Close
Enter your
text here

Ethics

Is a Blended Document Review Rate of $466 Per Hour Excessive? – eDiscovery Case Law

Remember when we raised the question as to whether it is time to ditch the per hour model for document review?  One of the cases we highlighted for perceived overbilling was ruled upon last month.

In the case In re Citigroup Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 09 MD 2070 (SHS), 07 Civ. 9901 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2013), New York District Judge Sidney H. Stein rejected as unreasonable the plaintiffs’ lead counsel’s proffered blended rate of more than $400 for contract attorneys—more than the blended rate charged for associate attorneys—most of whom were tasked with routine document review work.

In this securities fraud matter, a class of plaintiffs claimed Citigroup understated the risks of assets backed by subprime mortgages. After the parties settled the matter for $590 million, Judge Stein had to evaluate whether the settlement was “fair, reasonable, and adequate and what a reasonable fee for plaintiffs’ attorneys should be.” The court issued a preliminary approval of the settlement and certified the class. In his opinion, Judge Stein considered the plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of the settlement and allocation and the plaintiffs’ lead counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs of $97.5 million. After approving the settlement and allocation, Judge Stein decided that the plaintiffs’ counsel was entitled to a fee award and reimbursement of expenses but in an amount less than the lead counsel proposed.

One shareholder objected to the lead counsel’s billing practices, claiming the contract attorneys’ rates were exorbitant.

Judge Stein carefully scrutinized the contract attorneys’ proposed hourly rates “not only because those rates are overstated, but also because the total proposed lodestar for contract attorneys dwarfs that of the firm associates, counsel, and partners: $28.6 million for contract attorneys compared to a combined $17 million for all other attorneys.” The proposed blended hourly rate was $402 for firm associates and $632 for firm partners. However, the firm asked for contract attorney hourly rates as high as $550 with a blended rate of $466. The plaintiff explained that these “contract attorneys performed the work of, and have the qualifications of, law firm associates and so should be billed at rates commensurate with the rates of associates of similar experience levels.” In response, the complaining shareholder suggested that a more appropriate rate for contract attorneys would be significantly lower: “no reasonable paying client would accept a rate above $100 per hour.” (emphasis added)

Judge Stein rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the contract attorneys should be billed at rates comparable to firm attorneys, citing authority that “clients generally pay less for the work of contract attorneys than for that of firm associates”:

“There is little excuse in this day and age for delegating document review (particularly primary review or first pass review) to anyone other than extremely low-cost, low-overhead temporary employees (read, contract attorneys)—and there is absolutely no excuse for paying those temporary, low-overhead employees $40 or $50 an hour and then marking up their pay ten times for billing purposes.”

Furthermore, “[o]nly a very few of the scores of contract attorneys here participated in depositions or supervised others’ work, while the vast majority spent their time reviewing documents.” Accordingly, the court decided the appropriate rate would be $200, taking into account the attorneys’ qualifications, work performed, and market rates.

For this and other reasons, the court found the lead counsel’s proposed lodestar “significantly overstated” and made a number of reductions. The reductions included the following amounts:

  • $7.5 million for document review by contract attorneys that happened after the parties agreed to settle; 20 of the contract attorneys were hired on or about the day of the settlement.
  • $12 million for reducing the blended hourly rate of contract attorneys from $466 to $200 for 45,300 hours, particularly where the bills reflected that these attorneys performed document review—not higher-level work—all day.
  • 10% off the “remaining balance to account for waste and inefficiency which, the Court concludes, a reasonable hypothetical client would not accept.”

As a result, the court awarded a reduced amount of $70.8 million in attorneys’ fees, or 12% of the $590 million common fund.

So, what do you think?  Was the requested amount excessive?   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.

eDiscovery Daily is Three Years Old!

We’ve always been free, now we are three!

It’s hard to believe that it has been three years ago today since we launched the eDiscoveryDaily blog.  We’re past the “terrible twos” and heading towards pre-school.  Before you know it, we’ll be ready to take our driver’s test!

