Close
Enter your
text here

Electronic Discovery

eDiscovery Case Law: The Zubulake Rules of Civil Procedure
As noted in Law Technology News (N.Y. Appellate Division Continues to Press ‘Zubulake’ EDD Standard) recently, the New York Appellate Division has embraced the federal standards of Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 FRD 212 in two case rulings within a month’s time.

In Voom HD Holdings v. EchoStar Satellite LLC, 600292/08, the decision, written by Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, was the first by a New York state appellate court to apply the standard for spoliation of electronic evidence applied by Judge Shira Scheindlin in Zubulake in 2003.  As defined by Judge Scheindlin, the Zubulake standard asserts that “once a party reasonably anticipates litigation, it must suspend its routine document retention/destruction policy and put in place a ‘litigation hold’ to ensure the preservation of relevant documents.”

The case relates to a 2005 contract dispute between EchoStar and Cablevision subsidiary Voom HD Holdings, within which Voom agreed to provide EchoStar rights to broadcast Voom’s programming.  Once the case was filed by Voom in February 2008, EchoStar put a litigation hold in place, instructing employees to save anything that they deemed potentially relevant to the litigation, but did not extend this hold to stopping automatic deletion of eMails from EchoStar’s computers until four months later in June 2008.

Voom moved for spoliation sanctions against EchoStar for failing to preserve its eMails and Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Richard Lowe granted the motion, citing Zubulake, finding that EchoStar should have put in place a litigation hold (including a stop to automatic deletion of e-mails) in June 2007, when its corporate counsel sent Voom a letter containing a notice of breach, a demand and an explicit reservation of rights (i.e., reasonably anticipated litigation).  Therefore, EchoStar was given an adverse inference sanction (they had also received a similar sanction in 2005 in Broccoli v. EchoStar Communications Corp., 229 FRD 506).

EchoStar appealed and requested the appellate court to adopt a rule that a company must preserve documents when litigation is pending or when it has “notice of a specific claim.”  However, that argument was rejected by The First Department, which ruled that “EchoStar and amicus’s approach would encourage parties who actually anticipate litigation, but do not yet have notice of a ‘specific claim’ to destroy their documents with impunity” and upheld the sanction.

In U.S. Bank National Association v. GreenPoint Mortgage Funding Inc., 600352/09, the First Department held that the producing party should bear the initial costs of “searching for, retrieving and producing discovery,” but that lower courts may permit cost shifting based on the factors set forth in Zubulake.  The case was filed by U.S. Bank, NA (indenture trustee for the insurers and holders of the mortgage-backed notes issued by GreenPoint Mortgage Funding Inc., a now defunct mortgage lender specializing in “no-doc” and “low-doc” loans) against GreenPoint.

U.S. Bank served its first document production request on GreenPoint along with its original complaint; however, GreenPoint did not produce the requested documents.  Instead, they moved for a protective order arguing that U.S. Bank should pay the costs associated with its document requests including the cost of attorney review time for confidentiality and privilege assertions.  The court upheld GreenPoint’s argument that the “party seeking discovery bears the costs incurred in its production” but rejected GreenPoint’s request for U.S. Bank to also bear the attorney costs for privilege and confidentiality determinations.

Upon appeal, the First Department reversed the lower court’s conclusion that the requesting party bear the cost of production, finding that, per the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Zubulake, the producing party should “bear the cost of the searching for, retrieving, and producing documents, including electronically stored information.”  In the February 28 ruling, Justice Rolando Acosta wrote that the court was “persuaded that Zubulake should be the rule in this Department.”  However, the court also ruled that the lower court could order cost shifting under CPLR Article 31 between the parties by considering the seven factors set forth in Zubulake.

What are those seven factors?  Tune in tomorrow, when we will provide a refresher to the Zubulake case and its various opinions!

So, what do you think?  Is the Zubulake standard appropriate for these two cases?  Is it appropriate for cases in general?  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: Plaintiff Not Compelled To Turn Over Facebook Login Information
In Davids v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., No. CV06-0431, (E.D.N.Y. February 24, 2012), the Eastern District of New York ruled against the defendant on whether the plaintiff in her claim against a pharmaceutical company could be compelled to turn over her Facebook account’s login username and password.

Plaintiff claimed ongoing suffering from osteonecrosis of the jaw (a severe bone disease that affects the maxilla and the mandible) against the defendant. Defendant served Plaintiff with its Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents, which requested Plaintiff’s log-in information to all of her social-networking websites and a release allowing Defendant to obtain documents directly from those websites so that Defendant could inspect all documents that relate to her claim.  In responding to the request, the Plaintiff only produced materials that were available to all Facebook users — not items hidden through Facebook’s privacy settings — claiming that the request was overbroad and a fishing expedition. As a result, the Defendant filed a motion to compel the Plaintiff to turn over her login information, including login for Facebook.

