Close
Enter your
text here

Analysis

eDiscovery Case Law: The Other Technology Assisted Review Case
 

We’ve covered the Da Silva Moore case quite a bit over the past few weeks (with posts here, here, here and here), but that’s not the only case where technology assisted review is currently being considered and debated.  On February 21, in Kleen Products LLC v. Packaging Corporation of America, et al., the plaintiffs asked Magistrate Judge Nan Nolan to require the producing parties to employ a technology assisted review approach (referred to as "content-based advanced analytics," or CBAA) in their production of documents for discovery purposes.

In their filing, the plaintiffs claimed that “[t]he large disparity between the effectiveness of [the computer-assisted coding] methodology and Boolean keyword search methodology demonstrates that Defendants cannot establish that their proposed [keyword] search methodology is reasonable and adequate as they are required.”  Citing studies conducted between 1994 and 2011 claimed to demonstrate the superiority of computer-assisted review over keyword approaches, the plaintiffs claimed that computer-assisted coding retrieved for production “70 percent (worst case) of responsive documents rather than no more than 24 percent (best case) for Defendants’ Boolean, keyword search.”

In their filing, the defendants contended that the plaintiffs "provided no legitimate reason that this Court should deviate here from reliable, recognized, and established discovery practices" in favor of their "unproven" CBAA methods. The defendants also emphasized that they have "tested, independently validated, and implemented a search term methodology that is wholly consistent with the case law around the nation and that more than satisfies the ESI production guidelines endorsed by the Seventh Circuit and the Sedona Conference." Having (according to their briefing) already produced more than one million pages of documents using their search methods, the defendants conveyed outrage that the plaintiffs would ask the court to "establish a new and radically different ESI standard for cases in this District."

The defendants also cited Best Practices Commentary on the Use of Search & Information Retrieval Methods in E-Discovery, a 2007 publication from The Sedona Conference (available for download here), which includes a quote from a 2004 federal district court opinion, saying "by far the most commonly used search methodology today is the use of 'keyword searches.'" The defendants also stated that the plaintiffs cited no case with a ruling to use computer-assisted review.  True at the time, the Da Silva Moore ruling by Judge Andrew Peck approving the use of technology assisted review was issued just three days later.

The hearing was continued to April, and it will be interesting to see whether Magistrate Judge Nolan will require, over objection, the use of computer-assisted review for the review and production of electronically stored information in this case. Based on the disputes we’ve seen in the first two cases (Da Silva Moore and Kleen Products) contemplating the use of technology assisted review, it appears that the acceptance curve for technology assisted review processes will be a rocky one.

So, what do you think?  Should Judge Nolan rule in favor of the plaintiffs, or have the defendants done enough to ensure a complete and accurate production?  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.

eDiscovery Best Practices: First Name Searches Are Not Always Proper

I’ve worked with numerous clients over the years and provided assistance regarding searching best practices to maximize recall without sacrificing search precision, including the use of fuzzy and synonym searches to identify additional potentially responsive files and sampling to test the effectiveness of searches.  In several cases, the initial list of proposed search terms sent to me by the client includes first names of several individuals to search for as standalone terms.  Unfortunately, first names don’t always make the best search terms.

Why?  Because, in many cases, the first names are so common that they can apply to several people, not just the desired individuals to be retrieved.  Depending on the size of the collection, searching for names like “Bob”, “Bill”, “Cathy”, “Jim”, “Karen” or “Pat” could retrieve many additional files to be reviewed for numerous individuals other than those specifically sought, potentially driving up review costs unnecessarily.

Another issue with first name searches is the potential variations in first names that must be included to ensure that retrieval is complete.  Take this name, for example:

“Billy Bob Byrd”

To adequately perform a first name search, your search might need to include the following: “Billy”, “Bill”, “William”, “WR” (for “William Robert”), “Bob”, “Bobby”, “Robert” and maybe even “BB” (or “BBB”).  Searching for all these terms could yield many additional hits that are probably not responsive, costing time and money to review.  While emails and other informal communications may just refer to him as “Billy Bob”, more formalized communications such as financial documents would probably refer to his name differently.  So, it’s important to include all potential variations, several of which could add considerably more false hits.