We have seen traffic on our site (from our first three months of existence to our most recent three months) grow an amazing 575%!  Our subscriber base has grown over 50% in the last year alone!  Back in June, we hit over 200,000 visits on the site and now we have over 236,000!

We continue to appreciate the interest you’ve shown in the topics and will do our best to continue to provide interesting and useful posts about eDiscovery trends, best practices and case law.  That’s what this blog is all about.  And, in each post, we like to ask for you to “please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic”, so we encourage you to do so to make this blog even more useful.

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

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

Rodney Dangerfield might put it this way – “I Tell Ya, Information Governance Gets No Respect”

Is it Time to Ditch the Per Hour Model for Document Review?  Here’s some food for thought.

Is it Possible for a File to be Modified Before it is Created?  Maybe, but here are some mechanisms for avoiding that scenario (here, here, here, here, here and here).  Best of all, they’re free.

Did you know changes to the Federal eDiscovery Rules are coming?  Here’s some more information.

Count Minnesota and Kansas among the states that are also making changes to support eDiscovery.

By the way, since the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) annual meeting back in May, several EDRM projects (Metrics, Jobs, Data Set and the new Native Files project) have already announced new deliverables and/or requested feedback.

When it comes to electronically stored information (ESI), ensuring proper chain of custody tracking is an important part of handling that ESI through the eDiscovery process.

Do you self-collect?  Don’t Forget to Check for Image Only Files!

The Files are Already Electronic, How Hard Can They Be to Load?  A sound process makes it easier.

When you remove a virus from your collection, does it violate your discovery agreement?

Do you think that you’ve read everything there is to read on Technology Assisted Review?  If you missed anything, it’s probably here.

Consider using a “SWOT” analysis or Decision Tree for better eDiscovery planning.

If you’re an eDiscovery professional, here is what you need to know about litigation.

BTW, eDiscovery Daily has had 242 posts related to eDiscovery Case Law since the blog began!  Forty-four of them have been in the last six months.

Our battle cry for next September?  “Four more years!”  🙂

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.

The Sedona Conference Commentary on Ethics & Metadata – eDiscovery Best Practices

One of the most influential organizations in eDiscovery is The Sedona Conference® (TSC), and some of TSC’s most recent contributions have been documented in this blog, including a commentary on proportionality (released in 2010), database principles (2011) and guidance for judges (2012).  Last month, TSC’s Working Group on Electronic Document Retention & Production (WG1) released it’s Second Edition of The Sedona Conference® Commentary on Ethics & Metadata.

As noted in the Preface of the Commentary, it “focuses on the ethical considerations surrounding the inclusion and review of metadata in the non-discovery and discovery contexts.”  It is also “intended to provide practical guidance for lawyers in protecting confidential metadata and to assist the judiciary in fashioning appropriate discovery orders.”

The Commentary was first published for public comment in March 2012. Several recent significant developments in the law – including recommendations adopted by the American Bar Association House of Delegates in August of last year from the ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 to extend a lawyer’s duty of competence beyond simply competence in the law to competence in technology relevant to advising and representing clients, along with several dozen comments from WG1 members and the general public – spearheaded the updates.

In addition to the Preface and Conclusion, the Commentary is organized into the following sections:

  • Ethics and Metadata – Basic Concepts: Defines metadata and describes the different types of metadata (e.g., Application Metadata, File System Metadata, etc.) in detail, as well as describing a lawyer’s primary four ethical duties regarding metadata.
  • A Lawyer’s Ethical Obligations Regarding Metadata in the Non-Discovery Context: Discusses topics such as the ethical duties of a lawyer sending metadata or receiving metadata (generally), discussion of bar associations’ ethics opinions prohibiting data mining by the receiving lawyer and which jurisdictions generally do and don’t prohibit data mining and at least one bar association’s suggestion that a lawyer’s duties of competence and diligence require a search for and review of metadata included in electronically transmitted documents.
  • A Lawyer’s Ethical Obligations Regarding Metadata in the Discovery Context: Discusses how discovery is different (especially for the receiving lawyer, who is not only generally allowed, but also possibly mandated to search for and examine any produced metadata) and describes in detail the ethical duties of a lawyer producing metadata or receiving metadata in discovery.
  • Multijurisdictional Issues: Focuses on multijurisdictional conflicts in which a lawyer receives metadata in the non-discovery context.
  • Mitigation: Methods for mitigating metadata (when appropriate), including scrubbing, effective management of track changes, warning about electronic redactions and agreements and orders for handling metadata.