Why did the Defendant request the additional access?  As noted in the transcript:

“Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s log-in information is discoverable because statements or pictures on her Facebook page relate directly to her claim of ongoing suffering from osteonecrosis of the jaw. Defendant’s claim is predicated on Ms. Davids’ profile picture, in which Defendant claims she is smiling. Defendant did not inquire about Ms. Davids’ social networking activity at her deposition.”

In the process of determining whether the Defendant could compel such discovery, Magistrate Judge William Wall first noted that “[n]o cases in the Second Circuit or the Eastern District of New York have directly addressed this issue”.  The Defendant based its argument on two cases where access to social media information was granted: Largent v. Reed, 2011 WL 5632688, (Pa. C.P. Franklin Co. Nov. 8, 2011) and Romano v. Steelcase Inc., 907 N.Y.S.2d 650 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010).  In both cases, “publically available content on the individual plaintiffs’ public Facebook profiles provided sufficient relevant information for the courts to infer that further discovery was necessary”; however, as the court noted in this case, “no such evidence exists”.  Therefore, the court ruled as follows:

“Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff smiling in her profile picture on Facebook satisfies its burden in this motion to compel is without merit. Even if Plaintiff is smiling in her profile picture, which is not clear to the court, one picture of Plaintiff smiling does not contradict her claim of suffering, nor is it sufficient evidence to warrant a further search into Plaintiff’s account.”

As a result, the court denied the defendant’s motion to compel.

So, what do you think?  Was the lack of publically available content sufficient justification for not granting the motion to compel?  Or should this case have been handled in the same manner as Largent and Romano?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

eDiscovery Best Practices: The Rest of the Team
When beginning a new eDiscovery project, it’s important to start by estimating the various tasks that will need to be performed and the type of personnel that will be needed. As the project unfolds, the tasks required to complete it may change, so it is important to revisit the project tasks and assignments to determine whether additional personnel are needed or if you can cut back. Yesterday, we began discussing the types of roles that could be associated with a typical eDiscovery project, here are some more:

Processing Personnel: After your team has identified and collected the ESI, it will usually be necessary to process that ESI with one or more software applications to prepare the data for searching and review to reduce or cull the data volume (such as an early case assessment tool like FirstPass®, powered by Venio FPR™) and limit review to the most highly relevant documents. There are several tools and/or service providers available to process your ESI; it’s simply a matter of selecting the best tool(s) for your organization. For each case, key decision makers on the team will need to evaluate the specific needs of that case to determine whether additional software or an outside vendor is needed and select the appropriate software to license and/or vendor to engage, if so.

Document Review Personnel: After identifying, collecting and processed the ESI, it needs to be reviewed by qualified review personnel to at least determine if it is responsive to the production request from opposing counsel and if it should be withheld due to a claim of privilege. Depending on the case, the ESI may need to be reviewed for other reasons or the review for responsiveness and/or privilege may be more in-depth.  Usually, the reviewers are licensed attorneys; though, experienced paralegals are used in some cases. Either way, they will require training and guidance regarding the expectations of their job in general, receive instructions on the specific review project which they are working on, and be properly trained on use of the selected review application.

Hosting Provider: Depending on the case, you may use a hosting provider for the ESI from as early as collection through production. Large volume of ESI to be processed and reviewed, requirement to distribute review tasks across personnel who may be in different geographical locations, and the arrangements between the parties concerning the method and format of production are factors for deciding to use a hosting provider and also for selecting the desired provider.

Attorney(s): Did you think I forgot the attorneys?  Of course, potentially complicated legal questions and issues arise in just about any discovery project, so you need an attorney who understands the legal rules and complexities associated with discovery of ESI. If the lead attorney doesn’t have the requisite knowledge in this area, it may be necessary to add an attorney with specialized eDiscovery knowledge to the team to provide advice and coordination on discovery issues.  Many corporations have designated attorneys or paralegals on their in house legal staff who work on all eDiscovery matters; however, some organizations may also use outside eDiscovery counsel to work on discovery-related matters even if they’re not part of the firm representing the organization.

Each case will have unique requirements that affect the make-up and size of the team, so not all of the roles discussed over the past two days will be required for every case and the number of personnel in each role may also vary.

