Close
Enter your
text here

Electronic Discovery

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

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

Today’s thought leader is 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 and also a member of the leadership team for the Information Governance Initiative.  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 are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends?

It’s clear to me that there has been a maturing of the market for the kind of analytics software that some of us have been evangelizing about in the eDiscovery space for some time.  This year, it was noticeable that there weren’t 27 sessions devoted to technology assisted review in e-discovery cases!  However, in place of that narrower focus, there were any number of sessions on analytics and applying analytics to a broader segment of the legal space, which I applaud.

Also, I think there was an acknowledgement that, from the perspective of Information Governance, there is an analytics play to be had.  With bigger and bigger data sets, companies need to face the fact that both employees and customers generate huge amounts of data and they need to make sure that they understand and have visibility into that data.  So, the tools that evolved for purposes of eDiscovery are perfectly suitable – with tweaks – to cover a variety of legal purposes, and we’re seeing that play out at LegalTech.

At LTNY, you were one of the panelists on the Thursday keynote addressing issues such as private servers, bring-your-own-device (BYOD) and other organization challenges for managing data by individual employees.  What do organizations, such as government entities and corporations, need to do manage personal data more effectively?

Well, I’m glad you asked me that.  The session that I had the privilege of speaking on (with Judge Scheindlin and Edward McMahon as fellow panelists and Professor Dan Capra moderating) was all about what I call “shadow IT,” which is a phenomenon that is closely related to but distinct from BYOD.   In the past decade or so, we all have been empowered to simply go to the Internet to use whatever variety of cool apps that are out there, like Google Docs and Dropbox, to facilitate communications and doing work and “parking” documents.  We go out and communicate routinely on Gmail and other forms of commercial services.  All of these activities, to the extent that they involve communications that relate to business or the work of governments, are what I consider to be “shadow IT” in nature because they are not controlled by a traditional IT department in a corporation or agency.

So, maybe a decade ago, if there was a Rule 34 request, you were pretty much assured that all of the relevant material could be gathered by a state-of-the-art IT custodian performing a collection effort against individual accounts on an official system.  That’s no longer absolutely the case.  Today, you need to ask follow-up questions as to where individuals are parking their documents and where are they communicating outside the “official” channel for doing so.

In government, there are very well known, long standing rules for what constitutes a Federal record, including email.  There is an expectation on the part of the public – and there should be an expectation on the part of government officials — that Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for records created about government business will be made available. (Indeed, at least some of those records will be preserved as permanent records in the National Archives of the United States.)  So, it is incumbent to make sure that one follows the rules — and the rules for government are different than what they are for the private sector.  A clear statute in place since 2014 says that anytime that you’re communicating about government business on a private commercial network, you need to either “cc” or forward that message within twenty days to an official record keeping system.  This isn’t the place to get into what regulations were prior to 2014 and how that plays out in terms of the political realm, but our panel did cover the general topic of the responsibility of the officials to make sure that their communications about government business are, in fact, captured in an official system somewhere.

Also, for some time, I have been a very big advocate of email archiving and capture technologies generally, so that we don’t lose history and don’t lose a broad swath of government records that are otherwise not going to be captured if you simply leave it to individuals themselves to take steps to preserve. 

The problem of shadow IT is one that is equally of concern in the private sector because high level corporate officials sometimes, in various verticals, are governed by strict email archiving requirements (e.g.,SEC and FINRA rules).  So senior people need to also be aware that, if they’re communicating about cover topics outside of the usual channels, they need to take additional steps to make sure that those are properly archived.

These issues are only emerging now and it’s probably only going to get “worse”!  In my view, the issues are going to be more complex in the future with more apps, more platforms, more devices and more opportunities for “end runs” around the traditional IT department.

In the case Nuvasive v. Madsen Medical, the Court recently vacated an adverse inference instruction sanction previously applied against the plaintiff because of the amendment to Rule 37(e).  Do you see that as a trend for other cases and do you expect that other parties that have been sanctioned will file motions to have their sanctions re-considered?

There are some subtle provisions as to when courts will or will not apply the new rules to existing cases.  But, beyond that, I have been watching with great interest the number of decisions that have been handed down that are applying the new provisions of Rule 37, and doing so in a way that suggests that courts will continue to be quite active in monitoring what is happening in discovery — imposing severe sanctions where appropriate and, when there isn’t the requisite level of intent, applying some sort of curative measures otherwise.  So, I think there may have been a greater level of judicial activity than was anticipated in the immediate period since December 1 when the rules changed.  It seems clear to most observers in the space that we’re going to have dozens and dozens of decisions in 2016 that apply the new rules, and we will get to see the patterns emerging pretty quickly.

