarely just one type of file.  Many emails include attachments, which can be in any of a number of different file formats.  Collections of files from hard drives may include Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Adobe PDF and other file formats.  Even files within the same application can vary, depending on the version in which they are stored.  For example, newer versions of Office files (e.g., .docx, .xlsx) incorporate zip compression of the text, so the data sizes tend to be smaller than their older counterparts.  So, estimating file counts with any degree of precision can be somewhat difficult.

To illustrate this, I decided to put the content from yesterday’s case law blog post into several different file formats to illustrate how much the size can vary, even when the content is essentially the same.  Here are the results – rounded to the nearest kilobyte (KB):

  • Text File Format (TXT): Created by performing a “Save As” on the web page for the blog post to text – 4 KB, it would take 262,144 text files at 4 KB each to equal 1 GB;
  • HyperText Markup Language (HTML): Created by performing a “Save As” on the web page for the blog post to HTML – 57 KB, it would take 18,396 HTML files at 57 KB each to equal 1 GB;
  • Microsoft Excel 97-2003 Format (XLS): Created by copying the contents of the blog post and pasting it into a blank Excel XLS workbook – 325 KB, it would take 3,226 XLS files at 325 KB each to equal 1 GB;
  • Microsoft Excel 2010 Format (XLSX): Created by copying the contents of the blog post and pasting it into a blank Excel XLSX workbook – 296 KB, it would take 3,542 XLSX files at 296 KB each to equal 1 GB;
  • Microsoft Word 97-2003 Format (DOC): Created by copying the contents of the blog post and pasting it into a blank Word DOC document – 312 KB, it would take 3,361 DOC files at 312 KB each to equal 1 GB;
  • Microsoft Word 2010 Format (DOCX): Created by copying the contents of the blog post and pasting it into a blank Word DOCX document – 299 KB, it would take 3,507 DOCX files at 299 KB each to equal 1 GB;
  • Microsoft Outlook 2010 Message Format (MSG): Created by copying the contents of the blog post and pasting it into a blank Outlook message, then sending that message to myself, then saving the message out to my hard drive – 328 KB, it would take 3,197 MSG files at 328 KB each to equal 1
  • Adobe PDF Format (PDF): Created by printing the blog post to PDF file using the CutePDF printer driver – 1,550 KB, it would take 677 PDF files at 1,550 KB each to equal 1

The HTML and PDF examples weren’t exactly an “apples to apples” comparison to the other formats – they included other content from the web page as well.  Nonetheless, the examples above hopefully illustrate that, to estimate the number of files in a collection with any degree of accuracy, it’s not only important to understand the size of the data collection, but also the makeup of the collection as well.  Performing an Early Data Assessment on your data beforehand can provide those file counts you need to more accurately estimate your review costs.

So, what do you think?  Was the 2016 example useful, highly flawed or both?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. 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.

At Litigation Time, the Cost of Data Storage May Not Be As Low As You Think: eDiscovery Best Practices

One of my favorite all-time graphics that we’ve posted on the blog (from one of our very first posts) is this ad from the early 1980s for a 10 MB disk drive – for $3,398!  That’s MB (megabytes), not GB (gigabytes) or TB (terabytes).  These days, the cost per GB for data storage is pennies on the dollar, which is a big reason why the total amount of data being captured and stored by industry doubles every 1.2 years.  But, at litigation time, all that data can cost you – big.

When I checked on prices for external hard drives back in 2010 (not network drives, which are still more expensive), prices for a 2 TB external drive at Best Buy were as low as $140 (roughly 7 cents per GB).  Now, they’re as low as $81.99 (roughly 4.1 cents per GB).  And, these days, you can go bigger – a 5 TB drive for as low as $129.99 (roughly 2.6 cents per GB).  I promise that I don’t have a side job at Best Buy and am not trying to sell you hard drives (even from the back of a van).

No wonder organizations are storing more and more data and managing Big Data in organizations has become such a challenge!

Because organizations are storing so much data (and in more diverse places than ever before), information governance within those organizations has become vitally important in keeping that data as manageable as possible.  And, when litigation or regulatory requests hit, the ability to quickly search and cull potentially responsive data is more important than ever.

Back in 2010, I illustrated how each additional GB that has to be reviewed can cost as much as $16,650 (even with fairly inexpensive contract reviewers).  And, that doesn’t even take into consideration the costs to identify, preserve, collect, and produce each additional GB.  Of course, that was before Da Silva Moore and several other cases that ushered in the era of technology assisted review (even though more cases are still not using it than are using it).  Regardless, that statistic illustrates how the cost of data storage may not be as low as you think at litigation time – each GB could cost hundreds or even thousands to manage (even in the era of eDiscovery automation and falling prices for eDiscovery software and services).

Equating the early 1980’s ad above to GB, that equates to about $330,000 per GB!  But, if you go all the way back to 1950, the cost of a 5 MB drive from IBM was $50,000, which equates to about $10 million per GB!  Check out this interactive chart of hard drive prices from 1950-2010, courtesy of That Data Dude (yes, that really is the name of the site) where you can click on different years and see how the price per GB has dropped over the years.  It’s way cool!