You also have the potential that the name might also have another meaning.  For example, “Bill” can be a person’s name, but “bill” is another word for invoice (keep in mind that most search engines are case insensitive, so it doesn’t matter if it’s capitalized or not).  So, searching for “bill” as a person would also yield every instance where an invoice is referred to as a “bill”.

With that in mind, it’s important to get the complete names of the people you’re searching for, as well as any known nicknames, so that you can then make decisions on the best terms to use to retrieve the most hits for each person.  Consider these names:

  • Terry Bradshaw: “Terry” is a fairly common name, so I might opt to search for “Bradshaw” first and see what I get.  Or, to limit further, retrieve only documents where both “Terry” and “Bradshaw” are both mentioned.
  • Jay Leno: Same here, “Jay” is common, “Leno” is more unique.
  • Jennifer Lopez: “Jennifer” is more common than “Lopez”, though both are fairly common.  I would search for “Lopez” first, but assuming that the client provided the nickname “JLo”, I would search for that alternative also (if not, that would hopefully fall out during review as an additional term to search for).
  • Shaquille O’Neal: This is one case where the first name is actually more unusual than the last name, so I might prefer to search for “Shaquille” and would also search for the nickname of “Shaq”.

Of course, there may be occasions where only the first name is mentioned in a document without the last name.  If you can, try to combine with some other criteria to refine the broad search for the first name, such as email address of the individual in question or email addresses of those most likely to be talking about that individual.

What about the instances where both the first and last names are common?  What about my name, “Doug Austin”?  “Doug” isn’t an extremely common first name, but it’s somewhat common, and “Austin” is the name of a city.  Searching for either term by itself could be overbroad.  So, it makes sense to try to combine them.  To do so in a phrase search, however, could be limiting as searching for “Doug Austin” could miss occurrences of “Austin, Doug”.  Conducting the search as a proximity search (e.g., “Doug within 3 words of Austin”) will catch variations, regardless of order.

This is just one example why keyword searching isn’t an exact science.  These aren’t necessarily hard and fast rules and each situation is different.  It’s important to randomly sample and test search terms to ensure an appropriate balance of recall and precision.  Of course, parties sometimes agree that it may be necessary to include first names as standalone terms, even when they are common and may retrieve a high number of additional files that are not responsive, though testing those terms before negotiating with opposing counsel can help you to be prepared to negotiate a more favorable set of terms.

So, what do you think?  Do your search term lists include standalone first names?  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.

eDiscovery Case Law: Judge Peck Responds to Plaintiff’s Request for Recusal
 

Normally, we make one post per business day to the blog.  However, we decided to make a second post for this important case (that has been discussed so intently in the industry) today as we couldn’t wait until after the holiday to report on it.

A few weeks ago, in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, No. 11 Civ. 1279 (ALC) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012), Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion making it likely the first case to accept the use of computer-assisted review of electronically stored information (“ESI”) for this case.  However, on March 13, District Court Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted plaintiffs’ request to submit additional briefing on their February 22 objections to the ruling.  In that briefing (filed on March 26), the plaintiffs claimed that the protocol approved for predictive coding “risks failing to capture a staggering 65% of the relevant documents in this case” and questioned Judge Peck’s relationship with defense counsel and with the selected vendor for the case, Recommind.

On Monday, Judge Peck issued an order in response to Plaintiffs’ request for his recusal, which, according to Judge Peck, was contained in a letter dated March 28, 2012 (not currently publicly available).  Here is what the Order said:

“The Court is in receipt of plaintiffs' March 28, 2012 letter requesting my recusal.  Plaintiffs shall advise as to whether they wish to file a formal motion or for the Court to consider the letter as the motion (in which case defendants will have 14 days to respond, from the date of plaintiffs' confirmation that the letter constitutes their motion).”

“The Court notes that my favorable view of computer assisted review technology in general was well known to plaintiffs before I made any ruling in this case, and I have never endorsed Recommind's methodology or technology, nor received any reimbursement from Recommind for appearing at any conference that (apparently) they and other vendors sponsored, such as Legal Tech. I have had no discussions with Mr. Losey about this case, nor was I aware that he is working on the case. It appears that after plaintiffs' counsel and vendor represented to me that they agreed to the use of predictive coding, plaintiffs now claim that my public statements approving generally of computer assisted review make me biased. If plaintiffs were to prevail, it would serve to discourage judges (and for that matter attorneys) from speaking on educational panels about ediscovery (or any other subject for that matter). The Court suspects this will fall on deaf ears, but I strongly suggest that plaintiffs rethink their "scorched earth" approach to this litigation.”

