Close
Enter your
text here

Analysis

Our 1,000th Post! – eDiscovery Milestones

When we launched nearly four years ago on September 20, 2010, our goal was to be a daily resource for eDiscovery news and analysis.  Now, after doing so each business day (except for one), I’m happy to announce that today is our 1,000th post on eDiscovery Daily!

We’ve covered the gamut in eDiscovery, from case law to industry trends to best practices.  Here are some of the categories that we’ve covered and the number of posts (to date) for each:

We’ve also covered every phase of the EDRM (177) life cycle, including:

Every post we have published is still available on the site for your reference, which has made eDiscovery Daily into quite a knowledgebase!  We’re quite proud of that.

Comparing our first three months of existence to now, we have seen traffic on our site grow an amazing 474%!  Our subscriber base has more than tripled in the last three years!  We want to take this time to thank you, our readers and subcribers, for making that happen.  Thanks for making the eDiscoveryDaily blog a regular resource for your eDiscovery news and analysis!  We really appreciate the support!

We also want to thank the blogs and publications that have linked to our posts and raised our public awareness, including Pinhawk, Ride the Lightning, Litigation Support Guru, Complex Discovery, Bryan University, The Electronic Discovery Reading Room, Litigation Support Today, Alltop, ABA Journal, Litigation Support Blog.com, InfoGovernance Engagement Area, EDD Blog Online, eDiscovery Journal, e-Discovery Team ® and any other publication that has picked up at least one of our posts for reference (sorry if I missed any!).  We really appreciate it!

I also want to extend a special thanks to Jane Gennarelli, who has provided some serial topics, ranging from project management to coordinating review teams to what litigation support and discovery used to be like back in the 80’s (to which some of us “old timers” can relate).  Her contributions are always well received and appreciated by the readers – and also especially by me, since I get a day off!

We always end each post with a request: “Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.”  And, we mean it.  We want to cover the topics you want to hear about, so please let us know.

Tomorrow, we’ll be back with a new, original post.  In the meantime, feel free to click on any of the links above and peruse some of our 999 previous posts.  Now is your chance to catch up!  😉

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

Court Sides with Defendant in Dispute over Predictive Coding that Plaintiff Requested – eDiscovery Case Law

In the case In re Bridgepoint Educ., Inc., Securities Litigation, 12cv1737 JM (JLB) (S.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2014), California Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt ruled that expanding the scope of discovery by nine months was unduly burdensome, despite the plaintiff’s request for the defendant to use predictive coding to fulfill its discovery obligation and also approved the defendants’ method of using search terms to identify responsive documents for the already reviewed three individual defendants, directing the parties to meet and confer regarding the additional search terms the plaintiffs requested.

In this case involving several discovery disputes, a telephonic discovery conference was held in the instant action on June 27, during which, the Court issued oral orders on three of four discovery disputes.  As to the remaining dispute, the Court requested supplemental briefings from both parties and issued a ruling in this order, along with formalizing the remaining orders.

The unresolved discovery dispute concerned the plaintiffs’ “request for discovery extending beyond the time frame that Defendants have agreed to” for an additional nine months.  In their briefing, the defendants (based on the production efforts to date) claimed that expanding the scope of discovery by nine months would increase their review costs by 26% or $390,000.  The plaintiffs’ reply brief argued that the defendants’ estimate reflected the cost of manual review rather than the predictive coding system that the defendants would use – according to the plaintiffs, the cost of predictive coding was the only cost relevant to the defendants’ burden, estimating the additional burden to be roughly $11,279.

Per the Court’s request, the defendants submitted a reply brief addressing the arguments raised by the plaintiffs, arguing that predictive coding software “does not make manual review for relevance merely elective”.  The defendants argued that the software only assigns a percentage estimate to each document that reflects the assessment of the probability that the document is relevant, but the software is not foolproof and that attorney review is still required to ensure that the documents produced are both relevant and not privileged.

Judge Burkhardt, citing the “proportionality” rule of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(b)(2)(C), denied expanding the scope of discovery by nine months, finding that “Defendants have set forth sufficient evidence to conclude that the additional production would be unduly burdensome”.

The plaintiffs, claiming that the defendants “unilaterally-selected search terms” to identify the original production, also argued discovery produced from three Individual Defendants should be added to the Defendants’ predictive coding software.  But, Judge Burkhardt, formalizing the oral order, stated “[t]he Court approved Defendants’ method of using linear screening with the aid of search terms to identify responsive documents with regard to the emails already reviewed for the three Individual Defendants. The parties were directed to meet and confer regarding the additional search terms Plaintiffs would like Defendants to use.”

So, what do you think?  Was the additional discovery scope unduly burdensome or did the plaintiff have a point about reduced discovery costs?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Daily will resume posts on Tuesday.  Happy Labor Day!

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

Court Rules in Dispute Between Parties Regarding ESI Protocol, Suggests Predictive Coding – eDiscovery Case Law

In a dispute over ESI protocols in FDIC v. Bowden, CV413-245 (S.D. Ga. June 6, 2014), Georgia Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith approved the ESI protocol from the FDIC and suggested the parties consider the use of predictive coding.

After FDIC-insured Darby Bank & Trust Co. failed in November 2010, the FDIC took over as receiver (as FDIC-R) and brought a bank mismanagement case against sixteen of Darby’s former directors and officers.  Thus far, the parties had been unable to agree on a Joint Protocol for Electronically Stored Information (ESI) and the dispute ultimately reached the court.  The FDIC-R had already spent $614,000 to digitally scan about “2.01 terabytes of data or 153.6 million pages” of data at the bank, but the defendants insisted that the FDIC-R shoulder the burden and expense of reviewing the documents and determining their responsiveness to the claims “”[e]ven though the Bank’s documents were created under Defendants’ custody and control”.

The defendants also argued for a protocol which involved the FDIC-R to “repeatedly search, review, and re-review myriad ‘second-run’ (Phase II) documents, then turn over to them the documents relevant to both claims and defenses that arise in this litigation. The FDIC-R argued for a protocol in which it would produce “categories of documents most likely to contain relevant information” which the defendants could then search, claiming that protocol would be the more “correct allocation of discovery burdens between the parties.” The defendants contended that “search terms alone won’t suffice” and the FDIC-R’s proposed protocol does not relieve the receiver of its Rule 34 burden to “locate and produce responsive documents.”