So, what do you think?  Do you track GB metrics for your cases?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. 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.

Ralph Losey of Jackson Lewis, LLP: eDiscovery Trends

This is the eighth and final of the 2016 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscovery Daily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year to get their observations regarding trends at the show and generally within the eDiscovery industry.  Unlike previous years, some of the questions posed to each thought leader were tailored to their position in the industry, so we have dispensed with the standard questions we normally ask all thought leaders.

 

Today’s thought leader is Ralph Losey. Ralph is an attorney in private practice with the law firm of Jackson Lewis, LLP, where he is a Shareholder and the firm’s National e-Discovery Counsel. Ralph is also a prolific author of eDiscovery books and articles, the principal author and publisher of the popular e-Discovery Team® Blog, founder and owner of an online training program, e-Discovery Team Training, with attorney and technical students all over the world, founder of the new Electronic Discovery Best Practices (EDBP) lawyer-centric work flow model. Ralph is also the publisher of LegalSearchScience.com and PreSuit.com on predictive coding methods and applications.

What are your general observations about LTNY this year and about eDiscovery trends in general?

{Interviewed the second day of LTNY}

I have not been on the vendor floor yet, but I hope to get there.  I have been in several meetings and I was able to attend the keynote on cybersecurity today by Eric O’Neill, who was a terrific speaker.  They started out by showing the movie that was made of the big event in his life where they caught the biggest spy America has ever had.  He talked about that incident and cybersecurity and it was very good.  Of course, cybersecurity is something that I’m very interested in, but not so much as an expert in the field, but just as an observer.  My interest in cybersecurity is only as it relates to eDiscovery.  O’Neill was talking about the big picture of catching spies and industrial espionage and the Chinese stealing American secrets.  It was very good and the auditorium was filled.

Otherwise, the show seems quite alive and vibrant, with orange people and Star Wars characters here and there as a couple of examples of what the providers were doing to get attention here at the show.  I have been live “tweeting” during the show.  Of course, I’ve seen old friends pretty much everywhere I walk and everybody is here as usual.  LTNY remains the premier event.

One trend that I’ll comment on is the new rules.  I didn’t think the rules would make that much difference.  Maybe they would be somewhat helpful.  But, what I’m seeing in practice is that they’ve been very helpful.  They really seem to help lawyers to “get it”.  Proportionality is not a new message for me, but having it in the rules, I have found more helpful than I thought.  So far, so good, knock on wood – that has been a pleasant surprise.  I’m upbeat about that and the whole notion of proportionality, which we’ve really needed.  I’ve been talking about proportionality for at least five years and, finally, it really seems to have caught on now, particularly with having the rules, so I’m upbeat about that.

I’ve observed that there seems to be a drop off in sessions this year discussing predictive coding and technology assisted review (TAR).  Do you agree and, if so, why do you think that is?

I read that too, but it seems like I’ve seen several sessions that are discussing TAR.  I’ve noticed at least four, maybe five sessions that are covering it.  I noticed that FTI was sponsoring sessions related to TAR and Kroll was as well.  So, I’m not sure that I agree with that 100%.  I think that the industry’s near obsession with it in some of the prior shows is maybe not a fair benchmark in terms of how much attention it is getting.  Since it’s my area of special expertise, I would probably always want to see it get more attention, but I realize that there are a number of other concerns.  One possible reason for less coverage, if that is the case, is that TAR is less controversial than it once was.  Judges have all accepted it – nobody has said “no, it’s too risky”.  So, I think a lot of the initial “newsworthiness” of it is gone.

As I stated in my talk today, the reality is that the use of TAR requires training via the old fashioned legal apprenticeship tradition.  I teach people how to do it by their shadowing me, just like when I first learned how to try a case when I carried the briefcase of the trial lawyer.  And, after a while, somebody carried my briefcase.  Predictive coding is the same way.  People are carrying my briefcase now and learning how to do it, and pretty soon, they’ll do it on their own.  It only takes a couple of matters watching how I do it for somebody to pick it up.  After that, they might contact me if they run into something unusual and troublesome.  Otherwise, I think it’s just getting a lot simpler – the software is getting better and it’s easier to do.  You don’t need to be a rocket scientist.

My big thing is to expose the misuse of the secret control set that was making it way too complicated.  No one has stood up in defense of the secret control set, so I think I’m succeeding in getting rid of one of the last obstacles to adopting predictive coding – this nonsense about reviewing and coding 10,000 random documents before you even start looking for the evidence.  That was crazy.  I’ve shown, and others have too, that it’s just not necessary.  It overcomplicates matters and, if anything, it allows for a greater potential for error, not less as was its intent.  We’ve cleaned up predictive coding, gotten rid of some mistaken approaches, the software is getting better and people are getting more knowledgeable, so there’s just no longer the need to have every other session be about predictive coding.

One trend that I’ve observed is an increased focus on automation and considerable growth of, and investment in, eDiscovery automation providers.  What are your thoughts about that trend?