You can download a copy of the commentary here.  As always, you can visit the TSC website at to offer your comments on the public forum pages or submit feedback by emailing them at info@sedonaconference.org.

For more on metadata mining ethics, here’s a post from 2011 on an American Bar Association regarding the topic.

So, what do you think?  How do you handle metadata in your practice?   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.

Is it OK for an eDiscovery Vendor to Work on Both Sides of a Case? – eDiscovery Best Practices

A few weeks ago, we covered a case where the plaintiffs’ motion to compel the defendant to meet and confer to establish an agreed protocol for implementing the use of predictive coding software was dismissed (without prejudice) after the defendants stated that they were prepared to meet and confer with the plaintiffs and their non-disqualified ESI consultants regarding the defendants’ predictive coding process.  The sticking point may be the ESI consultant in dispute.

As reported by Victor Li in Law Technology News (Judge Refuses to Disqualify EDD Vendor for Playing Both Sides), the defendant in Gordon v. Kaleida Health is taking its fight to the U.S. District Court to have eDiscovery vendor D4 Discovery disqualified from working on the case on behalf of the plaintiffs.  In their initial objection on June 5 and their July 12 filing, Kaleida Health claimed that New York Magistrate Judge Leslie Foschio erred and that D4 should have been disqualified.  As the article notes, “Kaleida’s attorneys at Nixon Peabody had decided to use predictive coding to go through its gigantic cache of 300,000 to 400,000 emails, and had hired D4 (in 2010) to provide scanning and coding services. In 2011, D4 entered into a contract to provide e-discovery consulting services to the plaintiffs. Despite D4’s representation that its consultants had not been involved in the project for Nixon Peabody, Kaleida and Nixon Peabody objected.”

In his ruling, Foschio ruled that there was no conflict of interest for reasons including:

  • D4’s involvement with Kaleida was limited to scanning and coding documents;
  • Kaleida failed to show that D4 had access to any confidential information;
  • D4’s duties to Kaleida were “a routine clerical function” (similar to photocopying documents) while services provided to the plaintiffs were “requiring expert knowledge or skills”;
  • D4 had only been hired to code objective information into assigned fields and was not asked to identify substantive case issues or make subjective decisions about the documents;
  • D4 had actually subcontracted its work for Kaleida to Infovision 21.

Conversely, Kaleida and its attorneys at Nixon Peabody argued that there was a confidential relationship with D4 and that D4 had access to sensitive information, arguing that the plaintiffs’ attorneys at Thomas & Solomon spoke directly to Amir Karahasanovic, the D4 employee who had handled the Kaleida job, violating that confidential relationship.

Li’s article also quotes Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) co-founder George Socha (a thought leader interviewee on this blog for the past three years), who referenced the EDRM’s Model Code of Conduct (our previous post about it here) as a means to encourage vendors to avoid these types of situations.  In Guideline 9 of Principle 3 (Conflicts of Interest) of the code, it states “Service Providers should not proceed with an engagement where one or more conflicts have been identified until those conflicts have been resolved and the resolution is adequately memorialized to the satisfaction of all parties involved.”

So, what do you think?  Are there some services or situations where it’s acceptable for an eDiscovery provider to work on both sides of a case?  Or should providers only do so if both parties agree?  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.

Court Rules that Stored Communications Act Applies to Former Employee Emails – eDiscovery Case Law

In Lazette v. Kulmatycki, No. 3:12CV2416, 2013 U.S. Dist. (N.D. Ohio June 5, 2013), the Stored Communications Act (SCA) applied when a supervisor reviewed his former employee’s Gmails through her company-issued smartphone; it covered emails the former employee had not yet opened but not emails she had read but not yet deleted.