After reviewing the two proposed protocols, Judge Smith ruled that “given the common ground between the dueling protocols here, the FDIC-R’s ESI protocol will be implemented, as modified by the FDIC-R’s ‘briefing concessions’…as well as by the additional guidance set forth in this Order.”  Those briefing concessions included “offering to open ‘all of the Bank’s former documents . . . [so defendants can retrieve them] to the same extent that the FDIC-R can’” and “offering, in ‘Phase II’ of the disclosure process, to ‘meet and confer with Defendants to reach agreement upon a set of reasonable search terms to run across the database of sources of the ESI to identify documents for production’”.  In approving the FDIC-R’s protocol, Judge Smith stated that “the FDIC-R may meaningfully deploy suitable search terms to satisfy its initial disclosure requirements and respond to forthcoming Rule 34 document requests”.

Also, referencing the DaSilva Moore decision of 2012, Judge Smith stated that “the parties shall consider the use of predictive coding” if ESI protocol disagreements persisted noting that it “has emerged as a far more accurate means of producing responsive ESI in discovery”.

So, what do you think? Should organizations bear the bulk of the discovery burden in cases against individual defendants? Or should the burden be balanced between both parties?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Daily will resume posts on Monday, July 7.  Happy Birthday America!

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

Court Rules that Unilateral Predictive Coding is Not Progressive – eDiscovery Case Law

In Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Delaney, No. 2:11-cv-00678-LRH-PAL (D. Nev. May 19, 2014), Nevada Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen determined that the plaintiff’s unannounced shift from the agreed upon discovery methodology, to a predictive coding methodology for privilege review was not cooperative.  Therefore, the plaintiff was ordered to produce documents that met agreed-upon search terms without conducting a privilege review first.

This declaratory relief action had been plagued by delays in discovery production, which led to the defendants filing a Motion to Compel the plaintiffs to produce discovery in a timely fashion. Following a hearing, both sides were ordered to meet and confer, and hold meaningful discussions about resolving outstanding ESI issues pursuant to discovery. The plaintiff contended that the defendant’s discovery requests, as standing, would require them to produce approximately 1.8 million documents, which would be unduly burdensome. Both parties agreed to search terms that would reduce the number of potentially responsive documents to around 565,000, which the plaintiff would manually review for privileged documents before producing discovery to the defendant.

Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff determined that manual review would be too expensive and time-consuming, and therefore after consulting with a “nationally-recognized authority on eDiscovery,” elected to apply predictive coding to the identified 565,000 documents. Plaintiff selected a software program that they began using to identify relevant documents with the intention of applying a further predictive coding layer in order to determine which documents were “more likely privileged” and which were “less likely privileged.”

However, the plaintiff did not consult with either the court or the requesting party regarding their intentions to change review methodology. As a result, the defendant objected to the use of predictive coding in this case for several reasons, including the plaintiff’s lack of transparency surrounding its predictive coding methodology and its failure to cooperate, as well as the plaintiff’s failure to adhere to the best practices for the chosen software program which were recommended to them by the authority they chose. Finally, the defendants cited a likelihood of satellite disputes revolving around discovery, should the plaintiff proceed with the current predictive coding, which would further delay production discovery that had already been “stalled for many months.”

The defendant requested that either the plaintiff be required to proceed with predictive coding according to the defendant’s suggested protocol, which would include applying the predictive methodology to all of the originally collected 1.8 million documents, or that the plaintiff produce the non-privileged keyword hits without any review, but allowing them to be subject to a clawback order—which was a second option included in the originally stipulated ESI protocol that both parties had agreed to. Although this option would shift the burden of discovery to the defendant, it was noted that the defendant was “committed to devot[ing] the resources required to review the documents as expeditiously as possible” in order to allow discovery to move forward.

Judge Leen acknowledged potential support for the general methodology of predictive coding in eDiscovery, and stated that a “transparent mutually agreed upon” protocol for such a method would likely have been approved. However, Judge Leen took issue that the plaintiff had refused to “engage in the type of cooperation and transparency that its own eDiscovery consultant has so comprehensibly and persuasively explained is needed for a predictive coding protocol to be accepted by the court or opposing counsel” and instead had “elected and then abandoned the second option—to manually review and produce responsive ESI documents. It abandoned the option it selected unilaterally, without the [defendant’s] acquiescence or the court’s approval and modification of the parties’ stipulated ESI protocol.”

Therefore, Judge Leen elected to enforce the second option described in the agreed-upon ESI protocol, and required the plaintiff to produce all 565,000 documents that matched the stipulated search terms without review, with a clawback option in place for privileged documents as well as permission to apply privilege filters to the documents at issue, and withhold those documents that returned as “most likely privileged.”

So, what do you think? Should parties need to obtain approval regarding the review methodology that they plan to use?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Predictive Analytics: It’s Not Just for Review Anymore – eDiscovery Trends

One of the most frequently discussed trends in this year’s annual thought leader interviews that we conducted was the application of analytics (including predictive analytics) to Information Governance.  A recent report published in the Richmond Journal of Law & Technology addresses how analytics can be used to optimize Information Governance.

Written by Bennett B. Borden & Jason R. Baron (who was one of our thought leaders discussing that very topic), Finding the Signal in the Noise: Information Governance, Analytics, and the Future of Legal Practice, 20 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 7 (2014) is written for those who are not necessarily experts in the field.  It provides a synopsis of why and how predictive coding first emerged in eDiscovery and defines important terms related to the topic, then discusses aspects of an information governance program where application of predictive coding and related analytical techniques is most useful. Most notably, the authors provide a few “early” examples of the use of advanced analytics, like predictive coding, for non-litigation contexts to illustrate the possibilities for applying the technology.  Here is a high-level breakdown of the report:

Introduction (pages 1-3): Provides a high-level introduction of the topics to be discussed.

A. The Path to Da Silva Moore (pages 3-14): Provides important background to the evolution of managing electronically stored information (ESI) and predictive coding (fittingly, it begins with the words “In the beginning”).  Starting on page 9, the authors discuss “The Da Silva Moore Precedent”, providing a detailed account of the Da Silva Moore case (our post here summarizes our coverage of the case) and also references other cases, as well: In re Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation, Global Aerospace Inc., et al, v. Landow Aviation, L.P., Kleen Products v. Packaging Corp. of America, EORHB, Inc. v. HOA Holdings and In Re: Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation.  Clearly, the past couple of years have provided several precedents for the use of predictive coding in litigation.