It is the trend and it will be the trend for the next 20 or 30 years.  We’re just seeing the very beginning of it.  The first way it has impacted the legal profession is through document review and the things that I’m doing.  I love artificial intelligence because I need the help of artificial intelligence to boost my own limited intelligence.  I can only remember so many things at once, I make mistakes, I’m only human.  So, I believe that AI is going to augment the lawyers that are able to use it and they are going to be able to do much, much more than before.  I can do the work of one hundred linear reviewers with no problem, by using a software AI enhancement.

It’s not going to put lawyers out of work, but it is going to reduce the volume of menial tasks in the law.  For mental tasks that a lawyer can do that require just simple logic, a computer can do those tasks better than a human can do them.  Simple rules-based applications, reviewing documents – there are many things that lawyers do that a computer can do better.  But, there are also many, many things that only a human can do.  We’re nowhere near actually replacing lawyers and I don’t think we ever will.

Just like all of the great technology doesn’t replace doctors in the medical profession – it just makes them better, makes them able to do miraculous things.  The same thing will happen in the law.  There will be lawyers, but they will be able to do what, by today’s standards, would look miraculous.  How did that lawyer know how that judge was going to rule so exactly?  That’s one of the areas we’re getting into with AI – predicting not just the coding of documents, but predicting how judges will rule.  Right now, that’s an art form, but that’s the next big step in big data.  They are already starting to do that in the patent world where they already have a pretty good idea how certain judges will rule on certain things.  So, that’s the next application of AI that is coming down the road.

I think the continued advancement of AI and automation will be good for lawyers who adapt.  For the lawyers that get technology and spend the time to learn it, the future looks good.  For those who don’t and want to keep holding on to the “buggy whip”, they will find that the cars pass them by.

It seems like acquisition and investment in the eDiscovery market is accelerating, with several acquisitions and VC investments in providers in just the past few months.  Do you feel that we are beginning to see true consolidation in the market?

Yes, I think it’s more than just beginning – I think it’s well underway.  And, I think that’s a good thing.  Why?  Because there are so many operations that are not solid, that, in a more sophisticated market, wouldn’t survive.  But, because many legal markets around the country are not sophisticated about eDiscovery, they are able to sell services to people who just don’t know any better and I don’t think these people are helping the legal profession.  So, consolidation is good.  I’m not saying that “new blood” isn’t good too, if those providers are really good at what they do.  But, I think that’s a natural result of the marketplace itself becoming more sophisticated.

However, I do think the entire industry is vulnerable someday to extreme consolidation if Google and IBM decide to take an interest in it.  I’ve long predicted that, at the end of the day, there will be three or four players.  Aside from Google and IBM, who that will be, I don’t know.  Maybe Google and IBM will never go into it.  But, I believe Google will go into it and I think IBM will do so too.  While I don’t have any inside knowledge to that effect, I think they’re probably researching it.  I think they would be silly not to research it, but I don’t think they have a big staff devoted to it.

I read about this a lot because I’m curious about IBM in particular and I think that IBM is focusing all of its resources right now on medicine and doctors.  They do have a booth here and they do have some eDiscovery focus, particularly on preservation and the left side of the EDRM model.  What they don’t have yet is “Watson, the review lawyer”.  In fact, I have said this in my Twitter account that if there ever is a “Watson, the review lawyer”, I challenge him.  They can beat Jeopardy, but when it comes to things as sophisticated as legal analysis, I don’t think they’re there yet. Several of our existing e-Discovery vendor software is better. Anybody could beat a regular human, but when it comes to beating an “automated human”, I don’t think IBM is there yet. I bet IBM will have to buy out another e-discovery vendor to enhance their Watson algorithms.  I hope I’m still practicing when they are ready, because I’d like to take them on.  Maybe I’ll get beaten, but it would be fun to try and I think I can win, unless they happen to buy the vendor I use. Regardless, I think it’s clear that technology is going to keep getting better and better, but so will the tech savvy lawyers who use the technology to augment their human abilities of search and legal analysis. The key is the combination of Man and Machine, which is what I call the “hybrid” approach.

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

I am looking into the feasibility of having an eDiscovery “hackathon”.  If you’ve heard of a regular “hackathon”, you get the idea.  This would be a 24 hour event where the technology providers who think they are the best in document review come together and compete.  It would be a fair and open content, run by scientists, where everybody has the same chance.  Scientists will compute the scores and determine who obtained the best recall and best precision to determine a winner.  It would be a way for us to generate interest the same way that cybersecurity does, using a live event to allow people to watch how high-tech lawyers do it.  I think you would be amazed how much information can be found in 24 hours, if you’re using the technology right.  It will be a proving ground for those vendors who think they have good software.  Basically, I’m saying “show me”, “put up or shut up”.

The reality is, my presentation today was on TREC and I showed up with Kroll Ontrack – the only other vendor to show up was Catalyst, nobody else showed up.  So, I’m going to make it easier and say “it’s 24 hours, compete!”  Anybody can say that they’re great, but show me – I want to see it to believe it.  Everybody loves competition – it’s fun.  My concern is all the other vendors will be too risk adverse to compete against us. They are just empty suits.