So, what do you think?  What will happen next?  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.

eDiscovery Case Law: Da Silva Moore Plaintiffs Question Predictive Coding Proposal, Judge Peck’s Activities
 

A few weeks ago, in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, No. 11 Civ. 1279 (ALC) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012), Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion making it likely the first case to accept the use of computer-assisted review of electronically stored information (“ESI”) for this case.  However, on March 13, District Court Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted plaintiffs’ request to submit additional briefing on their February 22 objections to the ruling.  In that briefing (filed last Monday, March 26), the plaintiffs claimed that the protocol approved for predictive coding “risks failing to capture a staggering 65% of the relevant documents in this case” and questioned Judge Peck’s relationship with defense counsel and with the selected vendor for the case, Recommind.

While the plaintiffs noted that “the use of predictive coding may be appropriate under certain circumstances”, they made several contentions in their brief, including the following:

  • That the protocol approved for predictive coding “was adopted virtually wholesale from Defendant MSLGroup”;
  • That “Judge Peck authored an article and made no fewer than six public appearances espousing the use of predictive coding” during “the ten months between the filing of the Amended Complaint and the February 24 written opinion”;
  • That Judge Peck appeared on several of these panels (three alone with Ralph Losey, Jackson Lewis’ ediscovery counsel in this case (and a previous thought leader on this blog) who the plaintiff refers to as “another outspoken predictive coding advocate whom Judge Peck ‘know[s] very well’”;
  • That “defense counsel Losey and Judge Peck cited each other’s positions on predictive coding with approval in their respective articles, which came out just four months before Judge Peck issued his ESI opinion”;
  • That, to promote its predictive coding technology, “Recommind is a frequent sponsor of the e-discovery panels on which Judge Peck and Defense counsel Losey sit” and “Judge Peck’s February 24 e-discovery ruling is expected to be a boon not only to the predictive coding industry, but also to Recommind’s bottom line”;
  • That, with regard to the defendants’ proposed protocol, “Judge Peck failed to hold an evidentiary hearing or obtain expert testimony as to its reliability and accuracy”; and
  • That, “in the same preliminary study MSL relies on to tout the quality of the technology to be used in its predictive coding protocol, the technology’s “recall,” was very low, on average 35%”, so the defendants’ proposed protocol “risks failing to capture up to 65% of the documents material to Plaintiffs’ case”.

In a declaration supplementing the plaintiffs’ filing, Paul J. Neale, chief executive officer at DOAR Litigation Consulting and the plaintiffs’ eDiscovery consultant, contended that Judge Peck approved a predictive coding process that “does not include a scientifically supported method for validating the results”. He also contended in the declaration that Peck relied on “misstatements” by two Recommind employees (Eric Seggebruch and Jan Puzicha) that misrepresent the effectiveness and accuracy of the Recommind predictive coding process and also noted that Recommind did not perform as well at the 2011 Text Retrieval Conference (TREC) as its marketing materials and experts assert.

Now, the ball is back in Judge Carter’s court.  Will he hold an evidentiary hearing on the eDiscovery issues raised by the plaintiff?  Will he direct Judge Peck to do so?  It will be interesting to see what happens next?

So, what do you think?  Do the plaintiff’s objections have merit?  Will Judge Carter give the defendants a chance to respond?  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.

eDiscovery Daily Is Eighteen! (Months Old, That Is)
 

Eighteen months ago yesterday, eDiscovery Daily was launched.  A lot has happened in the industry in eighteen months.  We thought we might be crazy to commit to a daily blog each business day.  We may be crazy indeed, but we still haven’t missed a business day yet.

The eDiscovery industry has grown quite a bit over the past eighteen months and is expected to continue to do so.   So, there has not been a shortage of topics to address; instead, the challenge has been selecting which topics to address.

Thanks for noticing us!  We’ve more than doubled our readership since the first six month period, had two of our biggest “hit count” days in the last month and have more than quintupled our subscriber base since those first six months!  We appreciate the interest you’ve shown in the topics and will do our best to continue to provide interesting and useful eDiscovery news and analysis.  And, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic!