When the plaintiff left her employer, she returned her company-issued Blackberry, which she believed the company would recycle and give to another employee. Over the next eighteen months, her former supervisor read 48,000 emails on the plaintiff’s personal Gmail account without her knowledge or authorization. The plaintiff also claimed her supervisor shared the contents of her emails with others. As a result, she filed a lawsuit alleging violations of the SCA, among other claims.

The SCA allows recovery where someone “(1) intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided; or (2) intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility; and thereby obtains . . . access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such system.” “Electronic storage” includes “(A) any temporary, intermediate storage of a wire or electronic communication incidental to the electronic transmission thereof; and (B) any storage of such communication by an electronic communication service for purposes of backup protection of such communication.”

The defendants claimed that Kulmatycki’s review of the plaintiff’s emails did not violate the SCA for several reasons: the SCA was aimed at “‘high-tech’ criminals, such as computer hackers,”‘ that Kulmatycki had authority to access the plaintiff’s emails, that his access “did not occur via ‘a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided’ other than the company owned Blackberry,” that “the emails were not in electronic storage when Kulmatycki read them,” and that the company was exempt because “the person or entity providing an electronic communications service is exempt from the Act, because the complaint does not make clear that plaintiff’s g-mail account was separate from her company account.”

The court rejected all but one of the defendants’ arguments. The SCA’s scope extended beyond high-tech hackers, and the Gmail server was the “facility” in question, not the plaintiff’s Blackberry. The court also found that the plaintiff’s failure to delete her Gmail account from her Blackberry did not give her supervisor her implied consent to access her emails; the plaintiff’s negligence did not amount to “approval, much less authorization. There is a difference between someone who fails to leave the door locked when going out and one who leaves it open knowing someone be stopping by.” The court also found that the former employer could be held liable through respondeat superior: the actions of the supervisor could be imputed to the company.

Where the defendants scored a minor victory is in their interpretation of “storage”: any emails that the plaintiff had opened but not deleted before the defendant saw them were not being kept “for the purposes of backup protection” and thus were not protected under the SCA.

Accordingly, the court allowed the plaintiff’s SCA claim to proceed.

So, what do you think?  Should the emails have been protected under the SCA?  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.

When Lawyers Get Sued, They Have Preservation Obligations Too – eDiscovery Case Law

In Distefano v. Law Offices of Barbara H. Katsos, PC., No. CV 11-2893 (JS) (AKT) (D. ED NY Mar. 29, 2013), New York Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson found that the defendant (an attorney who was being sued by the plaintiff she previously represented for breach of contract, negligence/legal malpractice, and breach of fiduciary duty/duty of care) had a duty to preserve information from a discarded computer and ordered a hearing for the defendant to address a number of questions to determine the potential relevance of the destroyed data and whether the defendant had a sufficiently culpable state of mind.

The plaintiff alleged professional negligence by the defendant related to her representation of his franchise business for Cold Stone Creamery stores.  During a Discovery Status Conference, it was revealed that the defendant had gotten rid of her computer before the litigation began, as she noted in her affidavit that she was advised by a third-party individual who fixed her office computers that they could not be repaired.  As she used AOL for email correspondence, she contacted AOL “to inquire if emails from several years ago could be recovered by AOL”, but was told that they “could not recover emails from several years ago for the stated email address”.  After receiving the defendant’s affidavit, the plaintiff filed a motion for spoliation.

With regard to the defendant’s duty to preserve information related to her representation of the plaintiff, Judge Tomlinson stated:

“The Court concludes that Katsos’ duty to preserve documents arose as early as late February 2009, when Michael DiStefano terminated the attorney-client relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendants.”  On February 24, 2009, the plaintiff send the defendant a letter terminating the representation “immediately” and stated that he would “communicate with you further, in writing, so as to explain the reasons why I am discharging you.”  Noting that the “language of Michael DiStefano’s letter gives the appearance that Distefano was not satisfied with Katsos’ work”, Judge Tomlinson also noted that “[i]n assessing whether litigation was reasonably foreseeable in these circumstances, the Court cannot ignore the fact that Katsos is an attorney and should have been attuned to the prospect of litigation.”