For me, it’s exciting to do document review.  I enjoy document review and if you don’t enjoy document review, you’re doing something wrong.  You’re not really harnessing the power of artificial intelligence.  Because working with a robot at your side that’s helping you find evidence can be a lot of fun.  It’s somewhat like an Easter egg hunt – it’s fun to look for things when you have the help of AI to do the heavy lifting for you.   Review a million documents?  No problem if you have a good AI robot at your side.

So, I’m thinking of ways to show the world what eDiscovery can do and, within our community, to see who are among us is really the best.  I have won before, so I think I can do it again, but you never know. There are many other great search attorneys out there. If we do pull it off with a hackathon, or something like that, there may not be one clear winner, but there may be a few that do better than others. It’s never been done before and I like to do things that have never been done before. But it will not happen unless other vendors step up to the plate and have the confidence to dare to compete. Time will tell…

Thanks, Ralph, for participating in the interview!

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

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. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Predictive Coding is Officially Approved in First English Case: eDiscovery Case Law

Last month, in Pyrrho Investments Ltd v MWB Property Ltd [2016] EWHC 256 (Ch), citing the landmark DaSilva Moore case (among other authorities), Master Matthews approved the use of predictive coding, due to the “enormous” expense of manually searching through the three million electronic documents associated with the case.  This is the believed to be the first time an English court has approved the use of predictive coding.

In this case, the parties, through several rounds of correspondence, “agreed on the (automated) method to be employed”, which “involves ‘predictive coding’”, and “also the scope of the keywords to be employed”.  Citing DaSilva Moore, Master Matthews referenced several comments in Judge Peck’s decision nearly four years earlier, including:

“The decision to allow computer-assisted review in this case was relatively easy – the parties agreed to its use (although disagreed about how best to implement such review). The Court recognises that computer-assisted review is not a magic, Staples-easy-Button, solution appropriate for all cases. The technology exists and should be used where appropriate, but it is not a case of machine replacing humans: it is the process used and the interaction of man and machine that the court needs to examine…The goal is for the review method to result in higher recall and higher precision than another review method, at cost proportionate to the ‘value’ of the case… Computer-assisted review appears to be better than the available alternatives, and thus should be used in appropriate cases.”

Master Matthews also referenced Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd v Quinn, where the Irish High Court also endorsed the use of predictive coding.  In that case, the process was proposed by the plaintiffs and approved by the court over the objections by the defendants.

In approving the use of predictive coding in this case, Master Matthews provided these factors in favor of the decision {emphasis added}:

“(1)          Experience in other jurisdictions, whilst so far limited, has been that predictive coding software can be useful in appropriate cases.

(2)           There is no evidence to show that the use of predictive coding software leads to less accurate disclosure being given than, say, manual review alone or keyword searches and manual review combined, and indeed there is some evidence (referred to in the US and Irish cases to which I referred above) to the contrary,

(3)           Moreover, there will be greater consistency in using the computer to apply the approach of a senior lawyer towards the initial sample (as refined) to the whole document set, than in using dozens, perhaps hundreds, of lower-grade fee-earners, each seeking independently to apply the relevant criteria in relation to individual documents.

(4)           There is nothing in the CPR or Practice Directions to prohibit the use of such software.

(5)           The number of electronic documents which must be considered for relevance and possible disclosure in the present case is huge, over 3 million.

(6)           The cost of manually searching these documents would be enormous, amounting to several million pounds at least, hr my judgment, therefore, a full manual review of each document would be “unreasonable” within paragraph 25 of Practice Direction B to Part 31, at least where a suitable automated alternative exists at lower cost.

(7)           The costs of using predictive coding software would depend on various factors, including importantly whether the number of documents is reduced by keyword searches, but the estimates given in this case vary between £181,988 plus monthly hosting costs of £15,717, to £469,049 plus monthly hosting costs of £20,820. This is obviously far less expensive than the full manual alternative, though of course there may be additional costs if manual reviews still need to be carried out when the software has done its best.

(8)           The ‘value’ of the claims made in this litigation is in the tens of millions of pounds. In my judgment the estimated costs of using the software are proportionate.

(9)           The trial in the present case is not until June 2017, so there would be plenty of time to consider other disclosure methods if for any reason the predictive software route turned out to be unsatisfactory.

(10)         The parties have agreed on the use of the software, and also how to use it, subject only to the approval of the Court.”

In approving the use of predictive coding in this case, Master Matthews also stated that “There were no factors of any weight pointing in the opposite direction.”  And, saving us the trouble of checking to see if there were any previous English cases that approved predictive coding, he noted that “a search of the BAILII online database for ‘predictive coding software’ returned no hits at all, and for ‘predictive coding’ and ‘computer-assisted review’ only the Irish case referred to above.”

In his blog, eDisclosure Information Project, Chris Dale (whose thought leader interview on this blog was published last Friday), posted his reaction to the decision and referenced several other blogs and publications with their coverage of the decision as well.