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

I think the exciting work of the Information Governance Initiative (IGI) continues to push smart conversations in the space about how corporations can get a handle on their data.  We had a very successful IGI summit, known as the Chief Information Governance Officers (CIGO) summit, in Chicago last year.  We’re going to have the second CIGO summit in May of this year again in Chicago and we’re looking forward to that.  We also have any number of activities that we’re planning to do in terms of retreats, dinners and boot camps, etc. I think IG is still an emerging discipline that should be of great interest to many corporate actors who don’t have a good handle on their existing workflows, policies and programs about data – whether it’s data breach or data reduction or data archiving or data analytics.  I feel very privileged to be part of a group of individuals at the IGI that are really doing some serious thinking about these types of topics.

I must say I was surprised by Monica Bay at LegalTech, who pulled me in at the last moment to be a judge at the second “Shark Tank” session held there —  where I felt a little like being on “America’s Got Talent” as one of three judges in the room looking at the individual entrepreneurs who were giving presentations.  But, as the session progressed (and as recorded by David Horrigan, who was tweeting the session in live stream fashion) it seemed very clear to me that maybe it’s time for me to retire!  I say so because of the profusion of disruptive technologies in the space, whether it has to do with smart contracts or dialing up lawyers over the web, it all heavily suggests that all of our current business models are going to be disrupted in due course and maybe very soon!  There are simply a lot of exciting technologies in the space for which the CodeX people are fostering a platform.  In the end I confess to being quite happy that Monica pulled me in, and I would urge your readership to pay attention to what CodeX is doing.  I believe there is a conference coming up (CodeX FutureLaw 2016) on May 20, which is focusing on how technology is changing the landscape of the legal profession and the impact of those changes.

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

Our Nation’s Largest City is Not Immune to eDiscovery Sanctions: eDiscovery Case Law

In Stinson v. City of New York, 10 Civ. 4228 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2016), New York District Judge Robert W. Sweet granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion seeking sanctions for spoliation of evidence against the defendants for failure to issue a litigation hold, opting for a permissive inference rather than a mandatory adverse inference sanction against the defendants.

Case Background

In this civil rights class action against the City of New York, it was determined that the City did not issue any litigation hold until August 8, 2013, more than three years after the filing of the Complaint in this case and the litigation hold was not effectively communicated, and none of the officers who were named in the City’s initial disclosures acknowledged receiving it.

At the time of the litigation hold, the document destruction processes at the NYPD were governed by Operations Order 44, which specified the length of time the Department would be required to retain various categories of documents.  Order 44 authorized the destruction of most bureau chief memos after three years, police officers’ monthly performance reports after four years, and criminal court summonses after four years.  With regard to emails, the City’s 30(b)(6) witness stated that “although the NYPD did not have a specific policy with regards to the destruction of email communications, it did impose a hard size limit on officers’ inboxes, and that when officers hit that limit, ‘they delete.’”  The City also did not dispute that it had not made any effort to preserve or produce text messages between NYPD officers.

With regard to the defendants’ production, the Court noted that they produced fewer than 25 emails from key players, with no emails produced from the former Commissioner, the former Chief of the department, and three other key custodians. The defendants explained the lack of email production by contending that the “Police Department on the whole did not operate via email”, but that contention was countered by email communications with the city that the plaintiffs acquired from third parties.

Judge’s Ruling

Citing Chin v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Judge Sweet stated that:

“In order to merit an adverse inference, the party seeking sanctions must establish 1) that the party having control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve it at the time it was destroyed, 2) that the records were destroyed with a culpable state of mind, and 3) that the destroyed evidence was relevant to the party’s claim or defense such that a reasonable trier of fact could find that it would support that claim or defense.”

  • With regard to the defendants’ obligation, Judge Sweet rejected the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs’ preservation requests were overbroad, stating “Plaintiffs’ putative overbroad demands do not excuse the City’s failure to issue a litigation hold, to properly supervise its implementation, or to suspend document retention policies that would foreseeably lead to the spoliation of evidence.”
  • With regard to the defendants’ culpable state of mind, Judge Sweet stated that “the City’s conduct shows a broad failure to take its preservation obligations seriously rather than any deliberate attempt to lie or mislead”, but noted that the “City’s conduct does, however, support a finding of gross negligence”.
  • With regard to the relevance of the destroyed documents, Judge Sweet determined that the “evidence adduced thus far indicates that at least some of the destroyed documents will be relevant to the Plaintiffs’ claims”, though he did note that the showing of relevance by the plaintiffs was “relatively limited”.