So, what do you think?  Do you estimate the team members needed for your project before it begins?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

eDiscovery Best Practices: Who’s On Your Team?
When beginning a new eDiscovery project, a good place so start is to estimate the various tasks that will need to be performed and identify the type of personnel that will be needed. Every project is different and unique, so the requirements of each project must be assessed. As the project unfolds, the tasks required to complete it may change – not just in terms of tasks added, but also tasks removed if the work is deemed to be unnecessary.  So, it is important to revisit the project tasks and assignments to determine whether additional personnel are needed or if you can cut back. Here are the types of roles that could be associated with a typical eDiscovery project:

Client Contact(s): It’s important for the client to be involved in the process, so the team should include at least one client representative that can serve as the link between the internal and external teams, providing guidance on internal company workings and contact personnel. Typically, the client contact is from the in-house legal department, usually either a paralegal (to handle routine tasks) or an attorney (to discuss issues and coordinate decision making).  When preservation and collection are required, the client contact(s) generally assist with litigation hold procedures, locating and collecting ESI, and conducting interviews of custodians. It is up to the client contact(s) to involve key managers and custodians as needed to provide guidance during this process.

IT Personnel: When responding to requests for ESI, let’s face it – you need your trusty geek.  Or geeks.  It’s important to include personnel who understand technical details about the client’s various computer systems and data.  Depending on the case, you need one or more individuals who understand any and all of the above: email and email archiving, storage of employee ESI, servers, clients, intranets, and databases. It’s typical for IT personnel in larger organizations to specialize; for example, to have one or more that is more knowledgeable about structured data (i.e. database programs) while others may understand and have access to email systems.

IT personnel should be involved in all issues related to the technology for the responding party to increase efficiency and optimize the approach to each new case. For many corporations, this is typically one or more individuals already employed as a member of the IT staff.  It’s important for IT personnel to have at least a basic understanding of the legal processes and requirements of discovery.  If they don’t have that, it may be necessary to provide some training before a case arises or employ an outside consultant.

Forensic Collection Personnel: In some cases, it’s necessary to perform forensic analysis on various types of ESI (or at least collect the ESI in a forensic manner in the event that’s required). Examples of cases that may require forensic collection of electronic data include internal integrity investigations, situations where fraud and data deletion are suspected (such as trade secret cases) and government civil or criminal investigations. To enable the forensic specialist to testify (if required) to the work that was performed and exactly how it was done, companies often use a vendor not employed by the company or by the outside law firm.

See at least one critical team component missing?  Tomorrow, we’ll talk about the rest of the team.  Same bat time, same bat channel!

So, what do you think?  Do you estimate the team members needed for your project before it begins?  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 Humor: And Now For Something Completely Different…
Every now and then, it’s nice to take a break from the regular case law updates, emerging trends reports and best practices tutorials and just have a laugh.  We recently published a two part interview series from LegalTech New York with Ralph Losey, who always has interesting and educational thoughts to share regarding eDiscovery.  Ralph recently published a video post on his excellent blog, e-Discovery Team® entitled How Not to Cooperate in an E-Discovery Conference.

Based on the watermark, it appears that Ralph used XtraNormal to make the video.  XtraNormal enables you to make an animated movie by selecting your animated “actors”, type or record your dialogue, and select a background.  The “actors” sound a bit robotic if you type the dialogue, but that just adds to the humor as the pronunciations and inflections are rather humorous.  Sometimes, they put the emPHASis on the wrong sylLABle.  And, it’s funny to hear them try to pronounce words like “chutzpah”.  🙂

Ralph’s video depicts opposing parties negotiating terms of eDiscovery production, and his attorney representing the producing party is particularly uncooperative.  Complete with applause and a laugh track, the four minute video is guaranteed to amuse anybody that has dealt with discovery negotiations or even works in discovery or litigation support.

Ralph has posted several other videos to YouTube, some of which are educational and others of which (while possibly also being educational) are also fun, including a Star Trek Meets e-Discovery series.

So, what do you think?  Did you get a laugh?  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: eDiscovery Violations Leave Delta Holding the Bag
In the case In re Delta/AirTran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litig., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13462, 41-43 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 3, 2012), U.S. District Judge Timothy Batten ordered Delta to pay plaintiff attorney’s fees and costs for eDiscovery issues in consolidated antitrust cases claiming Delta and AirTran Holdings, Inc. conspired to charge customers $15 to check their first bag. Noting that there was a “huge hole” in Delta’s eDiscovery process, Judge Batten reopened discovery based on defendants’ untimely production of records and indications that there was overwriting of backup tapes, inconsistencies in deposition testimony and documents, and neglect in searching and producing documents from hard drives.