B. Information Governance and Analytics in the Era of Big Data (pages 15-20): This section provides definitions and important context for terms such as “big data”, “analytics” and “Information Governance”.  It’s important to have the background on these concepts before launching into how analytics can be applied to optimize Information Governance.

C. Applying the Lessons of E-Discovery In Using Analytics for Optimal Information Governance: Some Examples (pages 21-31): With the background of sections A and B under your belt, the heart of the report then gets into the actual application of analytics in different scenarios, using “True Life Examples” that are “’ripped from’ the pages of the author’s legal experience, without embellishment”.  These examples where analytics are used include:

  • A corporate client is being sued by a former employee in a whistleblower qui tam action;
  • A highly regulated manufacturing client decided to outsource the function of safety testing some of its products and a director of the department whose function was being outsourced, despite being offered a generous severance package, demanded four times the severance amount and threatened to go to the company’s regulator with a list of ten supposed major violations that he described in the email if he did not receive what he was asking for.
  • A major company received a whistleblower letter from a reputable third party alleging that several senior personnel were involved with an elaborate kickback scheme that also involved FCPA violations.
  • An acquisition agreement between parties contained a provision such that if the disclosures made by the target were found to be off by a certain margin within thirty days of the acquisition, the purchase price would be adjusted.

In each case, the use of analytics either resulted in a quick settlement, proved the alleged violations to be unfounded, or resulted in an appropriate adjustment in the purchase price of the acquired company.  These real world examples truly illustrate how analytics can be applied beyond the document review stage of eDiscovery.

Conclusion (pages 31-32): While noting that the authors’ intent was to “merely scratch the surface” of the topic, they offer some predictions for the end of the decade and note “expected demand on the part of corporate clients for lawyers to be familiar with state of the art practices in the information governance space”.  In other words, your clients are going to expect you to understand this.

The report is an easy read, even for novices to the technology, and is a must-read for anyone looking to understand more about applying analytics to Information Governance.  Bennett and Jason are both with Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP and are also co-chairs of the Information Governance Initiative (here is our recent blog post about IGI).

So, what do you think? Has your organization applied analytics to big data to reduce or eliminate litigation costs? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Searching for Individuals Isn’t as Straightforward as You Think – eDiscovery Best Practices

I’ve recently worked with a couple of clients who proposed search terms for key individuals that were a bit limited, so I thought this was an appropriate topic to revisit.

When looking for documents in your collection that mention key individuals, conducting a name search for those individuals isn’t always as straightforward as you might think.  There are potentially a number of different ways names could be represented and if you don’t account for each one of them, you might fail to retrieve key responsive documents – OR retrieve way too many non-responsive documents.  Here are some considerations for conducting name searches.

The Ever-Limited Phrase Search vs. Proximity Searching

Routinely, when clients give me their preliminary search term lists to review, they will always include names of individuals that they want to search for, like this:

  • “Jim Smith”
  • “Doug Austin”

Phrase searches are the most limited alternative for searching because the search must exactly match the phrase.  For example, a phrase search of “Jim Smith” won’t retrieve “Smith, Jim” if his name appears that way in the documents.

That’s why I prefer to use a proximity search for individual names, it catches several variations and expands the recall of the search.  Proximity searching is simply looking for two or more words that appear close to each other in the document.  A proximity search for “Jim within 3 words of Smith” will retrieve “Jim Smith”, “Smith, Jim”, and even “Jim T. Smith”.  Proximity searching is also a more precise option in most cases than “AND” searches – Doug AND Austin will retrieve any document where someone named Doug is in (or traveling to) Austin whereas “Doug within 3 words of Austin” will ensure those words are near each other, making is much more likely they’re responsive to the name search.

Accounting for Name Variations

Proximity searches won’t always account for all variations in a person’s name.  What are other variations of the name “Jim”?  How about “James” or “Jimmy”?  Or even “Jimbo”?  I have a friend named “James” who is also called “Jim” by some of his other friends and “Jimmy” by a few of his other friends.  Also, some documents may refer to him by his initials – i.e., “J.T. Smith”.  All are potential variations to search for in your collection.

Common name derivations like those above can be deduced in many cases, but you may not always know the middle name or initial.  If so, it may take performing a search of just the last name and sampling several documents until you are able to determine that middle initial for searching (this may also enable you to identify nicknames like “JayDog”, which could be important given the frequently informal tone of emails, even business emails).

Applying the proximity and name variation concepts into our search, we might perform something like this to get our “Jim Smith” documents:

(jim OR jimmy OR james OR “j.t.”) w/3 Smith, where “w/3” is “within 3 words of”.  This is the syntax you would use to perform the search in OnDemand®, CloudNine Discovery’s online review tool.

That’s a bit more inclusive than the “Jim Smith” phrase search the client originally gave me.

BTW, why did I use “jim OR jimmy” instead of the wildcard “jim*”?  Because wildcard searches could yield additional terms I might not want (e.g., Joe Smith jimmied the lock).  Don’t get wild with wildcards!  Using the specific variations you want (e.g., “jim OR jimmy”) is often best, though you should always test your terms (and variations of those terms) to maximize the balance between recall and precision.

Of course, there’s another way to retrieve documents that mention key individuals – through their email addresses.  We’ll touch on that topic next week.

So, what do you think?  How do you handle searching for key individuals within your document collections?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Ralph Losey of Jackson Lewis, LLP – eDiscovery Trends

This is the tenth of the 2014 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders after LTNY this year (don’t get us started) and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What significant eDiscovery trends did you see at LTNY this year and what do you see for 2014?
  2. With new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure now in the comment phase, do you see those being approved this year and what do you see as the impact of those Rules changes?
  3. It seems despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery?  Do you agree with that and, if so, what do you think can be done to improve the situation?
  4. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

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 significant eDiscovery trends did you see at LTNY this year and what do you see for 2014?

The presentation that I did at the show was called the “John Henry moment”, and I presented with Cliff Dutton, who is a technology expert at AIG (not an attorney, but an expert with technical processes in electronic discovery). The other panelist was Jason Baron (whose own thought leader interview from last week can be found here).  Cliff, Jason and I were examining at LegalTech what comes next after predictive coding.  What is the inevitable direction that technology is taking?  That was really the theme behind the “John Henry moment”.  A similar question was asked by other panels, but, and of course I’m prejudiced, I think our panel had some particularly good, unique insights.