As sanctions for the defendants’ spoliation, the plaintiffs requested a set of sixteen adverse inferences touching on almost every aspect of their case, but Judge Sweet opted for a lesser level of sanctions, stating:

“Given the City’s lack of bad faith in its spoliation of evidence and the relatively limited showing of relevance made by the Plaintiffs, a permissive, rather than a mandatory adverse inference is warranted…A permissive inference will ensure that the City faces consequences for its failure to take its preservation obligations seriously, but will not result in an unwarranted windfall for the Plaintiffs. The jury will be instructed that the absence of documentary evidence does not in this case establish the absence of a summons quota policy.”

So, what do you think?  Was that a sufficient sanction for the defendants’ “gross negligence” in failing to issue a litigation hold?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

George Socha of Socha Consulting LLC: eDiscovery Trends

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

Today’s thought leader is George Socha.  A litigator for 16 years, George is President of Socha Consulting LLC, offering services as an electronic discovery expert witness, special master and advisor to corporations, law firms and their clients, and legal vertical market software and service providers in the areas of electronic discovery and automated litigation support. George has also been co-author of the leading survey on the electronic discovery market, The Socha-Gelbmann Electronic Discovery Survey; in 2011, he and Tom Gelbmann converted the Survey into Apersee, an online system for selecting eDiscovery providers and their offerings.  In 2005, he and Tom Gelbmann launched the Electronic Discovery Reference Model project to establish standards within the eDiscovery industry – today, the EDRM model has become a standard in the industry for the eDiscovery life cycle and there are nine active projects with over 300 members from 81 participating organizations.  George has a J.D. for Cornell Law School and a B.A. from the University of Wisconsin – Madison.

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

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

This is the largest legal technology trade show of the year so it’s going to be a “who’s who” of people in the hallways.  It will be an opportunity for service and software providers to roll out their new “fill in the blank”.  It will be great to catch up with folks that I only get to see once a year as well as folks that I get to see a lot more than that.  And, yet again, I don’t expect any dramatic revelations on the exhibit floor or in any of the sessions.

We continue to hear two recurring themes:  the market is consolidating and eDiscovery has become a commodity. I still don’t see either of these actually happening.  Consolidation would be if some providers were acquiring others and no new providers were coming along to fill in the gaps, or if a small number of providers was taking over a huge share of the market.  Instead, as quickly as one provider acquires another, two, three or more new providers pop up and often with new ideas they hope will gain traction.  In terms of dominating the market, there has been some consolidation on the software side but as to services provider the market continues to look more like law firms than like accounting firms.

In terms of commoditization, I think we still have a market where people want to pay “K-mart, off the rack” prices for “Bespoke” suits.  That reflects continued intense downward pressure on prices.  It does not suggest, however, that the e-discovery market has begun to approximate, for example, the markets for corn, oil or generic goods.  E-discovery services and software are not yet fungible – with little meaningful difference between them other than price.  I have heard no discussion of “e-discovery futures.”  And providers and consumers alike still seem to think that brand, levels of project management, and variations in depth and breadth of offerings matter considerably.

Given that analytics happens at various places throughout the eDiscovery life cycle, is it time to consider tweaking the EDRM model to reflect a broader scope of analysis?

The question always is, “what should the tweak look like?”  The questions I ask in return are “What’s there that should not be there?”, “What should be there that is not?” and “What should be re-arranged?”  One common category of suggested tweaks are the ones meant to change the EDRM model to look more like one particular person’s or organization’s workflow.  This keeps coming up even though the model was never meant to be a workflow – it is a conceptual framework to help break one unitary item into a set of more discrete components that you can examine in comparison to each other and also in isolation.

A second set of tweaks focuses on adding more boxes to the diagram.  Why, we get asked, don’t we have a box called Early Case Assessment, and another called Legal Hold, and another called Predictive Coding, and so on. With activities like analytics, you can take the entire EDRM diagram and drop it inside any one of those boxes or in that circle.  Those concepts already are present in the current diagram.  If, for example, you took the entire EDRM diagram and dropped it inside the Identification box, you could call that Early Case Assessment or Early Data Assessment.  There was discussion early on about whether there should be a box for “Search”, but Search is really an Analysis function – there’s a home for it there.

A third set of suggested tweaks centers on eliminating elements from the diagram.  Some have proposed that we combine the processing and review boxes into a single box – but the rationale they offer is that because they offer both those capabilities there no longer is a need to show separate boxes for the separate functions.