So, what do you think?  Will this case become the “DaSilva Moore” for English courts?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. 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.

Pete Feinberg of Consilio: eDiscovery Trends

This is the seventh of the 2016 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscovery Daily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year to get their observations regarding trends at the show and generally within the eDiscovery industry.  Unlike previous years, some of the questions posed to each thought leader were tailored to their position in the industry, so we have dispensed with the standard questions we normally ask all thought leaders.

Today’s thought leader is Pete Feinberg.  Pete is Senior Vice President of Product Strategy at Consilio, responsible for the overall product strategy and product management of Consilio’s products and services line.  Prior to joining Consilio, Pete ran marketing for the largest vertical of Blackboard – a Washington DC-based education technology company. Prior to that, Pete served as vice president in various product, partner marketing and eCommerce roles at a variety of B2B software and B2C eRetail companies in the Washington DC area. Pete’s specialties are in guiding product strategy, bringing new products and services to market, representing the voice of the client as an executive “client advocate”, and guiding the service delivery organization to engage with clients not as a vendor, but instead as a trusted advisor.

What are your general observations about LTNY this year?

For me, LTNY has always been about connecting with clients and prospective clients.  As we do so, we hearing about the challenges that people are having, and what they’re doing to tackle those challenges, and what we ought to be doing as a services provider to help them overcome those challenges.  In that regard, I think it has been a great LegalTech.

From my vantage point, it makes an awful lot of sense for those in the legal community to come in every two years to stay connected, understand the state of the technology in our industry, talk with people that you haven’t seen in a while and be a part of the innovation and evolution of our space.  From that perspective, it has been a very fulfilling LegalTech and I’ve had a lot of fun doing so.

At the end of the day, LegalTech or anything else we do is about connecting with our clients.  It’s about making sure that we have the opportunity to have that discussion.  If that discussion can happen in a large format, splashy booth – so be it.  If it can happen in other venues that are less expensive, that’s even better.  What’s important to us – and guides all that we do here at LTNY – is making sure that we have that discussion with our clients one way or another.  We’ll continue to recalibrate and figure out our best approach to LTNY as we go.

It seems like acquisition and investment in the eDiscovery market is accelerating, with Consilio being forefront in that acquisition and investment in the market.  Do you feel that we are beginning to see true consolidation in the market?

Our industry is reaching a plateau of maturity.  My history in the eDiscovery and legal space goes back three years, so I’ll echo what I’ve heard from those who’ve been in the space before I got here.  Those long-timers tell the story that there was a time when LegalTech was not always all about eDiscovery.  But right now, when you look around, it’s almost an eDiscovery event and other technology is more of a footnote.  That may be overstating it a bit, but let’s just say that eDiscovery providers are taking a dominant position in all of the major signage around the show and, if you look at all of the major booths on the exhibit floor, they all seem to be eDiscovery-oriented.

In the past couple of years, the common theme people were echoing was a sentiment of disappointment or feeling of loss that there was no new “next big thing”.  That’s a bit of a head scratcher personally, because technology will proceed at technology’s pace and it seems that statement is somewhat grounded in expectation that technology is always going to come up with some discontinuous innovation in a 12 month cycle that’s going to turn the entire market on its head and that’s just not a reasonable expectation as markets mature over time.

I also believe the activity that we’re seeing on the consolidation and M&A front is very indicative of the market maturing.  Niches have largely been filled.  And US-centric service providers have increased their depth, either organically or through inorganic acquisition.  But there is still a bit of a “wild west” openness outside of the US.  In Europe, there are fewer true providers and in Asia, there are fewer true providers still.  So, there is still opportunity for investment, innovation and growth, and I expect that’s going to continue to create attractive M&A targets.

But, I think the consolidation wave that preceded this Legaltech is evidence of market maturation.  There will always be innovation, even today, even in this LegalTech, you still see folks that are coming up with interesting ways to spin technologies with existing underlying engines.  Now it may not be “discontinuous, next big thing innovation”, but there is a constant, steady stream of innovation all around us exemplified by providers at this very show.  For example, analytics engines have been around for a while, half-a-dozen years even, but now you see them presented and integrated into meaningful workflows that are pragmatically useful to attorneys – better than in the past.    So, I think you’ll continue to see refinement of technology and refinement of workflows and a focus on meaningful, useful exposure of those technologies to attorneys.   So the market should expect that providers will continue to do interesting things, but those things may not be considered big and splashy and “next big” level of innovation.

Going back to your question in terms of consolidation, as markets mature, it’s naturally going to happen.  Investors, at some point in time, will want to realize return and that often happens through a sale.  I also think that there are some macro trends in the market that are fueling this trend.   In fact, there is actually an article in LegalTech News (the printed magazine) called Shark Bait by Zach Warren that is very much about this topic.

