Close
Enter your
text here

Electronic Discovery

eDiscovery Trends: Welcome to LegalTech West Coast 2012!
 

Today is the start of LegalTech® West Coast 2012 (LTWC) and eDiscoveryDaily is here to report about the latest eDiscovery trends being discussed at the show.  Over the next two days, we will provide a description each day of some of the sessions related to eDiscovery to give you a sense of the topics being covered.  If you’re in the Los Angeles area, come check out the show – there are a number of sessions (both paid and free) available and 69 exhibitors providing information on their products and services, including (shameless plug warning!) my company, CloudNine Discovery, which just announced today release of Version 11 of our linear review application, OnDemand®, and will be exhibiting at booth #216 along with our partners, First Digital Solutions.  Come by and say hi!

Perform a “find” on today’s LTNY conference schedule for “discovery” and you’ll get 19 hits.  So, there is plenty to talk about!  Sessions in the main conference tracks include:

10:30 AM – 12:00 PM:

A "Stormy" Subject…Exploring Cloud-Based eDiscovery

Can your organization better manage costs and increase control over discovery by bringing eDiscovery tools in-house or in-firm? What are the advantages and drawbacks of eDiscovery in the cloud? In this session, the panel will:

  • Explore insourcing v. outsourcing market trends
  • Discuss the pros and cons inherent in cloud/SaaS v. on premises e-discovery software solutions
  • Examine challenges when collecting and preserving discoverable data stored in the cloud

Speakers are: Scott Sachs, eDiscovery Attorney, Atkinson Andelson and Adam Sand, Associate General Counsel, Ancestry.com.  Moderator: Wayne Wong, Managing Consultant, Kroll Ontrack.

1:30 – 3:00 PM:

Under Fire: Defending and Challenging Technology-Assisted Review

Intelligent Review? Predictive Coding? Smart review? Whatever you call it, amidst growing data volumes and dwindling resources, traditional linear document review is quickly going the way of the dinosaur. In this session, the panel will:

  • Explore the "what", "why", and "how" behind  technology-assisted review
  • Discuss cutting-edge opinions from the bench
  • Provide you with tips to help overcome your organization's objections to using intelligent review technology

Speakers are: Tom Werner, Associate, Irell & Manella, LLP; Jeffrey Fowler, Partner, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP and Pallab Chakraborty, Director of eDiscovery, Oracle.  Moderator: Andrea Gibson, Product Director, Kroll Ontrack.

3:30 – 5:00 PM:

Exploring Hot eDiscovery Trends: FRCP Amendments, Social Media, and Emerging Case Law

eDiscovery evolves at the speed of light. If your organization is standing still, you are losing ground. In this session, the panel will:

  • Explore how eDiscovery evolved in 2011, with a look into how it will continue to change in the remainder of 2012
  • Analyze whether potential amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are even possible, and what the amendments might entail discuss "hot" trends impacting eDiscovery such as social media.

Panelists are: Ron S. Best, EDD Staff Attorney & Director, Litigation Systems, Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP and Eric Chan, Associate, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP.  Moderator: Joel Vogel, Vice President, Discovery Products and Services, Kroll Ontrack.

In addition to these, there are other eDiscovery-related sessions today.  For a complete description for all sessions today, click here.

So, what do you think?  Are you planning to attend LTWC this year?  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: For Da Silva Moore Addicts
 

I am getting prepared to head for sunny Los Angeles for LegalTech West Coast shortly, so today I’m getting by with a little help from my friends.  Tomorrow and Wednesday, I’ll be covering the show.  It wouldn’t be a week in eDiscovery without some tidbits about the Da Silva Moore case, so here are some other sources of information and perspectives about the eDiscovery case of the year (so far).  But, first, let’s recap.

Several 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.

Then, on April 5, Judge Peck issued an order in response to Plaintiffs’ letter requesting his recusal, directing plaintiffs to indicate whether they would file a formal motion for recusal or ask the Court to consider the letter as the motion.  On April 13, (Friday the 13th, that is), the plaintiffs did just that, by formally requesting the recusal of Judge Peck (the defendants issued a response in opposition on April 30).  But, on April 25, Judge Carter issued an opinion and order in the case, upholding Judge Peck’s opinion approving computer-assisted review.