Before I get into the answer that emerged from our panel, I will say that other panels were focusing on other parts of the technology world.  They were talking about things like data breach and privacy – those are two big issues that we’ve seen in the past, but they seem to be emerging even stronger than before and were big issues in the keynote speech.  It appears to be a surprise to some people that there is crime on the Internet.  Many of us are quite aware of that – I had to change my credit card just a couple of months ago.  So, data breaches, either on purpose by a hacker or unintentional through negligence, and data privacy are certainly big issues.

These were not the issues that Jason, Cliff and I talked about.  Instead, we were talking about the advancement into the second machine age.  This is something that has been discussed by the New York Times and also in a best-selling book called The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies.  It has to do with the application of ever more sophisticated computer algorithms that allow us to replicate what the human mind is capable of doing and to automate not just manual labor, but automate the mental labor of mankind.  Of course, what we’re focused on is its application to lawyers – what we lawyers do that can now be improved, enhanced and automated.

Now, in the past, the big discussion has been on predictive coding and this is certainly an example of the application of advanced computers and what is being called “analytics” –  taking big data and understanding the implications of big data.  Examples outside the law include Netflix, that takes your viewing history and tells you about a new movie they have that you’re going to like, and Amazon who takes you buying history and suggests books that you’re going to like.  They’ve both analyzed your data.  So, what we were discussing is how this concept will impact the law.  That’s really an important topic that our panel addressed that I had an opportunity to follow up on recently in my blog (that parodied the movie Minority Report, which had something called “pre-crime”), called “pre-suit”.  Not “pre-crime”, but “pre-suit”.  I’ve already (surprisingly) been able to get the URL for presuit.com and it discusses corporate counsel using what I call “smart data” to predict and prevent litigation before it happens.  That’s what our panel discussed and I think that’s really the next big thing (with all due respect to people that are focused by privacy and data breach issues).  So, I think the next big thing is to apply data analytics and the latest advancements in artificial intelligence to get a much better handle and control on litigation than we have today.

The idea behind “pre-suit” is essentially to win your next lawsuit before it’s even filed.  Jason Baron also recently wrote an article about it in Law Technology News (Escape From the Island of E-Discovery), which I didn’t know about when I wrote my article – he showed it to me the day of our panel session.  He talks about three examples of using data analytics for something other than predictive coding: the first two are data remediation for information governance purposes and records classification to, for example, classify and file your emails for you.  The third one he calls “bad conduct detection” – I call it the use of smart data to predict and prevent a cause of action from occurring – basically, when employees within your company are doing something that could be a basis for a lawsuit.

He wrote about it in the article and, independently, I had the same idea I (at least I think I did – Jason is alleged to have mind control abilities!).  In my blog, I wrote about how this “pre-suit” concept will work and this isn’t based on science fiction, it’s based on technology that’s available today.  We have the technology to detect patterns of wrongful activity that are there.  In corporate email and text messages, we can detect when an employee may be harassing another employee.  It’s far more than just looking for certain words that should never be said in email, but also patterns so you can bring in an employee for counseling before damage is done, before a reputation is ruined or a lot of emotional harm happens and way before a complaint is filed by the victim.

So, this is really the next big thing – to stop lawsuits before they mature.  In other words, why should we depend on plaintiff’s counsel to come to the door of corporate counsel to let them know that they’ve found this group of employees in the company that have been discriminated against or are receiving wrongful treatment?  Find about it in advance and fix it yourself – much more effectively and much cheaper.  It’s essentially good citizenship for corporations to police their own activities rather than having outside attorneys find it and air their “dirty laundry” in a courtroom.  That’s the vision that our panel came articulated and that I think is the next big thing.

With new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure now in the comment phase, do you see those being approved this year and what do you see as the impact of those Rules changes?

I wrote a blog post about it and I did predict that they would pass this year, but the level of controversy seems to be heating up at the last minute.  The commentary that Judge Scheindlin filed with the Rules Committee is just one indication that it’s escalating.  It’s very intense and it may be a closer question than I thought.  As I’ve written about it, my view is that some of these changes may not even be constitutional and that’s something that former Judge Ron Hedges believes – that some of the rules have gone too far in violating separation of powers, that the rules are going into substantive law.  I’m concerned how political the Federal Rules have become.  The judicial branch is supposed to be a separate branch of government, not part of the legislative branch.  So, I must say that I share Judge Hedges’ concerns on that and, even though I still think it will be approved, I am not pleased by how politicized the whole process has become..

Having said all of that, the reason that I’m not having the same emotional reaction that Judge Scheindlin and other commentators have had – on both the right and the left (frankly, this has become a liberal vs. conservative issue) – is that I don’t think it will have the profound impact that some people fear.  Ultimately, rules changes don’t change things as much as people expect them to do so.  Certainly, the 2006 rules changes didn’t lead to a huge impact, and regardless of what gets passed here, I don’t think it will have a huge impact either.  There is really a cultural change that is needed for eDiscovery to work right, rather than creating yet more rules that people can misunderstand and argue about.  In my opinion, we’re going to get more of a change by focusing on education, doing the kind of thing that you do, bringing the word to people so that they can understand what’s going on.  I think that does more good than creating more rules, especially when they’re particularly complicated rules.

One good result of the new rules is the emphasis on proportionality and cooperation.  I think those are good things, it doesn’t hurt to have them in the rules and that will encourage people to do what the rules already require – cooperate with each other and always have proportionality in mind.

It seems despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery?  Do you agree with that and, if so, what do you think can be done to improve the situation?

You pointed out the resources that are already there.  Do we need more and better resources?  I suppose.  And, I’ll still continue to work on that as, I’m sure, the other educational leaders that you’ve mentioned will do as well.  I think one of the most important new efforts to come on the scene is the one started by another Losey, Adam Losey, and his foundation IT-Lex.  That’s an educational foundation effort that is more oriented toward younger lawyers.  That is ultimately the answer.  Old fogies like me are going to retire and they just don’t want to learn.  They’re closed minded and, frankly, they’re getting more and more irrelevant every day.  We need to focus on the next generation and I’m really proud of Adam in how he’s doing a good job of carrying the torch on that.

I’m seeing this in my own family – first with my son Adam at Foley and now with his wife, my daughter-in-law, Catherine Losey who is now at Littler doing eDiscovery.  I can tell you that the next generation gets it and the hope is in the future.  I think you have to take a longer term view of things.  I tried cajoling lawyers my age into doing it and it doesn’t work, honestly.  In the book that I mentioned before, The Second Machine Age, delays like this in learning how to use technology have always been.  This is nothing new and it’s not unique to the legal industry.  It typically takes ten to twenty years for business or any general cultural activity to adapt to the new technology and figure out how to use it.