We also want to thank the blogs and publications that have linked to our posts and raised our public awareness, including Pinhawk, The Electronic Discovery Reading Room, Unfiltered Orange, Atkinson-Baker (depo.com), Litigation Support Technology & News, Next Generation eDiscovery Law & Tech Blog, InfoGovernance Engagement Area, Justia Blawg Search, Learn About E-Discovery, Ride the Lightning, Litigation Support Blog.com, ABA Journal, Law.com and any other publication that has picked up at least one of our posts for reference (sorry if I missed any!).  We really appreciate it!

As we’ve done in the past, we like to take a look back every six months at some of the important stories and topics during that time.  So, here are some posts over the last six months you may have missed.  Enjoy!

eDiscovery Trends: Is Email Still the Most Common Form of Requested ESI?

eDiscovery Trends: Sedona Conference Provides Guidance for Judges

eDiscovery Trends: Economy Woes Not Slowing eDiscovery Industry Growth

eDiscovery Law: Model Order Proposes to Limit eDiscovery in Patent Cases

eDiscovery Case Law: Court Rules 'Circumstantial Evidence' Must Support Authorship of Text Messages for Admissibility

eDiscovery Best Practices: Cluster Documents for More Effective Review

eDiscovery Best Practices: Could This Be the Most Expensive eDiscovery Mistake Ever?

eDiscovery 101: Simply Deleting a File Doesn’t Mean It’s Gone

eDiscovery Case Law: Facebook Spoliation Significantly Mitigates Plaintiff’s Win

eDiscovery Best Practices: Production is the “Ringo” of the eDiscovery Phases

eDiscovery Case Law: Court Grants Adverse Inference Sanctions Against BOTH Sides

eDiscovery Trends: ARMA International and EDRM Jointly Release Information Governance White Paper

eDiscovery Trends: The Sedona Conference International Principles

eDiscovery Trends: Sampling within eDiscovery Software

eDiscovery Trends: Small Cases Need Love Too!

eDiscovery Case Law: Court Rules Exact Search Terms Are Limited

eDiscovery Trends: DOJ Criminal Attorneys Now Have Their Own eDiscovery Protocols

eDiscovery Best Practices: Perspective on the Amount of Data Contained in 1 Gigabyte

eDiscovery Case Law: Computer Assisted Review Approved by Judge Peck in New York Case

eDiscovery Case Law: Not So Fast on Computer Assisted Review

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

eDiscovery Case Law: Not So Fast on Computer Assisted Review
 

A few weeks ago, in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, No. 11 Civ. 1279 (ALC) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012), Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion approving of the use of computer-assisted review of electronically stored information (“ESI”) for this case, making it likely the first case to recognize that “computer-assisted review is an acceptable way to search for relevant ESI in appropriate cases.”  However, last Tuesday (March 13), District Court Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted plaintiffs’ request to submit additional briefing on their objections to the ruling.

On February 8, the parties attended a hearing to discuss their discovery protocol, and in particular the use of computer-assisted review (also referenced as “predictive coding”).  At the hearing, Judge Peck issued a ruling, approving the use of computer-assisted review, and instructed the parties to submit a draft protocol for court approval.  Judge Peck approved the proposed protocol on February 22 that had been submitted, over the plaintiffs’ objections.  On February 24, Judge Peck issued his written opinion detailing his rulings from the February 8th hearing.

On February 22 (the same day the protocol was approved, but before Judge Peck’s written opinion), the plaintiffs filed their 24 page objections to the February 8th discovery rulings, indicating their argument that the “Magistrate’s decision to adopt MSL’s predictive coding protocol is clearly erroneous and contrary to law.”  The plaintiffs specifically argued that “sanctioning the use of predictive coding in this employment discrimination case violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26” and also argued that the court’s adoption of a “novel discovery methodology” without “supporting evidence” or “standards for assessing reliability” was “clearly erroneous and contrary to law”.  On March 7, the defendant filed its opposition to plaintiffs’ objections.