To determine the defendant’s culpable state of mind, Judge Tomlinson ordered a hearing on May 13 for the defendant to “be prepared to testify regarding, among other things, the following areas:

  1. Katsos’ normal document preservation/retention/deletion/destruction practices;
  2. the number of computers utilized in her office prior to 2009, when the computers were purchased, and the specific circumstances surrounding the breakdown of each of those computers;
  3. the service agreements for those computers and the vendor(s) used;
  4. whether Katsos maintained a network server;
  5. AOL’s automatic deletion policies to the extent they were explained to Katsos;
  6. a complete list of every email address used by Defendant Law Offices of Barbara H. Katsos, PC and Defendant Barbara Katsos or her staff to communicate with Plaintiffs;
  7. Katsos’ attempts to gain access to the email accounts used by her paralegals and interns referenced in Paragraph 5 of Katsos Aff. II and page 16 of Plaintiffs’ Memorandum;
  8. the document preservation steps undertaken by Katsos when Plaintiffs instituted an adversary proceeding against her in March of 2010;
  9. the retention and utilization of the services of Jan Sloboda.” (the third-party individual that advised her to replace her computers)

The plaintiffs were also ordered to identify “general categories of documents that have been adversely affected” to help determine the relevance of the data in question and were permitted to question the defendant at the hearing.

So, what do you think?  Was this an appropriate course of action to determine whether sanctions are appropriate?  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.

Is it Time to Ditch the Per Hour Model for Document Review? – eDiscovery Trends

Some of the recent stories involving alleged overbilling by law firms for legal work – much of it for document review – begs the question whether it’s time to ditch the per hour model for document review in place of a per document rate for review?

As discussed by D. Casey Flaherty in Law Technology News (DLA Piper Is Not Alone: Why Law Firms Overbill), DLA Piper has been sued by its client – to the tune of over $22 million – for overbilling.  When DLA Piper produced some 250,000 documents in response to its client’s eDiscovery requests, some embarrassing internal emails were included in that production.  For example:

  • “I hear we are already 200K over our estimate – that’s Team DLA Piper!”
  • “DLA seems to love to low ball the bills and with the number of bodies being thrown at this thing, it’s going to stay stupidly high and with the absurd litigation POA has been in for years, it does have lots of wrinkles.”
  •  “It’s a Thomson project, he goes full time on whatever debtor case he has running. Full time, 2 days a week.”
  • “[N]ow Vince has random people working full time on random research projects in standard ‘churn that bill, baby!’ mode. That bill shall show no limits.”
  • “Didn’t you use three associates to prepare for a first day hearing where you filed three documents?”

In his article, Flaherty provides two other examples of (at least) perceived overbilling:

  • In the Madoff case, the government “used 6,000 hours of attorney time to procure a $140 million settlement offer (more than $23,000 delivered per hour spent)”.  Your federal tax dollars hard at work!  However, the plaintiffs’ law firms “expended 118,000 additional attorney hours on the same matter to deliver the final version of that settlement at $219 million” and seek $40 million for delivering $39 million in incremental value (once you subtract their proposed $40 million in fees).  “It appears that most of the 110 lawyers are contract attorneys performing basic document review; the plaintiffs firms are just marking them up at many, many multiples of their actual cost.”
  • In the Citigroup derivatives class action settlement, plaintiffs firms “reached a $590 million settlement from which they now seek almost $100 million in fees for 87,000 hours of billable time (average, $1,150 per hour). The bulk of the hours were spent on low-level document review work” where contract attorneys were paid $40 to $60 per hour and “the plaintiffs firms are seeking $550 to $1,000 plus per hour for those services”.