Not done, the plaintiffs filed an objection on May 9 to Judge Peck's rejection of their request to stay discovery pending the resolution of outstanding motions and objections (including the recusal motion, which has yet to be ruled on.  Then, last Monday, Judge Peck issued a stay, stopping defendant MSLGroup's production of electronically stored information.

More News

And, there’s even more news.  As Sean Doherty of Law Technology News reports, last Monday, Judge Peck denied an amicus curiae (i.e., friend-of-the-court) brief filed in support of the plaintiffs' motion for recusal.  For more on the filing and Judge Peck’s denial of the motion, click here.

Summary of Filings

Rob Robinson of ComplexD has provided a thorough summary of filings in a single PDF file.  He provides a listing of the filings, a Scribd plug-in viewer of the file – all 1,320 pages(!), so be patient as the page takes a little time to load – and a link to download the PDF file.  The ability to search through the entire case of filings for key issues and terms is well worth it.  Thanks, Rob!

Da Silva Moore and the Role of ACEDS

Also, Sharon Nelson of the Ride The Lightning blog (and a previous thought leader interviewee on this blog) has provided a very detailed blog post regarding the in depth investigation that the Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists® (ACEDS™) has conducted on the case, including requesting financial disclosures for Judge Peck for 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 (for items including for “honoraria” and “teaching fees.”).  She wonders why “a certification body would want to be so heavily involved in an investigation of a judge in a very controversial case” and offers some possible thoughts as to why.  A very interesting read!

So, what do you think?  Are you “maxed out” on Da Silva Moore coverage yet?  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: Another Case with Inadmissible Text Messages
 

Yesterday, we discussed a case – Commonwealth v. Koch, No. 1669-MDA-2010, 2011 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2716 (Sept. 16, 2011) – where a Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled text messages inadmissible, declaring that parties seeking to introduce electronic materials, such as cell phone text messages and email, must be prepared to substantiate their claim of authorship with “circumstantial evidence” that corroborates the sender's identity.  That case is now being appealed to the state Supreme Court.  Today, we have another case – Rodriguez v. Nevada, No. 56413, 2012 WL 1136437 (Nev. Apr. 5, 2012) – where text messages were ruled inadmissible.

In this case, the Nevada Supreme Court found that a lower court abused its discretion in admitting text messages because the State failed to provide sufficient evidence corroborating the identity of the sender. The defendant, Kevin Rodriguez, was found guilty in trial court of multiple counts associated with an attack of a woman in her home. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred in overruling an objection to the admission of 12 text messages because the state failed to authenticate the messages and the messages constituted inadmissible hearsay.

Citing Commonwealth v. Koch, among other cases, the Nevada Supreme Court found that it is necessary that the identity of the author of the text message be established through corroborating evidence presented. In this case, the state did establish that the victim’s cell phone was stolen during the attack, and that the defendant was in possession of the cell phone prior to being arrested.

The court noted that “Text messages offer new analytical challenges when courts consider their admissibility.  However, those challenges do not require a deviation from basic evidentiary rules applied when determining authentication and hearsay.”  Further noting that “establishing the identity of the author of a text message through the use of corroborating evidence is critical to satisfying the authentication requirement for admissibility", the court concluded that when there has been an objection to admissibility of a text message, “the proponent of the evidence must explain the purpose for which the text message is being offered and provide sufficient direct or circumstantial corroborating evidence of authorship in order to authenticate the text message as a condition precedent to its admission”.

Since the state did not offer any corroborating evidence that the defendant authored 10 of the 12 text messages, those messages were ruled as inadmissible.  The other two messages were deemed admissible and not considered to be hearsay because in those instances, the state was able to present bus surveillance video of the defendant participating in using the phone at the time those two messages were sent. Despite the erroneous admission of the other 10 text messages, however, the Nevada Supreme Court held that the error was harmless as there was a considerable amount of other evidence pointing to the guilt of the defendant.