For people like me, it has been an exercise in patience because I’m ready to do everything yesterday.  But, the reality is that it will catch up, it’s starting to catch up and those of us who do know the technology needn’t despair that 98% of the bar still doesn’t know what we do.  That’s OK.  The number of people who do know will grow rapidly, particularly as people retire.  There are plenty of smart people my age who don’t get it, but they understand that they don’t get it, so they ask me to do it or they ask someone else who does get it to do it.  That is a fundamental ethical responsibility that good lawyers get.  Eventually, you’re going to have a field of specialists that focus on eDiscovery, especially complex artificial intelligence and other technology.  That’s how we will get at the truth.  There will be a specialty bar that other lawyers use who don’t do that.  But, right now, we’re still in a shakedown period.  We may see things speed up because of more eDiscovery malpractice cases – there have already been a few and there will be more.  And, competition will force the people that don’t get it out and allow opportunities for the next generation and the few in my generation that do get it.  Overall, I’m optimistic, because I don’t think there’s anything unique about lawyers to keep them from getting it; there are plenty of younger lawyers that do get it.  They are our future and I’m optimistic for that future.

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

Well, my online training program (e-Discovery Team Training) is still alive and well.  An encouraging sign is that we’re starting to have smaller firms signing up four, five or even six attorneys and paralegals.  So, I will keep eDiscovery Team Training in place as a cheaper, intro level, A to Z, course about eDiscovery for people that can’t afford to take the more expensive courses.  It’s an inexpensive alternative for people who do want to learn, that want to remain relevant and that understand that, in today’s world, it’s all about constant training, re-training and learning.

As for the more advanced training that I provide, I find that you can’t teach predictive coding just by writing and I’ve written maybe 35 essays on the subject.  I find it’s much more effective for me to teach it the good-old fashioned way – the way that Abe Lincoln learned law – with a one-on-one apprenticeship.  In other words, I show my attorneys by doing.  With something as complicated as predictive coding, coming in and consulting and actually helping lawyers do it is more effective than writing about it.  But, with the simple intros to eDiscovery, the writing is still effective, so I’ll keep on doing that too. I’ll keep writing on the advanced topics too, but with the understanding that many of the methods of predictive coding are too complex to teach my words alone.

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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Jason R. Baron of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP – eDiscovery Trends

This is the eighth of the 2014 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders after LTNY this year (don’t get us started) and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What significant eDiscovery trends did you see at LTNY this year and what do you see for 2014?
  2. With new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure now in the comment phase, do you see those being approved this year and what do you see as the impact of those Rules changes?
  3. It seems despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery?  Do you agree with that and, if so, what do you think can be done to improve the situation?
  4. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Jason R. Baron.  An internationally recognized speaker and author on the preservation of electronic documents, Jason is a member of Drinker Biddle’s Information Governance and eDiscovery practice.  Jason previously served as Director of Litigation for the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and as trial lawyer and senior counsel at the Department of Justice.  He was a founding co-coordinator of the National Institute of Standards and Technology TREC Legal Track, a multi-year international information retrieval project devoted to evaluating search issues in a legal context.  He also founded the international DESI (Discovery of Electronically Stored Information) workshop series, bringing together lawyers and academics to discuss cutting-edge issues in eDiscovery.

What significant eDiscovery trends did you see at LTNY this year and what do you see for 2014?

I think that it was clear, not only to me but to many other attendees that I spoke with at the show, that there was a greater focus and attention this year on Information Governance.  It’s the new black.  You saw that especially in the educational sessions.  Now my good friend Ralph Losey, in a recent posting on his brillilant blog e-Discovery Team®, referred in passing to the topic of Information Governance as “boring” – however, what I think he meant to say is that if Information Governance is simply viewed as the current buzzword for what constitutes electronic recordkeeping best practices, that would be unfortunate.  It’s a lot more profound than that.

In my view, the types of analytics that we use in eDiscovery for predictive coding have an important role in Information Governance as well.  The research that I had some role in, coming out of the TREC Legal Track, and subsequent articles by Maura Grossman, Patrick Oot and others, have all helped to crystallize what constitute best practices in the eDiscovery search and document review space.  But the knowledge that we have gained about analytics in these various research studies, as validated in recent court opinions like Da Silva Moore, are applicable to a much broader application than merely in eDiscovery practice.

That is to say, we can all be smarter about using analytical methods to solve lots of legal issues which arise outside of the narrow band of eDiscovery but inside the broader realm of Information Governance.  Ralph discussed this in a recent blog when he referred to the idea of using “presuit” analytics to predict and prevent lawsuits from happening in the first place.  Ralph’s column shows that he certainly gets it, and that I can count him in as a true believer in pre-litigation analytics being accomplished to lower corporate overall risk including the prevention of potential lawsuits.

So, the hottest topic at LegalTech was Information Governance and, as part of that discussion, a conversation about what best practices are from a technology perspective in the space.  What other trends  out there were noted?

Other themes at LegalTech that reflect trends specifically affecting legal and eDiscovery practice: First, it’s clear to us that the cloud is becoming a dominant paradigm for the storage of big data, and that we need to continue to understand how eDiscovery in particular can be optimized in cloud environments.  Second, there is increased attention to the notion of technological competence, in light of the amendments to the Model professional rules of responsibility, including the comment to Rule 1 about the need for attorneys to be technologically competent in keeping up with the law.  That comment certainly means something in the eDiscovery space.  Beyond those two, we saw a conversation about new technologies and new ideas that are happening and that need to be absorbed into the practice of law – for example, sessions on drones and sessions that noted the “Internet of things”.  In all sorts of ways, these various discussion threads show that there are a thousand different ways to collect data in the world, all of it is ESI and all of it needs to be factored in when we’re litigating cases and when we’re trying to govern the data that organizations hold.

With new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure now in the comment phase, do you see those being approved this year and what do you see as the impact of those Rules changes?