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

First, we would like to invite current and prospective members to join us on April 18 for our Spring meeting which will be at the ACEDS conference this year.  The conference is from April 18 through April 20, with the educational portion of the conference slated for the 19th and 20th.

For several years at the conference, ACEDS has given out awards honoring eDiscovery professionals.  To congratulate this year’s winners we will be giving them one-year individual EDRM memberships.

On the project side, one of the undertakings we are working on is “SEAT-1,” a follow up to our eMSAT-1 (eDiscovery Maturity Self-Assessment Test).  SEAT-1 will be a self-assessment test specifically for litigation groups and law firms.  The test is intended to enable them to better assess where they are at, how they are doing and where they want to be.  We are also working on different ways to deliver our budget calculators.  It’s too early to provide details on that, but we’re hoping to be able to provide more information soon.

Finally, in the past year we have begun to develop and deliver member-only resources. We published a data set for members only and we put a new section of EDRM site with information about the changes to the Federal rules, including a comprehensive collection of information about the changes to the rules.  This year, we will be working on additional resources to be available to just our members.

Thanks, George, for participating in the interview!

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

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

DOJ and FBI Respond to Apple’s Letter Regarding Breaking Encryption of San Bernardino Shooter’s iPhone: eDiscovery Trends

It probably comes as no surprise that the government didn’t take Apple’s opposition to the Federal order to give investigators access to encrypted data on the iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters lying down.

According to the ABA Journal, on Friday, federal prosecutors filed a motion to compel Apple to unlock the killer’s iPhone.  In its motion, the Department of Justice said that Apple is “not above the law”.  “Apple’s current refusal to comply with the court order’s order, despite the technical feasibility of doing so, instead appears to be based on its concern for its business model and public brand marketing strategy,” the DOJ wrote in its filing, stating that Apple shouldn’t be allowed to “design and market its products to allow technology, rather than the law, to control access to data”.

Then, on Sunday, the FBI also responded to Apple’s opposition.  According to NBC News, FBI Director James Comey said forcing Apple to help unlock the iPhone of one of the San Bernardino shooters is no big deal.  “We don’t want to break anyone’s encryption or set a master key loose on the land,” Comey said in a statement Sunday night, insisting that vital decisions involving safety from terrorists shouldn’t be left in the hands of “corporations that sell stuff for a living.”

In the meantime, everyone from Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai to Donald Trump is weighing in on whether Apple should help unlock the iPhone for the investigation.  And, Apple is claiming that had the passcode to Syed Farook’s iPhone not been reset hours after the shooting (at the consent of the FBI), the company would have been able to initiate a backup of the phone’s data to its associated iCloud account in order to retrieve its contents.  And, PCWorld is reporting that if San Bernardino County had been using a Mobile Device Management (MDM) service on its employees’ devices, they “would have been able to clear the device’s passcode in a matter of seconds” and the whole issue would have been moot.

So, what do you think?  Do any of the recent developments and statements change your opinion about whether Apple should or should not help the FBI break into the iPhone?  Please share any comments you might have with us or let us know if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Brad Jenkins of CloudNine: eDiscovery Trends

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

Today’s thought leader is Brad Jenkins of CloudNine™.  Brad has over 20 years of experience as an entrepreneur, as well as 15 years leading customer focused companies in the litigation technology arena. Brad also has authored several articles on document management and litigation support issues, and has appeared as a speaker before national audiences on document management practices and solutions.  He’s also my boss!  :o)

What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it compared to other LTNY shows that you have attended?

Again this year, LTNY seemed reasonably well attended.  Thankfully, we didn’t have the weather and travel issues that we had the past few years, so that probably helped boost attendance.  And, the Hilton Lobby Lounge was back this year, so that provided an additional location to meet, though most of our meetings were in our suite.  Though I was really busy and didn’t get much chance to attend sessions, I understand that they were very good as always.  I did notice a drop in the number of exhibitors again this year and the exhibit hall did seem to be less crowded.  One colleague of mine who exhibited indicated that the number of leads he received at the show dropped about 30 percent from last year, so that’s consistent with my own observations and those of my colleagues.

For me, LTNY has become as much about the meetings with colleagues and business partners as it is about the show itself.  CloudNine had meetings practically booked throughout the show, with various people including industry analysts, partners and potential partners and clients and prospects.  Because it is the biggest show of the year, most people in the industry attend, so it’s an ideal opportunity to meet face to face and move business relationships along further.  Sometimes, there is just no substitute for in-person meetings to further business relationships and to communicate your message to other business colleagues.