So, what do you think?  Should text messages be ruled inadmissible without corroborating evidence?  Will cases like this significantly reduce the use of text messages as evidence in litigation?  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: Inadmissibility of Text Messages Being Appealed
 

Last October, we covered a case – Commonwealth v. Koch, No. 1669-MDA-2010, 2011 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2716 (Sept. 16, 2011) – where a Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled text messages inadmissible, declaring that parties seeking to introduce electronic materials, such as cell phone text messages and email, must be prepared to substantiate their claim of authorship with “circumstantial evidence” that corroborates the sender's identity.  That case, where Amy N. Koch was originally convicted at trial on drug charges (partially due to text messages found on her cell phone), is now being appealed to the state Supreme Court.

This article from The Legal Intelligencer regarding the case, notes the following:

“The justices limited the appeal to two issues, leaving the language used by the state intact.

First, the justices will examine whether the text messages “were not offered for their truth” and were therefore admissible. The state questioned whether the Superior Court, in reversing a Cumberland County judge’s decision to admit the texts, had ruled against its own previous holding in another case and thusly created “uncertainty in the law.”

The high court is also tasked with reviewing the case in terms of Pa.R.E. 901, on “Requirement of Authentication or Identification.” According to the Tuesday allocatur grant, prosecutors asked the court to examine whether the Superior Court panel “misapprehended” Rule 901, again going against its own jurisprudence and again creating “uncertainty.”

Despite a victory before the intermediate appellate court, Koch’s attorney called the justice’s decision to take up the case “good news.”

For Camp Hill, Pa., attorney Michael O. Palermo Jr., the challenge represents a chance for the high court to set precedent against electronic documents “blindly coming into evidence.”

“I have a problem with that and I hope the Supreme Court does too,” Palermo told The Legal following the grant of allocatur.”

So, what do you think?  Was the Superior court right in ruling against the admission of these text messages as evidence? Will the State Supreme Court uphold the decision to rule the text messages as inadmissible?  If they do, will that decision create more eDiscovery problems than it solves?  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 Stays Defendant’s Production in Da Silva Moore
 

Yesterday, we discussed the latest event in the eDiscovery case of the year – the defendant’s response opposing the plaintiff’s motion for recusal.  I thought today we would discuss the plaintiffs’ latest objection – to United States District Court Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck's rejection of their request to stay discovery pending the resolution of outstanding motions and objections.  However, news in this case happens quickly.

In a short, one-page order on Monday, Judge Peck issued a stay, stopping defendant MSLGroup's production of electronically stored information in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, (Case No. 11-CV-1279).

Here is the content of the order:

“On reconsideration, for the reasons stated at today's conference (see transcript), the Court has granted plaintiffs' request to stay MSL's production of ESI, pending Judge Carter's decision on plaintiffs' motions for collective action certification and to amend their complaint.  Defendants have consented to the stay. Jurisdictional discovery regarding Publicis, and discovery between plaintiff and MSL unrelated to MSL's ESI production, are not stayed.

Plaintiffs' May 9, 2012 objections to my prior denial of the stay (Dkt. No. 190) are moot.”

That’s it – short and sweet (to the plaintiffs, at least).

This came after the plaintiffs filed an objection last Wednesday (May 9) to Judge Peck's rejection of their request to stay discovery pending the resolution of outstanding motions and objections. Those motions include a ruling on the plaintiffs' objections to Judge Peck's dismissal of the plaintiffs' issues associated with discovery with predictive coding, the plaintiffs' motion for Peck to recuse himself from the case and motions for conditional certification of collective action and for leave to file a second amended complaint.

For a brief recap and links to prior events in this highly contentious case, yesterday’s blog post provides background since Judge Peck’s order approving computer-assisted review.

More to come, I’m sure.

So, what do you think?  Will computer-assisted review be derailed in this case after all?  Was Judge Peck right to stay 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 Case Law: Defendant Responds to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Recusal in Da Silva Moore
 

Geez, you take a week or so to cover some different topics and a few things happen in the most talked about eDiscovery case of the year.  Time to catch up!  Today, we’ll talk about the response of the defendant MSLGroup Americas to the plaintiffs’ motion for recusal in the Da Silva Moore case.  Tomorrow, we will discuss the plaintiffs’ latest objection – to Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck's rejection of their request to stay discovery pending the resolution of outstanding motions and objections.  But, first, a quick recap.