Well, my crystal ball tells me not to make predictions.  However, we’re now up to 700 comments in the last week leading up to the February 15, 2014 deadline for responding. [Editor’s note: over 2,000 comments were submitted by the actual deadline.]  Those comments are sharply divided between a community of plaintiffs’ counsel who question the necessity for rules change, and the defense bar, which at least a part of which strongly urges rules changes in the belief that the present rules encourage over-preservation of evidence, and that more in the way of limitations imposed on discovery should now be imposed.  So, that’s the battleground.  I think a good bet in the space is that the language that emerges is going to be much like the amendments currently proposed, but no one knows for sure.

My view about the amendments is a different one than what has been reflected in most of the comments, which I have put forward on behalf of the Information Governance Initiative (see below).  The view that I have is that there are aspects of the rules amendments that can be supported, and certainly Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 should be amended to incorporate the notion of parties cooperating.   However, what I believe to be of greater importance than rules change is a recognition on the part of the judiciary as well as all litigants that the volume and complexity of data is doubling every couple of years, and the technological environment is one that should include advanced tools to help remediate the severe challenges we all face in terms of the preservation of ESI. We live in a world of exponential growth of big data and we need to deal with that fact at a more foundational level than with rules changes for litigation.  So, I urge that we pay attention to both best practices as a matter of technology in the maintenance of big data in electronic systems, as well as continued education of the bench and bar on how to deal with this new reality — because we’re not going back to the 20th century.  The world of exabytes that we live in is only getting bigger and we have to deal with it.  In my mind, I’m attempting to carve out a middle ground where the rules debate is not as draconian or as starkly imagined as parties would reflect in the comments, but rather that we need to step back and ask more fundamental questions.

It seems despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery?  Do you agree with that and, if so, what do you think can be done to improve the situation?

Every survey that I know of drives this point home, that there is a “bubble” that some of us practice in where we go from conference to conference, acting as if the 2006 rules amendments are “old hat,” whereas the concept of how to deal with ESI is something new and novel to many others.  So, there is a learning curve that exists where the greater part of the legal community needs to become better versed in the more advanced aspects of eDiscovery.  By now, everyone knows about email potentially being relevant evidence, but not very many people could step through a workflow on predictive coding.  Nor do they necessarily have to do so in a large swath of cases that, candidly, are not a candidate for the most advanced methods.  We need to apply some degree of proportionality analysis to competence and the level of competence that someone needs is dependent on the complexity of the case.  If there is giant litigation that involves billions of documents, then you really need to understand the technical issues at hand, and what questions to ask, to ensure that you’re using the most advanced and efficient search and document review methods.  On the other hand, if you have a case that is only a couple of hundred documents that is in state court or some local jurisdiction, then these more advanced methods are obviously not needed.

So, I think there is an aspect that you’re exactly right to point out, that this is all still new, and we are still maturing in mapping out defensible ediscovery practices in the post-2006 Rules amendment world. But, increasingly, as I have said, we live in a world of digital information.  Whether it’s a family law case involving the exchange of emails or an employment case or even a hit and run case involving GPS data, attorneys are necessarily finding that there cases do indeed involve aspects of discovery where digital or electronic evidence is material and important.  To that extent, all lawyers need to know something about how to preserve, how to collect, how to review and how to produce ESI.  It is clear to me as the years go by that the bar is getting raised in a greater and greater number of cases and that more and more lawyers need to be competent with respect to basic eDiscovery.

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

Here’s one thing I’m very excited about.  Bennett Borden, who is chair of the Information Governance and eDiscovery practice here at Drinker Biddle, and Barclay Blair, who runs the company ViaLumina and is a thought leader in the Information Governance space, have teamed up to found the Information Governance Initiative and invited me to act as Co-Chair.  The Initiative is a vendor-neutral industry consortium and think tank which has as its mission a goal of fostering discussion about best practices in the Information Governance space.  We have received a large outpouring of goodwill in the form of individuals joining up as members (it’s free to join, by the way), as well as corporate sponsors who have products and services that address IG issues.  And we hope through various platforms that there will be a better smarter dialogue about how to deal with the challenges of big data and Information Governance using many of the analytical methods that I alluded to earlier.  This is exciting to be part of and I’m delighted, after joining Drinker Biddle, to be able to work with Bennett, Barclay, as well as Jay Brudz and others, to attempt to provide some measure of thought leadership in this space.

I should note that there are other great organizations who are also putting on programs, including The Sedona Conference, which has put out a wonderful Commentary on Information Governance spearheaded by Sedona WG1 chair Conor Crowley, that’s freely available for download.  Sedona and ARMA have also teamed up to put on an information governance conference coming up in April 2014 in Florida.  These are all great to advance the ball.    Hopefully, all of our collective efforts will help to jump start serious conversations around optimizing IG.  For my part, I certainly would encourage individuals to look up the IG Initiative and participate in future activities. (See www.iginitiative.com.)

Thanks, Jason, 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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Alon Israely, Esq., CISSP of BIA – eDiscovery Trends

This is the fifth of the 2014 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders after LTNY this year (don’t get us started) and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What significant eDiscovery trends did you see at LTNY this year and what do you see for 2014?
  2. With new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure now in the comment phase, do you see those being approved this year and what do you see as the impact of those Rules changes?
  3. It seems despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery?  Do you agree with that and, if so, what do you think can be done to improve the situation?
  4. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Alon Israely.  Alon is the Manager of Strategic Partnerships at Business Intelligence Associates, Inc. (BIA) and currently leads the Strategic Partner Program at BIA.  Alon has over eighteen years of experience in a variety of advanced computing-related technologies and has consulted with law firms and their clients on a variety of technology issues, including expert witness services related to computer forensics, digital evidence management and data security.  Alon is an attorney and a Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP).

What significant eDiscovery trends did you see at LTNY this year and what do you see for 2014?

Once again, I did not see much differentiation between different exhibitors.  There was nothing that stood out to me as being a groundbreaking differentiator.  That said, it seemed a lighter show, less people.  But, even though it was a lighter number of attendees, the caliber of attendees seemed a bit higher.  This is all coming from my gut as I have no real numbers or metrics to back this up, but, the conversations we had at our booth seemed, on average to be a little more substantive than in previous years.

As for trends, there seems to be more discussion about the high-tech trends, such as cloud computing and analytic technologies.  Instead of people talking about these technologies generally, it seemed as though people were talking about these technologies more specifically.  Not to say that they were differentiated, they were still non-differentiated.  But, there were more people talking about cloud technologies and there was a big CLE about it.  And, more people were talking specifically about analytics, not just saying “you can do all of this culling”, but showing specific examples, with charts, graphics and other neat elements that indicate searching/analytics results.  So, there seemed to be a bit more specificity around technology and, together with that, advanced technology.  But, to be honest with you, there was nothing at the show that really blew my mind.  Nothing that was groundbreaking, nothing that looked like it would initiate a shift in the industry.  If anything, it felt like, other than the few specifics around high-tech, similar to previous years.