Plaintiffs asserted that Delta did not conduct a reasonable inquiry to confirm its implicit representations that (1) all of the relevant hard drives had been processed, and (2) there were no missing back-up tapes. Arguing that Delta should have ensured that all sources of discoverable information were identified and searched and searched in the evidence locker, Plaintiffs contended that Delta falsely certified that its discovery responses were correct and complete. As a result, Plaintiffs contended that the case had been “unnecessarily delayed and its costs unnecessarily increased, and the fact that Delta is now producing these documents is immaterial”.

The Court agreed, noting:

“The Court finds that Delta did not conduct a reasonable inquiry. With respect to the collected but unsearched hard drives, Delta has not substantially justified its failure to ensure the drives were run through Clearwell and searched back in 2009. While its counsel did email {Delta’s IT Group} CSIRT a list of custodians whose hard drives should have been loaded onto Clearwell, CSIRT did not respond with confirmation that each listed person’s drive was on the system; CSIRT only stated that files were identified by “user employee id, not by name.” Delta has not shown that it ever confirmed with CSIRT that each hard drive that was supposed to be run through Clearwell actually had been. This oversight is a huge hole in Delta’s electronic discovery process, and Delta has not adequately explained why it did not ensure in 2009 that every collected hard drive was actually processed through Clearwell and searched.”

Judge Batten determined that Delta had violated FRCP 26(g) early disclosure requirements and failed to supplement discovery, justifying sanctions under FRCP 37(c)(1). Ruling that Delta needed to pay plaintiffs’ fees and costs in bringing the discovery motions and for extended discovery activities, Judge Batten strongly suggested that both sides meet and confer to attempt to agree to those fees and costs.  However, Judge Batten found that Delta would not be sanctioned with the exclusion of the late production, because Delta: 1) Informed the Court and Plaintiffs after they discovered the issue; 2) Requested the Court suspend the case schedule; and 3) There was no evidence the Defendants willfully withheld the discovery.

So, what do you think?  Were the sanctions justified?  Or should more sanctions have been applied?  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 Law: Texas Model Order for Patent eDiscovery Now In the Public Comment Phase
In a blog post last October, we discussed the new model order proposed by Federal Circuit Chief Judge Randall Rader as a measure against the “excesses” of eDiscovery production. At that time, the “Model Order on E-Discovery in Patent Cases” had been unanimously voted on by the Federal Circuit Advisory Council and, as a result, could significantly alter the way discovery materials are used in such cases.  This version of the model order is included in proposed local rule amendment GO-12-06 for the Eastern District of Texas.  The amendment has been approved by the judges of the district, subject to public comment, the deadline for which is March 23, a little over two weeks from now.

Reviewed by a working group of the Eastern District’s Local Rules Advisory Committee at the court’s request to determine whether it should be included in the district’s local rules, the working group recognized the “substantial work that went into the [Federal Circuit’s] Model Order” and used it as its “baseline.” The district created a redlined version of the Federal Circuit model order and provides detailed commentary explaining the reasons for the changes to the Federal Circuit model.  It has some fairly significant changes, some of which include:

  • Cost Shifting: Item #3, addressing circumstances for considering cost shifting, was stricken;
  • ESI Production Parameters: A new item #5 has been added to address production parameters, including document image format in TIFF, text-searchable documents, and native files (the way it’s currently written, you can apparently only request native files after receiving a TIFF production, absent agreement of the parties).  This section also notes that backup preservation and collection and preservation from voice mail and mobile devices is not necessary (absent a showing of good cause);
  • Email Production Requests: Item #7, indicating that email production requests will be only propounded for specific issues instead of general discovery, was stricken.  The next item, related to specifics of email production requests was expanded quite a bit to address information to be exchanged prior to email production and also allow one deponent per producing party to determine “the proper custodians, proper search terms, and proper time frame for e-mail production requests”;
  • Email Production Scope: Language was added to indicate that email requests will “identify the custodian, search terms, and time frame”.  It also bumped up the limit from five to eight custodians per producing party for each request and bumped up the limit from five to ten search terms per custodian per party.

It will be interesting to see whether any additional modifications are implemented as a result of the public comment period.

So, what do you think?  Will model orders become popular as a way to limit the eDiscovery in other types of cases?  Are model orders a good idea or are they too limiting? 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: At The Eleventh Hour, Encrypted Hard Drive Is Decrypted
In our previous post regarding the case U.S. v. Fricosu, Colorado district judge Robert Blackburn ruled that a woman must produce an unencrypted version of her Toshiba laptop’s hard drive to prosecutors in a mortgage fraud case for police inspection.  The woman, Ramona Fricosu, had argued that the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination protected her from having to disclose the password to her hard drive, which was encrypted using PGP Desktop and seized when investigators served a search warrant on her home.