What about general industry trends?  Are there any notable trends that you’ve observed?

Certainly one trend that I have noticed, as others have certainly noticed, is the accelerated consolidation within our industry within the provider community and the growth of investment of outside venture capital firms in our industry.  Just in the past couple of months, we have seen Huron Legal acquired by Consilio (which received a major investment from Shamrock Capital Advisors a few months before that), Millnet acquired by Advanced Discovery, Orange Legal acquired by Xact Data Discovery and Kiersted Systems acquired by OmniVere.  Rob Robinson does a terrific job of tracking mergers, acquisitions and investments in our industry and, according to his list, there have been eleven significant acquisitions and investments in just the past three months!

Another noticeable trend in the industry is the clear trend toward automation within eDiscovery.  You wrote about it earlier this year and, like you, I believe that the age of automation is here.  Some have dismissed the term “automation” as a marketing term, but I can’t think of a better term to describe the transformation of tasks that used to require a high degree of manual intervention and supervision to a point where little, if any, human involvement is necessary.  We’ve seen it for years through automation of review with technology assisted review techniques such as clustering and predictive coding and we have begun to see use of some artificial intelligence techniques on the information governance side.  Now, we are seeing automation of the processing of data to get it into a review platform and cloud-based providers (including CloudNine) automating that process.

Having been in the legal technology industry for many years, I have really seen an evolution of technology offerings in the marketplace.  At the beginning, I saw applications that were originally developed for other purposes being adapted for eDiscovery and those solutions were incomplete.  As the market developed, there started to be applications that were specifically designed for eDiscovery and those solutions were an improvement, but they were designed for isolated processes, such as collection or processing or review, with no automation of tasks.  The next generation of solutions were designed for eDiscovery and designed for task integration, but still adapted for task automation – some of those are the most popular solutions in the market today.  The new solutions – the “fourth generation” technology offerings are not only designed for eDiscovery and designed for task integration, they’re designed for task automation as well.

Many people say that if you want to tell where an industry is heading, follow the money.  In the past several months, you’ve seen providers like Logikcull and Everlaw that emphasize automation receive significant capital investments and, just before LTNY, you saw Thomson Reuters announce a new platform where automated processing is a key component.  It’s clear that big money is being invested in the growing automation sector of the industry.  You can get on the bus, or you can get run over by the bus.  As a provider that has been committed to simplified eDiscovery automation for several years now, CloudNine is on the bus and we feel that we have an excellent “seat” on that bus and are well positioned to help usher eDiscovery into the automation age.

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

Well, since I was just talking about fourth generation technology solutions, it seems appropriate to discuss how CloudNine has gotten to the point where we are in that evolution.  About 3 1/2 years ago at CloudNine, we looked at our legacy platform that had been in place since the early 2000s and was on version 14.  Our clients were happy with the platform overall, but we realized that if we were going to stay competitive as the market evolved, our legacy platform wasn’t going to be able to support those future needs.  So, we made the decision to almost completely start from scratch and re-develop our platform from the ground up, using the latest technology with an eye toward a truly simplified eDiscovery automation approach.  The platform that you see today via the user interface is just the tip of the iceberg of the overall solution – behind it is a series of workflows to accomplish various tasks.  For example, there are 34 distinct workflows (our CTO and co-founder Bill David calls them “cascading buckets“ that enable the workflows to scale) just in our Discovery Client application that enables clients to upload and process data into our CloudNine review platform.  This modularized approach of putting together re-usable workflows enables us to both scale and adapt as needed to meet changing client needs and positions us well for the future.

We feel that CloudNine is the leader in simplifying eDiscovery automation.  We do this through what we call the 4 S’s: Speed, Simplicity, Security and Services.  Clients, even brand new clients, can be up and running in five minutes (Speed) through their ability to sign up for their own account and upload and process their own data.  We recently had a brand new client who signed up for an account, uploaded and processed 27 GB of Outlook PST files (which amounted to over 300,000 emails and attachments) and culled out nearly two-thirds of the collection via HASH deduplication and irrelevant domain culling – all within 24 hours without ever having to speak to a CloudNine representative!  The ease of use (Simplicity) of the platform through the wizard-based client application for uploading data and a browser independent review module enables our clients to get up to speed with no more than an hour (or less) of training required.