I will say that some of the attendees that I talked to, some of the GCs and outside counsel firm attorneys, said they spent more time inside the educational components at LegalTech instead of the exhibit hall.  So, as an exhibitor, that doesn’t make me overly happy to see that, but, as a knowledge leader in the industry, I’m very happy to see that.  I know that ALM has always tried to do a good job with the educational components.  And, I think this year attendees took that part of it more seriously than in the past several years.  It seemed that most of the networking that my BIA colleagues and I did was at the educational sessions, not necessarily on the floor.  I think that’s a positive indicator for the people who made it to the show.

As for general trends in 2014, I think you will see corporations start to take control of their technology, not only for in-house solutions, but also for the solutions that outside counsel will be providing to them.  Today, corporations tend to trust their outside counsel firms as to the review tools and other technologies that they use, but I think that it will be much more of a coordinated effort going forward.  The level of maturity for corporations around eDiscovery is being raised.  What the means in practical terms is that they will work more closely with their trusted vendors.  I don’t believe that corporations are going to bring everything in-house and that vendors will be out of luck, though a lot of other people believe that will happen.  I believe that services business for eDiscovery will remain strong for the next decade or longer and the dynamic of obtaining those services will morph into the corporation sitting side-by-side with the law firm making those services decisions.

That trend was evident at the show: you heard it from different vendor booths and the way that they were pitching their products and you heard it from actual in-house attorneys that were attending.  I saw at least two cases where the GC and his outside counsel attorney were walking around the show together – hopefully, the GC wasn’t getting charged for that time!  You’re starting to see corporations take more control of the reins, but not in the way we always thought where they dictate to the outside counsel what vendors to use.  Instead, it’s much more of a collaborative effort and I think you’ll see much more of that over the next several years.

With new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure now in the comment phase, do you see those being approved this year and what do you see as the impact of those Rules changes?

I see those being incredibly important.  The more we can get specificity around what needs to happen early in a case and the more that specificity can be codified, the better off we will all be.  If you look at all of the wasted money spent over the last few years, some of that is solved by the new rules, specifically in the area of preservation.  We’re in the business of selling preservation software, so I’m excited about the potential changes.

But, if I step out of that personal perspective, the changes still make a lot of sense because, today, you still have a lot of effort being spent by parties figuring out legal hold and preservation issues.  Who was put on hold, when were holds put in place, what data was and was not preserved.  That usually happens when a problem occurs – you have a peak of expensive lawyering and legal maneuvering with motions practice, etc and typically when it’s already too late.  So, some of these new rules which are focused on discussions early in the case with respect to preservation should nip a lot of that in the bud.  Now, instead of fighting four months later after discovery closes whether some system was preserved or not, that should get covered early-on with some of the new rules that will hopefully go into effect.  So, I’m very excited about the rules changes, not only as a vendor in the space, but also as a legal professional in general.  The more efficiency that you can create early in the matter, the more money you can save and the more you can focus on the substantive issues and on the merits of the case.

It seems despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery?  Do you agree with that and, if so, what do you think can be done to improve the situation?

I do wholeheartedly agree.  Our industry is funny because the cost of goods sold for eDiscovery solutions and services is higher than for most other industries else because of the fact that we have to educate with almost every sale.  There are a lot of resources out there, including efforts by many respected thought leaders and all of the great blogs out there, and many providers have an educational component to their website.  So, you’re right that there are a lot of quality resources for attorneys at their fingertips, yet there are still so many attorneys that simply don’t understand it.  Most of the small business and solo practitioners market doesn’t understand eDiscovery and many GCs of mid-sized corporations don’t either.  And, frankly neither do many “corner office” partners at Amlaw200 firms.  They know about it at a high level and understand that it’s important, but they don’t know enough detail.  But, the good news is that with the advent of those educational resources and the fact that every eDiscovery provider and vendor teaches as they sell, those legal professionals don’t need to learn that much – even getting four or five feet “underneath the water” instead of thirty feet under would be helpful.

As to why they don’t know more, I don’t know.  Maybe attorneys are so used to having experts to rely on and because they feel they know enough about eDiscovery, that they don’t need to know any more detail or process understanding unless a problem arises.  I don’t have an explanation as to why, with all of these great resources available, that most legal professionals don’t have more knowledge.  Unless it’s just that they have a “technology block” and are still afraid of the technology aspects of that knowledge base.  To improve things, I believe that vendors will continue to have to sell in an educational manner, with one half of the sale educating the attorney and the other half focused on closing the deal.  And, hopefully more law schools will continue to incorporate eDiscovery into their curriculum.  But, I don’t see the issue of more knowledge across a wider audience of legal professionals getting a whole lot better anytime soon.

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

BIA continues to be focused on bringing the best technology and workflow that we can to the left side of the EDRM model – such as legal hold, preservation and ECA.  Legal hold activities such as notifying and tracking employees, interviewing custodians and creating questionnaires to do so, and suspending practices such as email auto deletion, and collection of ESI is what we’re all about.  We’ve been really integrating those areas of the left side of the EDRM into one another.  Today, TotalDiscovery employs much more of a circular workflow than it did even a year ago.  It used to be much more siloed – you would implement a legal hold and then do a custodian questionnaire and the collection.  Now, we’ve integrated those steps a lot more.  Hold flows into the questionnaire process, you can seed collections with data from the questionnaires, and so forth.  We’re also continuing to serve up as much intelligence on the data as possible.  You don’t have to wait until you get further down the right side of the model to understand the type of data you have or how much you have.  Obviously, you still need to be able to have a good review tool to perform real hard core research and analysis, but to the extent we can help attorneys more knowledgeable about their data before they get to review, the better it will be for them.  That’s our goal.  So, a lot of that comes from integrating different parts of the process and not focusing on just one area of the process, but gleaning intel from all of them and summarizing at a high level for the attorney.  Also, our enterprise features are really strong and not something we talk about a lot (but we probably should) – stuff like connecting to Active directory, Exchange and other systems – real simple to do as a default configuration.