Several weeks ago, in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, No. 11 Civ. 1279 (ALC) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012), Judge 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.

Then, on April 5, Judge Peck issued an order in response to Plaintiffs’ letter requesting his recusal, directing plaintiffs to indicate whether they would file a formal motion for recusal or ask the Court to consider the letter as the motion.  On April 13, (Friday the 13th, that is), the plaintiffs did just that, by formally requesting the recusal of Judge Peck.  But, on April 25, Judge Carter issued an opinion and order in the case, upholding Judge Peck’s opinion approving computer-assisted review.

As for the motion for recusal, that’s still pending.  On Monday, April 30, the defendant filed a response (not surprisingly) opposing the motion for recusal.  In its Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Recusal or Disqualification, the defendants noted the following:

  • Plaintiffs Agreed to the Use of Predictive Coding: Among the arguments here, the defendants noted that, after prior discussions regarding predictive coding, on January 3, the “[p]laintiffs submitted to the Court their proposed version of the ESI Protocol, which relied on the use of predictive coding. Similarly, during the January 4, 2012 conference itself, Plaintiffs, through their e-discovery vendor, DOAR, confirmed not only that Plaintiffs had agreed to the use of predictive coding, but also that Plaintiffs agreed with some of the details of the search methodology, including the “confidence levels” proposed by MSL.”
  • It Was Well Known that Judge Peck Was a Leader In eDiscovery Before The Case Was Assigned to Him: The defendants referenced, among other things, that Judge Peck’s October 2011 article, Search, Forward discussed “computer-assisted coding,” and that Judge Peck stated in the article: “Until there is a judicial decision approving (or even critiquing) the use of predictive coding, counsel will just have to rely on this article as a sign of judicial approval.”
  • Ralph Losey Had No Ex Parte Contact with Judge Peck: The defendants noted that their expert, Ralph Losey, “has never discussed this case with Judge Peck” and that his “mere appearance” at seminars and conferences “does not warrant disqualification of all judges who also appear.”

As a result, the defendants argued that the court should deny plaintiffs motion for recusal because:

  • Judge Peck’s “Well-Known Expertise in and Ongoing Discourse on the Topic of Predictive Coding Are Not Grounds for His Disqualification”;
  • His “Professional Relationship with Ralph Losey Does Not Mandate Disqualification”;
  • His “Comments, Both In and Out of the Courtroom, Do Not Warrant Recusal”; and
  • His “Citation to Articles in his February 24, 2012 Opinion Was Proper”.

For details on these arguments, click the link to the Memorandum above.  Judge Carter has yet to rule on the motion for recusal.

So, what do you think?  Did the defendants make an effective argument or should Judge Peck be recused?  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: Twitter Seeks to Succeed Where Defendant Failed
 

Yesterday, we discussed a case where the court denied a criminal defendant’s attempt to quash a subpoena of his Twitter account information.  Now it’s Twitter’s turn to file a motion to quash the court’s order.  Filed this past Monday (May 7), the motion seeks to quash the order based on the grounds that the order imposes an undue burden on Twitter for three reasons including the reason that it forces them to “violate federal law”.

In People v. Harris, No. 2011NY080152 (N.Y. Crim. Ct.), the social network filed to quash a subpoena that ordered it to turn over “any and all user information” for Twitter-user Malcolm Harris between Sept. 15 and Dec. 31, 2011.

Twitter’s counsel argued that the order violates the Fourth Amendment, which guards citizens against unreasonable search and seizures, and would force the company to violate federal law.

Twitter also stated that the order does not comply with the Uniform Act, a stance the information network conveyed to Assistant District Attorney Lee Langston in March. “Pursuant to the Uniform Act, a criminal litigant cannot compel an appearance by, or production of documents from, a California resident without presenting the appropriate certification to the California court, scheduling a hearing and obtaining a California subpoena for production,” Twitter’s legal team said in the email response.