Our approach to Security is unique as well – we operate within a protected cloud, not a public cloud, where the clients know that their data will be located on our servers in a Tier IV data center that is located 5 minutes from our offices.  This data center hosts data for nine of the top Fortune 20 corporations and was instrumental in us being selected over a year ago by a Fortune 150 corporation to host their data.  Finally, what makes us unique are the Services that we provide to support the software and automation – in addition to the software that we provide to help automate the eDiscovery process, we also provide managed services ranging from forensic collection to data conversion to technical advice and eDiscovery best practices and managed document review.  This enables our clients to rely on one provider for all of their services needs – as opposed to software-only providers that would have to outsource those services to a third party.

We believe that the combination of Speed, Simplicity, Security and Services enables CloudNine to provide the simplified eDiscovery automation approach that our clients want.  It’s an exciting time in our industry and CloudNine is excited to be forefront in its continued evolution, as we have been for the last 13 years!

Thanks, Brad, for participating in the interview!

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

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

What Are the Biggest Challenges for Law Departments in 2016? This Report Has Some Answers: eDiscovery Trends

According to Consilio’s Law Department Benchmarking Report, a survey encompassing data from 119 company’s law departments ranging in revenue from 2 to 10 billion dollars which was released on Tuesday, over 50 percent of law departments find that increasing or changing regulatory requirements pose the biggest challenge in 2016.  That, and other, findings can be found in the report, which is now available.

The sixth annual survey aims to help general counsel (GCs) better understand the effectiveness of their operating processes and was conducted in partnership with The General Counsel Forum.  We covered last year’s survey here when it was issued by Huron Legal (which, as you probably know by now, was acquired by Consilio a couple of months ago).

As noted in Consilio’s press release announcement of the report, while 58 percent of law departments have an internal data-privacy program, just 21 percent take the same precautions with information shared externally when managing vendors. The lack of risk-assessment programs makes sensitive data vulnerable to hacking and other cyber threats.

“As security concerns become more commonplace, law departments are working to ensure proper data security measures are implemented to protect sensitive company information both internally and externally,” said Bret Baccus, managing director, Consilio. “We’re seeing more companies use objective, metrics-based measurements to assess outside counsel and other providers’ security capabilities. Those metrics are being used to select third-party vendors based on the risk level in sharing confidential information and data.”

Other highlights of the report include:

  • Spending continued to increase, although at a lower rate than the prior year – at 7 percent from 2014 to 2015 as compared to an increase of 2.2 percent from 2013 to 2014.
  • Law departments are becoming more sophisticated in spend management, with 67 percent of respondents using matter-level budgets and 74 percent having, or planning to implement, structured programs for conducting rate negotiations.
  • The top department initiative planned over the next three years was formalization of outside counsel performance review process (with 46 percent of respondents either already implementing or planning to implement within the next 2-3 years), followed by development of an enterprise information governance program (38 percent) and tracking of department metrics and performance indicators (36 percent).
  • As law departments look to effectively manage costs and workloads, many are more often outsourcing discovery work to non-law firm vendors. Over 75 percent of companies with over $10 billion in revenue reported using alternative service providers for document review and data processing/hosting, with 44 percent of companies between $2 and $10 billion reporting the same.
  • Discovery management programs are fairly common at the largest companies, but relatively few companies with revenue under $10 billion have them, even though for companies with any volume of litigation those programs can reduce risk by improving consistency and defensibility and save money by limiting the need to “reinvent the wheel” with each new case.

The highlights of the Law Department Benchmarking Report are available for download here.  For more information about the complete report, please contact Bret Baccus (bbaccus@consilio.com or 713‑222‑5910) or Jaime Woltjen (jwoltjen@consilio.com or 312-880-3737).

So, what do you think?  Are you surprised by any of these trends?  Please share any comments you might have with us or let us know if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

P.S. — Happy Birthday to my wife, Paige!  I love you honey!

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

Apple in Court Battle Over Access to San Bernardino Shooter’s iPhone: eDiscovery Trends

In a case that pits national security vs. privacy concerns, a federal judge on Tuesday ordered Apple to give investigators access to encrypted data on the iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters, a court order that Apple has vowed to fight, accusing the federal government of an “overreach” that could potentially breach the privacy of millions of customers.

According to NBC News, in a 40-page filing, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles argued that it needed Apple to help it find the password and access “relevant, critical … data” on the locked cellphone of Syed Farook, who with his wife Tashfeen Malik murdered 14 people in San Bernardino, California on December 2.

The judge ruled that Apple had to provide “reasonable technical assistance” (that it had previously “declined to provide voluntarily”) to the government in recovering data from Farook’s iPhone 5c, including bypassing the auto-erase function and allowing investigators to submit an unlimited number of passwords in their attempts to unlock the phone. Apple was given five days to respond to the court if it believed that compliance would be “unreasonably burdensome.”