While the DLA Piper example isn’t specifically about document review overbilling, it does reflect how cavalier some firms (or at least some attorneys at those firms) can be about the subject of overbilling.  For the other two examples above, document review overbilling appears to be at the core of those disputes.  There are admittedly different levels of document review, depending on whether the attorneys are performing a straightforward responsiveness review, a privilege review, or a more detailed subject matter/issue coding review.  Nonetheless, the number of documents in the collection is finite and the cost for review should be somewhat predictable, regardless of the level of review being conducted.

Why don’t more firms offer a per document rate for document review?  Or, perhaps a better question would be why don’t more organizations insist on a per document rate?  That seems like a better way to make document review costs more predictable and more consistent.  I’m not sure why, other than “that’s the way we’ve always done it”, that it hasn’t become more predominant.  Knowing the per document rate and the number of documents to be reviewed up front would seem to eliminate overbilling disputes for document review, at least.

So, what do you think?  Is it time to ditch the per hour model for document review?  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.

New eDiscovery Guidelines for Northern District of California – eDiscovery Trends

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has announced new Guidelines for counsel and litigants regarding the discovery of electronically stored information (“ESI”) effective as of last Tuesday (November 27). The Guidelines were developed by a bench-bar committee chaired by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte in partnership with the Court’s Rules Committee and unanimously approved by the entire Court.

As stated in the announcement: “Counsel and litigants should familiarize themselves with the Guidelines and immediately begin using the revised Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California when preparing case management statements and the Checklist as appropriate when meeting and conferring.”

As noted in the announcement, in addition to the Standing Order noted above, the package of new ESI-related documents is comprised of:

In the announcement, Judge Laporte stated: “These tools are designed to promote cooperative e-discovery planning as soon as practicable that is tailored and proportionate to the needs of the particular case to achieve its just, speedy and inexpensive resolution, consistent with Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure… The Court requires counsel to be familiar with these tools and confirm in the initial case management statement that they have reviewed the Guidelines regarding preservation and decided whether to enter into a stipulated order governing e-discovery, in light of the Model Stipulated Order.”

To confirm that familiarity and understanding by counsel, paragraph 6 of the Standing Order requires that all Joint Case Management Statements include:

“A brief report certifying that the parties have reviewed the Guidelines Relating to the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (“ESI Guidelines”), and confirming that the parties have met and conferred pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) regarding reasonable and proportionate steps taken to preserve evidence relevant to the issues reasonably evident in this action.”

As noted in this blog previously, other courts, such as the Southern District of New York (pilot program) and the Eastern District of Texas (for patent cases) have implemented standards for handling ESI, at least in certain situations.

So, what do you think?  Should all District courts adopt similar standards and provide similar guidelines and checklists?  If not, why not?  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.

EDBP.com, A Lawyer Centric Work Flow Model for eDiscovery – eDiscovery Best Practices

Take a closer look – that’s not the EDRM model you see above.  It’s the new EDBP model.

EDBP stands for Electronic Discovery Best Practices and is the brainchild of Ralph Losey, whose e-Discovery Team® blog is one of the must-read blogs (and one of the most in-depth) in the industry.  Ralph is also National e-Discovery Counsel with the law firm of Jackson Lewis, LLP, an Adjunct Professor at the University of Florida College of Law teaching eDiscovery and advanced eDiscovery and has also previously been a thought leader interviewee on this blog.  Other than all that, he’s not very busy.

As Ralph describes on his blog, “EDBP is a new reference of legal best practices for practicing attorneys and paralegals.  It is also an open project where other specialists in the field are invited to make contributions.”  He also notes that “The ten-step diagram…serves as the basic structure of the tasks performed by attorneys in electronic discovery practice. This structure may also change with time to keep up with evolving attorney practices.”

According to the EDBP site (ironically at EDBP.com), the stated mission is as follows:

“The purpose of EDBP is to provide a model of best practices for use by law firms and corporate law departments. EDBP is designed to be an educational resource for all lawyers striving to stay current with the latest thinking on excellence in legal services in electronic discovery law.”