In its motion, the company even argued that, based on Twitter’s terms of service around content ownership (Twitter users own their content), Harris has legal standing to challenge the original subpoena; the court previously ruled that he did not.

“This is a big deal. Law enforcement agencies — both the federal government and state and city entities — are becoming increasingly aggressive in their attempts to obtain information about what people are doing on the Internet,” ACLU senior staff attorney Aden Fine said in a statement.

“[The Internet] is, in some ways, the ultimate embodiment of the First Amendment. But one potential problem for free speech on the Internet is that, for almost all of us, we need to rely on Internet companies. And while the government is bound by the First Amendment, the First Amendment may not always prevent private companies from restricting our free speech rights,” Fine said. “That is why it is so important that the public — and other companies — know when a company actually stands up for its users’ rights. Twitter did so here, and Twitter should be applauded for that.”

So, what do you think?  Does Twitter make some valid arguments and will they succeed where the defendant failed?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: VentureBeat.

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: Court Denies Criminal Defendant’s Attempt to Quash Twitter Subpoena
 

In People v. Harris, 2011NY080152 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. Apr. 20, 2012), Criminal Court Judge Matthew A. Sciarrino, Jr. ruled that the defendant lacked standing to move to quash the prosecution’s subpoena served upon Twitter, a third-party in the case, for records of the defendant’s Twitter account. The defendant was a protester arrested during a march on the Brooklyn Bridge as part of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and in prosecuting the case, the prosecution sought his Twitter records for the time period relevant to the defendant’s involvement in the march.

In denying the defendant’s motion to quash, Judge Sciarrino analogized a subpoena issued to a third-party online social networking service like Twitter to one issued against a bank for a bank customer’s account information. The judge noted that in such bank cases a customer has “no proprietary or possessory interests” in his bank records, as they are the business records of the bank. Similarly, here, when the defendant signed up for Twitter, he agreed to certain terms, including a license that he granted to Twitter to “use, display and distribute” his Tweets. “Twitter’s license to use the defendant’s Tweets means that the Tweets the defendant posted were not his,” and therefore he had no proprietary interest in the Tweets.

Judge Sciarrino also acknowledged that although the defendant’s belief that he had a privacy interest in his own Tweets was “understandable,” it was “without merit.” The court pointed out that the “very nature and purpose” of Twitter is to help its users share information instantaneously with the world. Although a user may believe the Fourth Amendment should provide him online the same protection he would receive in his physical home, he is mistaken: Twitter users "may think that the same 'home' principle may be applied to their Twitter account. When in reality the user is sending information to the third party, Twitter. At the same time the user is also granting a license for Twitter to distribute that information to anyone, any way and for any reason it chooses."

Judge Sciarrino also denied the defendant’s motion to intervene in proceedings to quash the prosecution’s subpoena. It also found that the court is “compelled to evaluate the subpoena under federal laws governing internet communications,” that is, the Stored Communications Act; as such, the subpoena was proper because the defendant had a required hearing and notice, the information sought was relevant and material to the case, and the subpoena was not overly broad in its request.

So, what do you think?  Did the judge make the right call or should the defendant have been able to quash the subpoena?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).

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: EDRM and Statistical Sampling
 

I’ve been proud to be a member of The Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) for the past six years (all but the first year) and I’m always keen to report on activities and accomplishments of the various working groups within EDRM.  Since this blog was founded, we’ve reported on 1) the unveiling of the EDRM Data Set, which has become a standard for useful eDiscovery test and demo data, 2) the EDRM Metrics Privilege Survey (which I helped draft), to collect typical volumes and percentages of privileged documents throughout the industry, 3) Model Code of Conduct which focuses on the ethical duties of eDiscovery service providers, and 4) the collaboration between EDRM and ARMA and subsequent joint Information Governance white paper.  EDRM’s latest announcement yesterday is a new guide, Statistical Sampling Applied to Electronic Discovery, which is now available for review and comment. 

As EDRM notes in their announcement, “The purpose of the guide is to provide guidance regarding the use of statistical sampling in e-discovery contexts. Most of the material is definitional and conceptual, and is intended for a broad audience. The later material and the accompanying spreadsheet provide additional information, particularly technical information, to people in e-discovery roles who become responsible for developing further expertise in this area.”