Apple CEO Tim Cook published an open letter late Tuesday, pledging to fight a judge’s ruling that it should give FBI investigators access to encrypted data on the device.

“We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone”, Cook wrote.  “The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand.”

Stating that creation of a tool to unlock the iPhone would be “the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks – from restaurants and banks to stores and homes”, Cook wrote that “[n]o reasonable person would find that acceptable.”  “Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government.”

Yesterday, the Today show covered the dispute as its top story – even before covering the election and Donald Trump (imagine that!).  A link to the video and more on the story is available on the NBC News site here.  The experts interviewed on the show expected to court battle to continue for some time.

So, what do you think?  Does Apple have legitimate concerns or is it their duty to assist the government and create a tool to unlock the iPhone?  Please share any comments you might have with us or let us know if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Dispute Over Adequacy of Defendant’s Production Leads to Court Ordered Meet and Confer: eDiscovery Case Law

In Gardner et. al. v. Continental Casualty Company, No. 13-1918 (D. Conn., Jan. 13, 2016), Connecticut Magistrate Judge Joan Glazer Margolis, granting the plaintiff’s motion to compel in part, ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding “’sampling and iterative confinement’ or ‘quick peek protocol’ of the 38,000 documents ‘hit’ by the agreed upon search terms and notify the court in writing “about their progress, or lack thereof, on or before February 12, 2016.”

Case Background

In this class action for violations of Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, the parties agreed (after some negotiation) to a list of search terms from the e-mail of twenty-three custodians, which resulted in a return of approximately 38,000 documents.  However, after the defendant reviewed these documents for relevancy and privilege, it produced only 2,214 pages, of which 274 pages consisted of copies of the complaints, with exhibits, filed in the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel, arguing that the defendant “cherry-picked” the produced documents and called the production “incomplete and inadequate”, citing to four documents where they contended that the defendant redacted or omitted “highly relevant” materials.  The defendant countered that it had provided the plaintiffs with extensive discovery over twenty-two months, including 16,800 pages of documents and indicated that it “spent significant resources reviewing the 38,000 documents identified as the result of the search term process,” and provided their own justification for the redactions in the four documents mentioned by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs responded that they did not accept the defendant’s “just trust us” approach to relevancy, that “the entire exercise of agreeing on search terms was to avoid a prolonged and detailed debate over what ESI documents are `responsive’ to the discovery requests”, that ESI production based on search term hits only “is a common discovery practice ordered by courts,” and that documents provided by LTCG (the defendant’s third-party claims administrator) were far more comprehensive and informative than those provided by the defendant, confirming that the defendant’s “ESI production is woefully deficient.”

Judge’s Ruling

In considering the plaintiff’s motion, Judge Margolis stated that the “position taken by plaintiffs is simply untenable – defendant is not obligated to turn over all 38,000 documents, after a review eliminates some on the basis of privilege…As every law school student and law school graduate knows, when performing a computer search on WESTLAW and/or LEXIS, not every case responsive to a search command will prove to be relevant to the legal issues for which the research was performed. Searching tens of thousands, and hundreds of thousands, of electronic documents is no different. The Court shares, however, plaintiffs’ legitimate concern that LTCG produced different, and obviously relevant, documents that were not provided by defendant itself.”

To attempt to have the parties resolve the dispute themselves, Judge Margolis ordered that “counsel shall confer further regarding variations of two approaches discussed in the Strauch Ruling — ‘sampling and iterative refinement’ or ‘quick peek protocol’ – of the 38,000 documents ‘hit’ by the agreed upon search terms, and shall notify the Magistrate Judge, in writing, about their progress, or lack thereof, on or before February 12, 2016.”  As for the four redacted documents in dispute, Judge Margolis ordered the defendant to forward unredacted versions “for her in camera review, to determine if defendant’s redactions were appropriate or overbroad with respect to those four documents”.

So, what do you think?  Was that a reasonable resolution to the dispute or should the court have ruled one way or the other?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Announcing Sixth Annual LTNY Thought Leader Series!: eDiscovery Trends

The annual appearance of the dancing light bulb can only mean one thing – it’s time for another thought leader series!  Over our nearly 5 1/2 years of our existence, eDiscovery Daily has published several thought leader interviews from various thought leaders throughout the eDiscovery community, including an annual series of interviews at LegalTech New York (LTNY).  For the sixth(!) consecutive year, we’re pleased to introduce the schedule for this year’s series, which will begin next Monday, February 22.