In providing his ruling, Judge Blackburn referenced In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Boucher in which a password protected laptop was seized. After an initial magistrate judge ruling finding that the defendant could not be compelled to reveal the contents of his mind (via the password), the grand jury requested (which a Vermont District judge granted) to require the defendant to produce, not the password itself, but rather an unencrypted version of the drive.

While Judge Blackburn ruled that Fricosu was required to provide the government in this case with an unencrypted copy of the Toshiba laptop computer’s hard drive, he also ruled that the government would be “precluded from using Ms. Fricosu’s act of production of the unencrypted contents of the computer’s hard drive against her in any prosecution”.

Still, the defendant appealed.  On February 21st, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to get involved, saying Ramona Fricosu’s case must first be resolved in District Court before her attorney can appeal.  She would have been required to turn over the unencrypted contents of the drive as of March 1.

However, at the last minute, Colorado federal authorities decrypted the laptop.  “They must have used or found successful one of the passwords the co-defendant (Scott Whatcott) provided them,” Fricosu’s attorney, Philip Dubois, said in a telephone interview.  Dubois said the authorities delivered to him a copy of the information they discovered on the drive, but he said he had not examined it.

So, what do you think?  Will disclosure of the password preclude a later appeal?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

eDiscovery Best Practices: Perspective on the Amount of Data Contained in 1 Gigabyte
Often, the picture used to introduce the blog post is a whimsical (but public domain!) representation of the topic at hand.  However, today’s picture is intended to be a bit instructional.

As we work with more data daily and we keep buying larger hard drives to store that data, one gigabyte (GB) of data seems smaller and smaller.  Today, you can buy a portable 1 terabyte (TB) drive for less than $100 in some places.  Is the GB smaller than it used to be?  Last I checked, it’s still about a billion bytes (1024 x 1024 x 1024 or 1,073,741,824 bytes, to be exact).

From a page standpoint, most estimates that I’ve heard have estimated 1 GB to be 50,000 to 75,000 pages.  Of course, that can vary widely, depending on the file types comprising that GB.  A GB of 1 megabyte (MB) one-page, high-resolution image files will only take about 1,000 pages to equal a GB, whereas a collection of 5 kilobyte (KB) text file and small emails (with minimal attachments) could take as much as 200,000 pages to equal a GB.  So, 50,000 to 75,000 is probably a good average.

A ream of copy paper is 500 pages and a case holds 10 reams (5,000 pages).  So, a GB is the equivalent of 100 to 150 reams of paper (10 to 15 cases), which is enough paper to fill a small truck.  Hence, today’s picture shows a truck full of paper.

There was a Gartner report that re-published Anne Kershaw’s analysis on the cost to manually review 1 TB of data.  Quoting from the report, as follows:

“Considering that one terabyte is generally estimated to contain 75 million pages, a one-terabyte case could amount to 18,750,000 documents, assuming an average of four pages per document. Further assuming that a lawyer or paralegal can review 50 documents per hour (a very fast review rate), it would take 375,000 hours to complete the review. In other words, it would take more than 185 reviewers working 2,000 hours each per year to complete the review within a year. Assuming each reviewer is paid $50 per hour (a bargain), the cost could be more than $18,750,000.”

If it costs $18.75 million to review 1 TB, one could extrapolate that to approximately $18,750 to review each GB.  Dividing by 1,000 (ignoring the 24), that extrapolates to: 75,000 pages / 4 = 18,750 documents / 50 documents reviewed per hour = 375 review hours x $50 per hour = $18,750.  I’ve mentioned that figure to clients and prospects and they almost always seem surprised that the figure is so high.  Then, I ask them how many hours does it take them to review a truckload of paper to determine relevancy to the case?  😉

Bottom line: each GB effectively culled out through technology (such as early case assessment, first pass review tools like FirstPass™, powered by Venio) can save approximately $18,750 in review costs.  That’s why technology based assisted review approaches have become so popular and why it’s important to remember how expensive each additional GB can be.

So, what do you think?  Did you realize that each GB was so large or so expensive?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

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

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

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

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

In his conclusion, Judge Peck noted:

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

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

So, what do you think?  Is it high time for courts to recognize and approve computer-assisted review or is the court system still not ready for technology based approaches?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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