Then, on March 9, the plaintiffs submitted a letter to District Judge Carter, requesting an opportunity to “file a ten-page reply brief” to the defendant’s response.  In the letter, the plaintiffs argued that Judge Peck’s written ruling, issued two days after their objections were filed, “expanded on the reasoning for the rulings he had made from the bench,” including relying on “a number of articles that were not addressed in the parties’ submissions” and making observations about plaintiffs’ objections.  As a result, the plaintiffs requested the opportunity to “squarely address Magistrate Judge Peck’s complete rulings.”  In addition, the plaintiffs argued that allowing their reply would not result in prejudice where the defendant had “the benefit” of filing its opposition to plaintiffs’ objections after the written ruling was issued and thus had the opportunity to consider Magistrate Judge Peck’s analysis when crafting their response.

Which brings us to last Tuesday (March 13), Judge Carter granted plaintiffs’ request and ordered their reply be submitted by March 19 (that’s today!).  Then, we’ll see what happens next.

So, what do you think?  Do the plaintiff’s objections have merit?  If Judge Carter throws out predictive coding, will there be hand wringing and wailing from the predictive coding vendors?  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.

eDiscovery Case Law: Computer Assisted Review Approved by Judge Peck in New York Case
 

In Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, No. 11 Civ. 1279 (ALC) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012), Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion on last Friday (February 24), approving of the use of computer-assisted review of electronically stored information (“ESI”) for this case, making it likely the first case to recognize that “computer-assisted review is an acceptable way to search for relevant ESI in appropriate cases.”  As noted in our previous blog post about the case, the parties had been instructed to submit draft protocols by February 16th.

After providing a background of the Title VII gender discrimination case, Judge Peck went on to reference his article (Search, Forward: Will manual document review and keyword searches be replaced by computer-assisted coding?) to explain computer-assisted review.  He then detailed the parties’ negotiation of an agreed protocol for the computer-assisted review for this case.  The Court accepted the defendants’ proposal, which included seven iterative “seeding” reviews, but included the following caveat:

“But if you get to the seventh round and [plaintiffs] are saying that the computer is still doing weird things, it’s not stabilized, etc., we need to do another round or two, either you will agree to that or you will both come in with the appropriate QC information and everything else and [may be ordered to] do another round or two or five or 500 or whatever it takes to stabilize the system.”

The opinion also included a section entitled “Further Analysis and Lessons for the Future” in which several, more general topics surrounding computer-assisted review were addressed.  Judge Peck recognized that “computer-assisted review is not a magic, Staples-Easy-Button, solution appropriate for all cases” and noted that “[t]he goal is for the review method to result in higher recall and higher precision than another review method, at a cost proportionate to the ‘value’ of the case” (referenced in the article Technology-Assisted Review in E-Discovery Can Be More Effective and More Efficient Than Exhaustive Manual Review, written by Maura R. Grossman & Gordon V. Cormack).

In his conclusion, Judge Peck noted:

“This Opinion appears to be the first in which a Court has approved of the use of computer-assisted review.  That does not mean computer-assisted review must be used in all cases, or that the exact ESI protocol approved here will be appropriate in all future cases that utilize computer-assisted review.  Nor does this Opinion endorse any vendor … nor any particular computer-assisted review tool.  What the Bar should take away from this Opinion is that computer-assisted review is an available tool and should be seriously considered for use in large-data-volume cases where it may save the producing party (or both parties) significant amounts of legal fees in document review.  Counsel no longer have to worry about being the “first” or “guinea pig” for judicial acceptance of computer-assisted review.  As with keywords or any other technological solution to e-discovery, counsel must design an appropriate process, including use of available technology, with appropriate quality control testing, to review and produce relevant ESI while adhering to Rule 1 and Rule 26(b)(2)(C) proportionality.  Computer-assisted review now can be considered judicially-approved for use in appropriate cases.”

For those in the industry yearning for case law that addresses the approved use of technology assisted review methodologies, Judge Peck’s in-depth discussion of the topic and conclusion appears to address that need.  It will be interesting to see how this case continues and whether additional discussion of the methodology will be discussed in case filings!

So, what do you think?  Is it high time for courts to recognize and approve computer-assisted review or is the court system still not ready for technology based approaches?  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.

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

This is the seventh (and final) of the 2012 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What do you consider to be the emerging trends in eDiscovery that will have the greatest impact in 2012?
  2. Which trend(s), if any, haven’t emerged to this point like you thought they would?
  3. What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends?
  4. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Craig Ball.  A frequent court appointed special master in electronic evidence, Craig is a prolific contributor to continuing legal and professional education programs throughout the United States, having delivered over 750 presentations and papers.  Craig’s articles on forensic technology and electronic discovery frequently appear in the national media, and he writes a monthly column on computer forensics and eDiscovery for Law Technology News called Ball in your Court, as well as blogs on those topics at ballinyourcourt.com. 