We’re continuing see evolution of eDiscovery into a true global industry.  Multinationals have global operations, they have data stores around the world in disparate systems, that originated from within smaller acquired companies.  So there are these pockets of data that the global entity really is unfamiliar with.  Then when matter sparks, the legal team – who is the least aware of these data stores – have to get their data from data stores in Serbia or Singapore.  If those legal teams have a mid-market eDiscovery services provider that is US-centric, well, that poses challenges.  We are seeing more cross-border matters, and more data collected from data stores outside the US – and as that trend continues, that will fuel the need for service providers that can support that global reach.

At Consilio, we made that leap to being a truly global eDiscovery services provider earlier than most folks did.  We were doing this back in 2006 and 2007.  We made our own missteps as you would expect of all companies doing so, but we persevered and became a truly global (in fact, by some measures more global than domestic) eDiscovery provider.  That made us very attractive for investment.  It’s one of the reasons that Shamrock Capital invested in Consilio and it’s a similar situation to what is fueling some of these eDiscovery acquisitions happening today.  Multinationals need global reach and they also need depth of bench – they need both.  Those providers that have both will be successful.

One trend that I’ve observed is an increased focus on automation and considerable growth of, and investment in, eDiscovery automation providers.  What are your thoughts about that trend?

We have to think about the eDiscovery technology market in subsectors or subcomponents.  Consider that eDiscovery is a very different game for a 175 custodian, six year collection out of systems that originate in Japan or Belgium than it is for a mid-sized law firm that generally focuses on employment law with one or two local custodians over a six month period.  These are very different things.

Those who aren’t serial litigants, and are focusing on more small-scale matters don’t always necessarily want to put those matters into Relativity.  They don’t want to have to go through an elongated processing step.  They just have a PST from somebody in the organization and they just want to look at those documents and apply a couple of tags.  So, on the one hand, you’re seeing automation from folks like Everlaw or CloudNine that allow for the “automation” of just dragging a PST folder into a web app and the files unpack automatically and the metadata is created, with simple point-click-go tagging.  That need exists and I think there’s a model now (and I’ve heard it a couple of times this week alone) where attorneys have said “I like self-service”.  Up to a point.  In cases where that’s a preferred flow leveraging automation, the attorney may have a need to graduate to Relativity or some other more mature platform with project managers who will provide value and guidance and best practices – but there is a cost to that.

I believe that there is a long-term trend in the market toward self-service.  That means that providers must and will continue to refine their user experiences and software in a way they were not three to five years ago.  I think it’s a responsibility of technology creators and innovators to meet the market where it is and to bring it forward and I think automation is a big, big part of that.

Let me also add that even at the large-scale end of the market, typically with companies that are used to a routine frequency of matters, there is a need for automation.  Along these lines, one of our strategic clients stopped me during our discussion about technology and said “tell me about automation in your platform”.  This is a client that has total eDiscovery spend well north of $100 million per year.  And, even in that scenario, she was interested in automation.  The reason is that these large scale investigations get very complex.  One of our most complex matters, we actually have over 3,200 discrete assignment batches within a single security group in a project that, itself, has five different security groups.  When you have 3,200 assignments, how do you keep track of all that?  Well that needs to be visualized, and the workflow needs to be automated – especially when you have project managers that are billing north of $100 US per hour who would otherwise be performing these tasks.  These clients need self-service for the large-scale matters just like clients do for the smaller-scale matters.  So there’s a drive toward automation at all levels of the spectrum.

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

Our story is pretty simple at LegalTech this year.  We’ve brought together not just two companies, but three companies, with the inclusion of Proven Legal Technologies – a well respected eDisclosure services and litigation support company in the UK.  We’ve brought together these fantastically experienced pieces, but we’ve done so in a way that’s so complementary.  I’m not sure that I’ve ever seen its equal in my years, not only in this industry, but in other industries where I’ve worked.

If you asked Huron Legal before the acquisition who their target client is, they would say it’s the Fortune 2000 multinational corporation with global operations with some sort of investment already made in their own in-house eDiscovery capabilities.  From Consilio, you would have heard pretty much the same answer.  You would also have heard the same answer on the law firm side – that we tend to partner with AmLaw 200 law firms that have some level of global operations and tend to get involved in global investigations and large-scale litigation.  On the surface, you would probably say that these two organizations probably have a tremendous amount of overlap.  But, now that we’ve put the pieces on the table side-by-side, it’s phenomenal how tremendously complementary they are and how they don’t overlap.  When you look on a client basis, there are a very small handful of our clients that are actually shared and even those that are shared tend to be law firms with a different practice area, so even those aren’t completely shared.  Less than five percent of our total client base actually overlapped, which is phenomenal.

When you look at capabilities where Huron Legal was incredibly strong – Relativity hosting, Nuix processing, Brainspace analytics and an incredible depth of bench here in the US, but not outside of the US – it married perfectly with Consilio’s tremendous global capability that dates back to 2006 where we made investments in APAC and Europe.  So, there was also a tremendous complementary nature to our businesses that way.  Consilio also has a deep history of doing its own innovation.  And the things that we’ve done around audio review and chat transcript review (which seems to be a huge trend in the market right now).  There are communication types that need to be evaluated and not necessarily in the same manner as email.  This type of innovation engine is complementary to the whole as well.  As you go down the list, you see that this is pretty much a marriage of strengths.