Also, our flat fee pricing model is a source of pride for us and it’s been very successful.  Flat-fee pricing, unlimited use of functionality and overall budget predictability are values we offer and guarantee – which is unique in the market.  Also, one of the good things about BIA is that we’re a technology company and we’re always adding features – we’ve now moved to a tighter cycle with a new feature or function added every four to six weeks.  Sometimes it’s a small feature, at other times, it’s a large feature we’ve been working on for a while.  It keeps it very fresh and we’re able to do so because of the way we’ve built the product with the cloud and web technologies that we use  So, BIA continues to focus on what we’re good at – improving the workflow and functionality for the tasks compelled by companies on the left side of the EDRM model, leading up to review.

Thanks, Alon, 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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Laura Zubulake, Author of “Zubulake’s e-Discovery” – eDiscovery Trends

This is the fourth of the 2014 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders after LTNY this year (don’t get us started) and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What significant eDiscovery trends did you see at LTNY this year and what do you see for 2014?
  2. With new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure now in the comment phase, do you see those being approved this year and what do you see as the impact of those Rules changes?
  3. It seems despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery?  Do you agree with that and, if so, what do you think can be done to improve the situation?

Today’s thought leader is Laura Zubulake.  Laura worked on Wall Street for 20 years in institutional equity departments and, in 1991, authored the book The Complete Guide to Convertible Securities Worldwide. She was the plaintiff in the Zubulake vs. UBS Warburg case, which resulted in several landmark opinions related to eDiscovery and counsel’s obligations for the preservation of electronically stored information. The December 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were influenced, in part, by the Zubulake case. In 2012, Laura published a book titled Zubulake’s e-Discovery: The Untold Story of my Quest for Justice, previously discussed on this blog here and she speaks professionally about eDiscovery topics and her experiences related to the case.

What significant eDiscovery trends did you see at LTNY this year and what do you see for 2014?

As far as what I saw last week, there was an increase in focus on Information Governance over last year’s conference. There was also a continued interest in eDiscovery.  What I found particularly interesting is that some of the larger vendors put less emphasis on Information Governance than they did last year and more on eDiscovery this year. When I went to the vendor booths and talked to them about actual business, I got the sense that several have taken a step back from Information Governance and refocused their efforts on eDiscovery. I’m not saying this is the case with all of them, but several of them.  I was not able to find out a reason why, but I surmised from my conversations that monetizing, or creating a business around Information Governance has been difficult for some vendors. It seems they find it easier to generate business with eDiscovery.  This intrigued me.

I’m looking at it more from a business standpoint than a legal or a conference agenda standpoint. In other words, how are they actually making money in this industry? It’s still predominantly in eDiscovery, not Information Governance. I think part of that has to do with the state of the economy, which is not great and it’s difficult trying to get clients to buy certain services at this time. Information Governance is probably a tougher sell than certain technologies you have on the eDiscovery side.  This creates a real business opportunity.  Over time I think the focus will shift towards Information Governance.  Corporations will realize that eDiscovery is a subsector of Information Governance and that Information Governance is a more efficient and effective investment.

Other things that I did see at the show: clearly there was an emphasis on big data, which was expected. When I looked at the tracks, the topics included Risk and Compliance, eDiscovery, Information Governance and technology in general. This seemed to be a continuation of those topics from last year’s show – again except for Information Governance, where I did see an increased focus.

I was surprised that I didn’t see more attention in areas like healthcare, which I would have expected — given what’s going on in the country and given the planned to shift from ICD-9 to ICD-10. Although now I guess there’s a little bit of a debate about that. But, I would have thought that there would have been more emphasis on healthcare.  

As for a prediction for next year and the coming years, I think that healthcare is going to become a major focus – for Information Governance in particular.   To continue on this, it would be interesting to see other detailed sector analysis.  That is, how Information Governance (particularly in light of industry regulations) could affect the finance, utilities, and energy sectors.

I also think you’re going to see – and people have different names for this – more emphasis on applying algorithms to Information Governance and not just for eDiscovery. People use the term “predictive coding” to refer to applying algorithms to eDiscovery efforts and with Information Governance, some people call it “auto-classification.”  Essentially, it’s taking a macro view and using algorithms to help companies organize and manage their data, from the top down. So, I think you’ll start seeing more discussion on not just predictive coding for EDD, but also algorithms for Information Governance efforts.

I would say the “Internet of things” (I guess everybody has their own way to describe that) is going to become more of a focus as well. For example, Google recently purchased Nest. If you think of the implications of that, Google is going to have access to data within your home. So, I think as the “Internet of things” expands, that’s going to become more of a focus for Information Governance, eDiscovery and Risk and Compliance type issues.

Cyber security will be another trend, obviously. Security and privacy issues with regard to healthcare and the security of data at every level, whether it’s your home or business, will become increasingly important.

With new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure now in the comment phase, do you see those being approved this year and what do you see as the impact of those Rules changes?

I contributed comments to the website. In fact, I sent my book to Senator Coons, who is in charge of the committee and I have been in contact with other individuals involved in the discussion.  I think it’s important for the decision makers to appreciate what it’s like for an individual to go through litigation. While no one wants to be in that situation, it can happen to anyone.  I’m not so sure the amendments will be approved this year — maybe by the end of this year or next year.  My personal concern is that most of what I’ve read about the debate has been dominated by the defense side.  I’m not sure that the plaintiff side has been thoroughly represented. That was the concern that I voiced when I added my comments to the website.  While I understand the business and cost implications of eDiscovery, I believe the plaintiff ‘s side needs to be properly represented in the talks. With regard to the nature of the proposals, restricting the number of depositions, having certain restrictions on time, etc., I think it’s going to make it more difficult for an individual to stand up for their rights, to actually take a stand.  

It seems despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery? Do you agree with that and, if so, what do you think can be done to improve the situation?

Generally, I agree. Based on what I’ve read, there appears to be a significant segment of the legal community that is not well informed. What do I think can be done to improve the situation? Obviously, continue to educate.   Unfortunately, I think that there are many people that won’t take the time to learn new things until they’ve been thrown into a situation and forced to learn. That’s sad, because eDiscovery has been around for so long now. It should really be part of the conversation. Law schools need to include it in their curriculum somehow so that all law students become familiar with it at some level. Also, perhaps requiring continuing education for lawyers solely dedicated to eDiscovery where they sit in classes instead of just attending a conference. When you have to take an exam and answer questions, that’s when you’re forced to learn something.

Thanks, Laura, 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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.