Our interview with Craig had so much good information in it, we couldn’t fit it all into a single post.  Yesterday, we published part one.  Enjoy the rest of the interview!

What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends?

Well, I've been coming to Legal Tech for well over a dozen years and ,each year, I think it couldn't possibly become more an eDiscovery conference (as opposed to a general forensic technology conference).  Then, next year, the aisles seem to grow longer and deeper with people providing eDiscovery solutions. 

So I'm just blown away.  I used to toil in this fairly obscure corner of the practice, and it’s now, literally, this whole event.  Walk down these aisles with me, and you'll see it's just one person after another after another offering some kind of eDiscovery tool or service or related product.  That’s also true of the educational sessions – some of which I guiltily helped plan, so the focus on eDiscovery does not come as much of a surprise.  But, remember that the vendors who sponsor these tracks have a hand in the content as well, and they’re the ones insisting, “We want to talk about eDiscovery.  We want to talk about technology-assisted review.”

It's not just because of what they're selling, although, certainly that’s a driver.  It's also what they want to hear about.  It's what their customers want to know more about. 

So, is it inconsistent that I'm saying there's not enough education about eDiscovery, and yet here, they talk of little else?  Other than LegalTech, and a few other events, the need remains to go longer and deeper.  Understanding information technology is a necessity for litigators.  That’s where the evidence lives.  IT is a discipline as broad, deep and complex in its way as the law.  Why then do we expect it should require so much less a dedication of time and effort to become even minimally proficient in information technology than it was to learn the law?

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

For me, this is the year of trying to offer an earlier acquaintance in information technology to lawyers.  I've spent almost thirty years teaching lawyers and judges about forensic technology and helping them get their arms around it.  This year, I returned to teaching law students.  My e-discovery course is offered at the University of Texas School of Law and I’m trying to help the students appreciate that in a very difficult job market, entering the profession with a practical understanding of how to attack an eDiscovery effort is a distinguishing factor in trying to find and keep employment.  It's a crucial skill set, and it's not one they can expect will be handed down to them from older lawyers.

There's just simply no lore to hand down where eDiscovery is concerned, at least not much useful lore.  And so I'm gratified for the challenge, and it's very hard work.  It's much harder to teach law students than it is to teach lawyers for a host of reasons.  The challenge in teaching law students versus lawyers is giving them the crucial context.  Most haven’t much exposure to law practice, so you have to give them more information and explain much more of what you take for granted with lawyers. 

Moving forward this year, I'm also trying to find ways to do more testing of new tools and refine mechanisms for reducing the volume of electronic information, to help lawyers master strategies that will make it easier for them to hit the ground running and take advantage of some of the economies that are within easy reach.  The key is to educate them on “methods” more than “shortcuts”.  I want to show them techniques that they can apply with confidence to speed the process of identification and preservation, as well as help them apply a better and more precise working vocabulary to enable them to communicate with clarity and confidence about ESI.  Competent communication, even more than cooperation, will prove a major contributor to eliminating headaches in eDiscovery.

Thanks, Craig, for participating in the interview!

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

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

This is the seventh (and final) of the 2012 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What do you consider to be the emerging trends in eDiscovery that will have the greatest impact in 2012?
  2. Which trend(s), if any, haven’t emerged to this point like you thought they would?
  3. What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends?
  4. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Craig Ball.  A frequent court appointed special master in electronic evidence, Craig is a prolific contributor to continuing legal and professional education programs throughout the United States, having delivered over 750 presentations and papers.  Craig’s articles on forensic technology and electronic discovery frequently appear in the national media, and he writes a monthly column on computer forensics and eDiscovery for Law Technology News called Ball in your Court, as well as blogs on those topics at ballinyourcourt.com. 

Our interview with Craig had so much good information in it, we couldn’t fit it all into a single post.  So, today is part one.  Part two will be published in the blog tomorrow!

What do you consider to be the emerging trends in eDiscovery that will have the greatest impact in 2012?

Well, I see several things happening.  I'm gratified that people are starting to become more resigned to the obligation to pursue eDiscovery.  I think we're seeing some better practices, particularly with respect to preservation.