What has been really interesting to us (and I think is indicative of our market feedback), when we look at what is entering our pipeline, it is exactly the type of matters in which we want to get involved – large-scale litigation, complex matters, cross-border or non-US investigations.  It is the outsourced approach where our clients want us to handle processing through production for them, and help them leverage analytics when they’re not comfortable doing it themselves.  These are the types of matters where we are being called to service and it’s hugely gratifying to know that the thesis of the case was right – to bring these companies and technologies and depth of bench together.  It’s what we want to be known for.

Thanks, Pete, for participating in the interview!

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

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. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Chris Dale of The eDisclosure Information Project: eDiscovery Trends

This is the sixth of the 2016 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscovery Daily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year to get their observations regarding trends at the show and generally within the eDiscovery industry.  Unlike previous years, some of the questions posed to each thought leader were tailored to their position in the industry, so we have dispensed with the standard questions we normally ask all thought leaders.

Today’s thought leader is Chris Dale.  Chris is director of the UK-based eDisclosure Information Project.  Chris qualified as an English solicitor in 1980 after reading History at Oxford. He was a litigation partner in London and then a litigation software developer and litigation support consultant before turning to commentary on electronic disclosure / discovery. The e-Disclosure Information Project disseminates information about the court rules, the problems, and the technology to lawyers and their clients, to judges, and to suppliers. He was a member of Senior Master Whitaker’s Working Party which drafted Practice Direction 31B and the Electronic Documents Questionnaire. Chris is also a well-known speaker and commentator in the UK, the US and other common law jurisdictions.

What are your general observations about LTNY this year and about emerging eDisclosure (eDiscovery) trends overall?

{Interviewed the first morning of LTNY, so the focus of the question to Chris was more about his expectations for the show and also about general industry trends}.

I used to check off all of the sessions that I planned to go to, then so many meetings and other things came along that I’ve long given up even looking at the schedule.  I do my interviews and other meetings and if I have time for anything else, it’s a luxury.  I do a lot of video interviews, and two panels in addition to the one I did yesterday, and that’s enough.

In technology terms, the stress on visualization is important because it will induce lawyers in to take a look at the demos.  The idea that they can see broad pictures and go down to the details is becoming more interesting and I’ve been impressed with some of the products that I’ve seen.  Trying to get the lawyers in and trying to get them to see the time saved and reduced time scales that might actually give them a strategic advantage is key to getting them to adopt the technology and visualization is a key part of that.  One of the troubles here in the US is that everybody thinks defensively still.  The mindset is still very much post-Zubulake and “we’ll be in trouble if we don’t do this”.

One of the potential advantages that I’m seeing specifically in visualization is that people might actually begin to see benefits.  There’s evidence in there, not just threat or risk.  It’s less of a “black box” to the lawyer.  There’s a strategic advantage in knowing early on what you’re going to do.  There’s more to that than just visualization, but we’re seeing tools that are aimed at that.  All those years when everybody talked about Early Case Assessment, it became just a phrase.  But now, we’re beginning to see tools that genuinely make that possible.  It’s a tactical advantage of being on top.  Craig Ball is always talking about whether you would rather be the one who can say “we’ve got this, this and this and that and that” and “this is our document retention policy and how we deal with BYOD, how about you?”  The tactical benefits from having this information early on is a huge benefit for lawyers.  The more you can visualize and the less it seems like a “black box”, the better.

One trend that I’ve observed is an increased focus on automation and considerable growth of, and investment in, eDiscovery automation providers.  What are your thoughts about that trend?

Other than for those who are early adopters, these providers will, to some extent, meet the same resistance because it is seen a “black box” that is doing the lawyers’ job for them and the concern will be the double-level of “what happens to my job” and also “how do I know it’s doing it right?”  For these providers, the education side will be just as important to the automation side in allaying those fears and concerns and showing them that it can do the processing just as well and faster.  Clearly, whether you’re talking about processing files or cleaning the house or whatever, anything that can do the job faster and easier has got to bite.

How do procedures and rules in the UK differ from those in the US with regard to handling of electronically stored information?

One difference is that proportionality really does mean something in the UK and is hammered down your throat at every opportunity.  Here, there are some judges who get the point, but there are an awful lot of lawyers who don’t get it.  The idea of balancing risk against cost, which is what proportionality really amounts to, is tipped heavily by the point that I made earlier about risk being the driving factor.  On that particular point, the rules have driven us over there longer than they have here.  Proportionality has actually been in your rules, but no one has actually taken an awful lot of notice of it.  I did a panel with Judge Peck yesterday and one of the first times I had seen the word proportionality over here was in one of his opinions (even though it has been in your rules for a long time).