The Guide is comprised of six sections, as follows:

  1. Introduction: Includes basic concepts and definitions, alludes to mathematical techniques to be discussed in more detail in subsequent sections, identifies potential eDiscovery situations where sampling techniques may be useful and identifies areas not covered in this initial guide.
  2. Estimating Proportions within a Binary Population: Provides some common sense observations as to why sampling is useful, along with a straightforward explanation of statistical terminology and the interdependence of sample size, margin of error/confidence range and confidence level.
  3. Guidelines and Considerations: Provides guidelines for effective statistical sampling, such as cull prior to sampling, account for family relationships, simple vs. stratified random sampling and use of sampling in machine learning, among others.
  4. Additional Guidance on Statistical Theory: Covers mathematical concepts such as binomial distribution, hypergeometric distribution, and normal distribution.  Bring your mental “slide-rule”!
  5. Examples Using the Accompanying Excel Spreadsheet: Describes an attached workbook (EDRM Statistics Examples 20120427.xlsm) that contains six sheets that include a notes section as well as basic, observed and population normal approximation models and basic and observed binomial methods to assist in learning these different sampling methods.
  6. Validation Study: References a Daegis article that provides an empirical study of sampling in the eDiscovery context.  In addition to that article, consider reading our previous posts on determining an appropriate sample size to test your search, how to generate a random selection and a practical example to test your search using sampling.

Comments can be posted at any of the EDRM Statistical Sampling pages, or emailed to the group at mail@edrm.net.  As a big proponent of statistical sampling as an effective and cost-effective method for verifying results, I’m very interested to see where this guide goes and how people will use it.  BTW, EDRM’s Annual Kickoff Meeting is next week (May 16 and 17) in St. Paul, MN – it’s not too late to become a member and help shape the future of eDiscovery with other industry leaders!

So, what do you think?  Do you perform statistical sampling to verify results within your eDiscovery process?  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: No Race Tires on This Vehicle, Taxation of eDiscovery Costs Granted
 

The trend for defendants requesting plaintiffs to be responsible for eDiscovery costs when they lose is continuing.  Sometimes that request is granted, at least partially, as in this case and this case.  In another case, taxation of eDiscovery costs was initially granted, but then reversed due to the parties' agreement to split the costs.  Then, there’s the case of Race Tires America, Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corporation.  Last May, the winning defendants were awarded $367,000 as reimbursement for eDiscovery costs.  (Hoosier Daddy!)  But, then in March of this year, an appellate court reversed all but $30,370 of those costs, implementing a narrow interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) for assigning those costs.  Now, a new case addresses the issue of taxation of costs once again.

In the case In re Online DVD Rental Antitrust Litig., No. M 09-2029 PJH, (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2012), a federal court recently broadly interpreted the language in the federal statute governing the taxation of costs, 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4).

In this class action involving claims that Netflix had reached an agreement with Walmart to divide the market for sales and online rentals of DVDs, Netflix won summary judgment and filed a motion seeking to recover its costs, including those relating to eDiscovery. After the clerk awarded the costs, the plaintiff subscribers filed a motion with the court seeking review of the award.

In denying the plaintiffs’ request to limit the costs, the court rejected the Third Circuit’s narrow view of 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) as expressed in its recent decision in the Race Tires America, Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp. case, which vacated the district court’s approval of many eDiscovery costs. Although the court noted the Third Circuit’s “well-reasoned opinion,” the California court concluded that “in the absence of directly analogous Ninth Circuit authority, and in view of the court’s prior order in connection with the Blockbuster subscriber plaintiffs’ motion for review of the clerk's taxation of costs, broad construction of section 1920 with respect to electronic discovery production costs—under the facts of this case—is appropriate.” Ultimately, the court awarded the defendants slightly more than $700,000 in costs.

So, what do you think?  Will this ruling isolate the Race Tires case as an anomaly?  Will our monthly Netflix subscription rates go down?  (Probably not.)  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).  For eDiscovery news and best practices, check out the Applied Discovery Blog here.

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.