The preservation message is hitting home.  Whether it’s a function of the outsize fear factor prompted by sanctions decisions or whether lawyers and businesses are becoming better informed by virtue of education and dialogue like that here at LegalTech is hard to say.  Regardless, I think the message is starting to seep through that there are  things you must do early on to identify electronically stored information and be sure that it's properly preserved.

As I walk around the show and listen to the programs, I'm amazed by all discussion of Technology Assisted Review or TAR—maybe the worst acronym that industry’s come up with since ECA.  But, they didn't choose Super Human Information Technology, so I guess we should be thankful for small blessings.  I'm sure we'll soon an article mentioning TAR and feathers.

Technology Assisted Review is the use of more sophisticated algorithms—math–and advanced analytic to take replace or supplement the individualized judgment of lawyers' respecting the responsiveness, non-responsiveness and privileged character of documents and data sets.  The notion behind TAR is that we don't need legions of young associates or contract lawyers in darkened rooms staring at screens; instead, the broad distinctions between what is most likely to be relevant and what is not will be handled robotically.  It’s floated as a more palatable, more affordable alternative to poorly-chosen key words thrown at massive data volumes–a more intelligent, more intuitive tool that does the job in a way that’s no worse than human beings, hopefully somewhat better, and in any case, for a lot less money.  That is the dream, and it’s coming closer to a reality..

But the realization out there is spotty.  Expectations are unrealistic and marketing is overheated, but we are seeing some enthusiasm amidst the skepticism.  And, I think that trend is certainly going to continue, at least as a marketing trend whether it continues as a successfully-integrated technology or not.  For the moment, it’s an option only for those with big budgets, not the rank and file firm.  No surprises there, as eDiscovery has yet to become a process lawyers know how to manage cost-effectively, But they will learn, in time.  Clients, courts and malpractice carriers will leave no option but to learn it.

Which trend(s), if any, haven’t emerged to this point like you thought they would?

Oh, that's an easy one.  That's education.  I am appalled at the dearth of high-caliber educational options available to lawyers in this crucial and very costly corner aspect of the practice.  E-discovery education is still afflicted by the scourge of the one-hour CLE.  You know, where some earnest person’s trotted out for 30, 45 minutes, maybe an hour of introduction to electronic discovery.  That continuing, repeated, cursory treatment of this challenging area is what’s supposed to make us confident and competent.  It doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.

Lawyers are still not learning enough about the information infrastructure of their clients.  They're picking up a few buzz words.  I’ll see it some meet-and-confers.  It's like watching a little kid use a curse word.  This sort of smile creeps across their face when they’ve managed to work the word “metadata” into the conversation.  As though using the term is a talisman–a substitute for actually knowing what they're talking about.

I don't mean to be so dismissive, but it's really gets almost that absurd sometimes.  We don't have enough education.  We don't have enough lawyers starting to get it.  Most channel their energy and ingenuity into look for reasons why they don’t need to know this stuff.  The handful that really do want to learn have precious few places to go short of self-instruction.  We need to change that.

We need a Manhattan Project in this country to help rescue the experienced lawyers and bring them up to speed.  We need a sort of reset, getting all trial lawyers talking about these topics in an intelligent, productive, and perhaps most importantly of all, cost-effective way.

Thanks, Craig, for participating in the interview!

To the readers, just a reminder to stay tuned for part two of our interview with Craig tomorrow!  And, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic!

eDiscovery Trends: Ralph Losey of Jackson Lewis, LLP, Part Two
 

This is the sixth of the 2012 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year.

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 Partner and the firm's National e-Discovery Counsel. Ralph is also an Adjunct Professor at the University of Florida College of Law teaching eDiscovery and advanced eDiscovery. Ralph is also a prolific author of eDiscovery books and articles, the principle author and publisher of the popular e-Discovery Team® Blog and founder and owner of an intensive online training program, e-Discovery Team Training, with attorney and technical students all over the world.

Our interview with Ralph had so much good information in it, we couldn’t fit it all into a single post.  Yesterday was part 1.  Here's the rest of the interview!

Are there any other key trends you see?  Is there anything else interesting in terms of the trends you see here at LegalTech, at least as far as the curriculum goes?