We’re also more consistent when it comes to judge-led direction.  That is because active management is the job of the judge and they have taken it seriously over there.  We’re seeing an increasing number of judges over here take that role on themselves – still not many, but more than before.  Judge Grimm was the first to say “you’ll do it this way” or “why aren’t you doing it that way?” using whatever means within the rules to nudge people in the direction he thought was the right one.  But, it’s not enshrined in the same way here overall as it is with us.  Now, our judges may not appreciate spending most of their time as managers when they probably envisaged when they set up as barristers that they’d be doing trials and arguing elevated points of law.  Instead, many of them are dealing with the mechanics of pushing cases through the system.  I’m not sure they appreciate that.  But, done properly, when coupled with the idea that proportionality is the guiding principle, then you can see the opportunity for courts to say “don’t do this” or “why are you doing that?” and directing cases through the system effectively.

If you want a specific example of that happening in the US, I’ll refer to Judge Peck again in Da Silva Moore (covered by us here), which is famous for all sorts of other reasons.  In that case, you see him directing the parties to put documents aside that may or may not be needed (while still preserving them) because they were in France and would, Judge Peck knew, raise complications because of privacy and data protection restrictions.  I asked him yesterday if that was a spontaneous decision that he made or was it prompted by one of the parties asking.  And, of course, it was him self-starting because he could see the potential of time and money down the drain pursuing something that he knew (because he’s one of the few judges that actually understands EU data protection) that it could be fruitless.  Many judges would look at the rules and say “the rules say to produce it, so produce it”.  But, Judge Peck realizes that’s not a helpful approach, that time and money goes down the drain for the wrong reasons when you do that.  That’s a specific example of a judge rolling up his sleeves and seeing a clear way of saving time and costs.

Last fall, in the Schrems case, the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) ruled that the Safe Harbor pact enabling transatlantic data transfers between the U.S. and European Union should be struck down.  Do you think there will be a new, more effective agreement for transatlantic data transfers in place soon?

Today’s the day, in theory, that there is supposed to be a new method of doing things.  {Editor’s note: Indeed, as we announced here, a new framework was announced on that very day}  I don’t think, in discovery terms, which is the context we’re discussing here, that it matters anyway.  If anybody has been relying on Safe Harbor to bring discovery data to the US, they’re doing it wrong anyway.  If the only grounds for bringing over data was to say it’s Safe Harbor certified, then you’ve been doing it wrong.  And, a lot of people have been doing it wrong, using Safe Harbor to justify what was potentially an unlawful transaction.  I’ve been talking about Safe Harbor since 2008 or 2009, and people would laugh.  They would laugh at the idea that there were companies that wouldn’t follow the order of an American court.  But, privacy has been important over there for some time and it has even become much more important over here than it was just a few years ago.  The very same things that have raised attention in Europe have now raised attention in the US.  Edward Snowden raised attention here before the Schrems case came along.

What the Schrems decision may do is focus the eyes of corporations on the issue, so that when their lawyers – their good lawyers – say to them that there’s a problem here, they will understand that there is a problem.  There will be a few more lawyers who will realize that this is not a game for amateurs.  There have been plenty of amateur US lawyers when it comes to data protection, though some do understand it.  There is a way to do it and you can do it properly if you can articulate to the court your issues.  It’s a cultural issue.  Perhaps there is a history of facing US incursions that involve almost literally kicking the door down – “I have an order of an American court, give me your data.”  That perception has got to change and is changing.  The idea of being in Europe and understanding the culture of Europe is an important one.

That was one (but not the only) expressed motivation behind the acquisition of Huron Legal and Proven by Consilio – to take advantage of the cultural knowledge that each had in their respective markets.  And, there are plenty of other providers that are also doing it very well, involving the lawyers in each jurisdiction.  But, there are others who haven’t.  So, even before we see any new regulation or how the EU is going to react to Schrems, the culture has to change.  I’m not saying that I’m seeing it yet, but there will come a point where companies will want to be seen doing it properly, nobody will want to be seen as punished for breaking the rules.

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

As always, since 2007 anyway, I have been running the eDisclosure Information Project.  This is my tenth LegalTech.  It was called “eDisclosure” Information Project because I had no ambition to go beyond the UK when I started.  And, very quickly, I ran into lawyers who said that eDiscovery is something that Americans do and what an expensive mess they make of it.  It seemed to me that was an inadequate approach – just to dismiss somebody else’s approach to a major problem, as if it was simply the rules that were the problem instead of the existence of the data.  It was more involved than that and I wanted to explore that, and so the scope of my blog grew from there.

What the US has that we don’t is quite interesting – it’s a strong knowledge transfer from the body of judges who really understand this stuff.  You’re very lucky here in the US to have those judges and, of course, the technology that has been bred by the perceived fierceness of your rules is something the rest of us can benefit from even if we disdain the overall eDiscovery culture here.

So, to come back to your question: what is the mission?  The mission is firstly to promote the idea that the rules are not a bad thing to read.  RTFR is my motto, where the first “R” is “read” and the last “R” is “rules” and you can guess what the “F” stands for.  And, secondly, get out and see some of this technology.  I’m not necessarily promoting any particular one, but, if you don’t see the technology, how can you sit in your office and moan about “black boxes”?  So, the mission is two-fold: it’s rules and it’s look at the technology.

Thanks, Chris, for participating in the interview!

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

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.