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

Monday, February 22: Brad Jenkins, CEO of CloudNine™.  Brad has over 20 years of experience as an entrepreneur, as well as 15 years leading customer focused companies in the litigation technology arena. Brad has authored many articles on litigation support issues, and has spoken before national audiences on document management practices and solutions.

Wednesday, February 24: George Socha, President of Socha Consulting LLC and co-founder of the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) and Apersee.  As President of Socha Consulting LLC, George offers services as an eDiscovery expert witness, special master and advisor to corporations, law firms and their clients, and legal vertical market software and service providers in the areas of electronic discovery and automated litigation support.

Friday, February 26: Jason R. Baron, Of Counsel, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.  Jason is a member of Drinker Biddle’s Information Governance and eDiscovery practice.  An internationally recognized speaker and author on the preservation of electronic documents, Jason previously served as Director of Litigation for the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration and as trial lawyer and senior counsel at the Department of Justice.  He also 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.

Monday, February 29: Tom O’Connor, Director of the Gulf Coast Legal Technology Center and Senior ESI Consultant with Advanced Discovery  Tom is a nationally known consultant, speaker and writer in the area of computerized litigation support systems.  A frequent lecturer on the subject of legal technology, Tom has been on the faculty of numerous national CLE providers and has taught college level courses on legal technology.

Wednesday, March 2: Craig Ball, Law Offices of Craig D. Ball, P.C.  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 1,650 presentations and papers.  Craig’s articles on forensic technology and electronic discovery frequently appear in the national media and he teaches E-Discovery and Digital Evidence at the University of Texas School of Law.  He currently blogs on eDiscovery topics at ballinyourcourt.com.

Friday, March 4: Chris Dale, Editor of the eDisclosure Information Project.  Chris qualified as an English solicitor in 1980 after reading History at Oxford. He was a litigation partner in London and then a litigation software developer and litigation support consultant before turning to commentary on electronic disclosure / discovery. He runs the e-Disclosure Information Project which disseminates information about the court rules, the problems, and the technology to lawyers and their clients, to judges, and to suppliers. He was a member of Senior Master Whitaker’s Working Party which drafted Practice Direction 31B and the Electronic Documents Questionnaire. Chris is also a well-known speaker and commentator in the UK, the US and other common law jurisdictions.

Monday, March 7: Pete Feinberg, Senior Vice President of Product Strategy at Consilio, Pete is responsible for the overall product strategy and product management of Consilio’s products and services line.  Pete’s specialties are in guiding product strategy, bringing new products and services to market, representing the voice of the client as an executive “client advocate”, and guiding the service delivery organization to engage with clients not as a vendor, but instead as a trusted advisor.

Wednesday, March 9: Ralph Losey, Principal and National eDiscovery Counsel for Jackson Lewis, LLP.  Ralph is also a prolific author of eDiscovery books and articles, the principle author and publisher of the popular e-Discovery Team® Blog and the creator of the Electronic Discovery Best Practices (EDBP.com) model.

Once again, thanks to everyone for their time in participating in these interviews!  Once we publish all of them, we will link to each of them from this post.

Want to look back at previous years’ interviews?  Here are links to our 2015, 2014, 2013 and 2012 interview series.

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

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

Survey Says! How Confident Are You About the eDiscovery Business?: eDiscovery Trends

On his terrific Complex Discovery site, Rob Robinson is currently conducting an interesting survey for those interested in the business confidence level of individuals working in eDiscovery.

Rob’s eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey is a non-scientific survey designed to provide insight into the business confidence level of individuals working in the eDiscovery ecosystem. The term ‘business’ represents the economic factors that impact the creation, delivery, and consumption of eDiscovery products and services.

In the survey, Rob asks questions related to how you rate general business conditions for eDiscovery in your segment of the eDiscovery market, both current and six months from now, a general sense of where you think revenue and profits will be for your segment of the market in six months and which issue do you think will most impact the business of eDiscovery over the next six months, among other questions.  It’s a simple nine question survey that literally takes about a minute to complete.

This is the first Business Confidence survey that Rob is conducting, with the expectation that the survey will be conducted on a quarterly basis.  Individual answers are kept confidential, with the aggregate results to be published on Rob’s Complex Discovery site upon completion of the response period, which will run from February 15 and February 29.

The more respondents there are, the more useful the results will be!  Click here to take the survey yourself.  Don’t forget!

So, what do you think?  Are you confident in the state of business within the eDiscovery industry?  Share your thoughts in the survey and, as always, please share any comments you might have with us or let us know if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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