[Interviewed the first morning, before the show began]  In all candor, the show hasn't begun yet, so I haven't seen anything.  I'm doing four presentations on predictive coding and one with Craig Ball, which I'm looking forward to.  I hope I don't suffer too bad of a public humiliation by Master Ball. 

But, you know, the keynote speech that's getting ready to start is on ethics, and I see a lot of ethics in the curriculum.  I'm pleased by that.  I do lecture a lot on eDiscovery ethics, and I think it comes down to fundamentally what we are doing with discovery.  Are we, as legal practitioners, willing to stop playing “hide the ball”, stop all this nonsense and waste of money, and get down to actually finding the key facts and getting them out there quickly?  That's always been my attitude, but I was lucky – I was brought up in a firm that really put ethics first and money second.  But, there are a lot of people out there for which money's first, and ethics is a gray area.

Ethics is not a gray area.  We're supposed to try and get the case resolved and save money for our clients.  That's rule one.  Just do it speedy and inexpensively.  A lot of lawyers, say, “yeah, right” and that's how they make a living.  Well, shame on them.

You don’t make a living by exploiting your clients.  You make a living by winning cases, and sometimes the best way to win a case is to settle it when you realize the facts are against you – not to try to change the facts or hide the facts.  So that's ethics.  Most clients want ethical lawyers like that.

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

I'm doing a lot of law firm training.  I do that internally and, since my current law firm specializes in labor and employment only, we're not really a competitor to most law firms.  So, we actually can offer a service to help train other law firms in eDiscovery.

I'm also now doing a lot of training for our corporate clients.  We represent Fortune 500 type companies, and it's important for those companies to be prepared for eDiscovery.  Now that we’re coming out of the recession, companies can spend the money needed to get ready for litigation and eDiscovery that they put off before, because of other priorities.  Companies are now saying “I want to finally get my e-mail retention policy in order.  I want to figure out how to get a litigation hold implemented in my company without causing all kinds of disruption and chaos and confusion and expense.”

It just takes preparation.  It takes time.  The fundamental way to do that is to set up your own internal team, eDiscovery team.  That's one of the main ideas that I've been talking about for six years now when I started my blog, e-Discovery Team®, is the joint approach of people working together.  Get the IT people, the law people and the management people working together as teams for – in this case – litigation readiness.

It can cost a fair amount of money to do it right.  But, if you spend $100,000 now to get ready and get your systems in order, you can save yourself millions later on and also save yourself the embarrassment of making a mistake, of being found out to be a spoliator.  There are plenty of examples where it makes sense to spend a little money up front to save more money down the road.  So, I want to encourage companies to think about that, whether they use me or somebody else.  There are a number of attorneys that provide those services, and it's money well spent.  Pay me a little bit now or pay me a lot later.

Ten years ago, when Cisco was probably the first company in the country to form their own eDiscovery team, it was after they faced hundreds of investor law suits.  They found that by forming their own eDiscovery team, they reduced their litigation expenses by 90 percent because most of their litigation expenses were related to eDiscovery.  While I'm not promising you'll save 90 percent like Cisco did, I am saying it's a well-established fact that spending a little money up front to prepare will help you save costs in the long run.

I'd also like point out to people the other program that I've developed, which I call eDiscovery team training.  And you'll also find that on the web, at e-Discovery Team Training.  I took what I had developed in law school in teaching eDiscovery to law students for the past three or four years, and I developed an online program with the University of Florida, School of Law.  With their permission, I developed my own private version of that, which is actually much longer and harder than what I taught to law students.  Law students had to take it in two months.

So, I've developed a program that built on that, which you can take up to two years to complete.  It's 75 hours of work to go through the training program and it's all online.  It has homework assignments at the end for additional reading and presents different essays, hypertext-type writings and videos.  It takes advantage of the power of online education, which I really think is more the future than these expensive, face-to-face education programs, like we have at LegalTech.

There are still a few events that I'll go to each year (like LegalTech and the Sedona Conference), and then I'll train inside corporations or in my own law firm.  The fact that most lawyers aren't doing eDiscovery is not because they're trying to do anything wrong or hide the truth.  They simply don't know how.  And if you teach them how to do it, they'll do it.  This is against a lot of vendors' models – they would rather serve a nice fish dinner.  I'm more into teaching people how to fish so that they can feed themselves, and that's what I go around trying to do.

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!