Other notable aspects about EDBP:

  • It’s lawyer-centric, designed to address legal services, not the work of vendors.  As a result, it’s different in scope from EDRM, which covers non-legal service activities as well.  “The EDBP chart will focus solely on legal practice and legal services. It will be by and for lawyers only and the paralegals who assist their legal services”.
  • It does not address minimum standards for legal services, but instead “embodies an evolving understanding of excellence in legal services”.  In other words, if it were a final exam, you’re expected to ace the exam, not just get a passing grade.

The EDBP site also provides linked detailed write ups of each of the color coded sections, entitled Pre-Suit (gray), Preservation (blue), Cooperation (red), C.A.R. (green), Productions (yellow) and Evidence (turquoise?).  The sections include links to resources of information, such as The Sedona Conference® (including flowcharts) and case cites, as well as references to Federal Rules.

On his blog, Losey says “I am writing the beginning statements of best practices (about half-way through) and will serve as the first editor and gate-keeper for future contributions from others.”  The site also provides a place to provide your email address to subscribe to updates and a comments section to leave a comment for suggestions on how to improve EDBP.  It will be interesting to see how this site evolves – it promises to be an invaluable resource for eDiscovery best practices for lawyers and other legal services personnel.

So, what do you think?  Do you think EDBP will be a useful resource?  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: Citing Rule 26(g), Court Orders Plaintiff’s Counsel to Disclose Search Strategy
 

Our 501st post on the blog addresses S2 Automation LLC v. Micron Technology, No. CIV 11-0884 JB/WDS, 2012 U.S. Dist. (D. New Mexico, Aug 9, 2012), where New Mexico District Judge James Browning ordered the plaintiff’s attorneys to disclose the search strategy their client used to identify responsive documents, based on Federal Rule 26(g) that requires attorneys to sign discovery responses and certify that they are “complete and correct.”

Motion to Compel

Last October, S2 Automation filed a Complaint against Micron Technology for breach of contract, conversion, misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.  After various objections to Micron’s requests for production by S2, Micron filed a Motion to Compel, indicating that S2 Automation “has utterly failed to meet its obligation to meaningfully respond to discovery in this matter” and requested, among other things that the court order S2 Automation to identify the search strategy it used to provide responsive documents to its requests for production.

A sworn declaration from one of Micron’s attorneys indicated that, during a discovery conference, it became apparent that S2′s counsel may not have worked with their client sufficiently during the discovery process and, as a result, may have failed to provide a number of responsive documents:

“During that call, we discussed the April 25 deficiency letter and Micron’s request that S2 supplement its production. Counsel for S2 stated that he had not yet reviewed the letter in detail. We then discussed the format for production of S2′s documents. Counsel stated that he was not aware that S2 had separated attachments from e-mails, that he had delegated the process of gathering documents to S2, and that he was generally unaware of the manner in which S2 had provided the documents. Counsel also stated that he was unsure what protocol S2 followed to locate responsive documents.”

S2’s Obligations under Federal Rule 26(g)

Micron asserted in its motion to compel that S2′s counsel violated their obligations under Federal Rule 26(g), stating “it is not proper for counsel to sit back and allow the client to search for documents without active direction and participation by counsel; to the contrary, counsel must be actively involved in the search to ensure that all responsive documents have been located, preserved, and produced.”  In response, S2′s attorneys denied that they had failed to supervise the discovery process, indicating that they had “met with the client on multiple occasions during the discovery process in order to organize and respond to discovery.”

Judge Browning’s Ruling

Noting that Rule 26(g) imposes an obligation on the attorney who signs the discovery response to conduct “a reasonable inquiry into the facts and law supporting the pleading”, Judge Browning stated:

“Accordingly, it can become necessary to evaluate whether an attorney complied with his rule 26(g) obligations and to evaluate the strategy an attorney used to provide responsive discovery, with relevant circumstances including: (i) “[t]he number and complexity of the issues”; (ii) “[t]he location, nature, number and availability of potentially relevant witnesses or documents”; (iii) “[t]he extent of past working relationships between the attorney and the client, particularly in related or similar litigation”; and (iv) “[t]he time available to conduct an investigation.” 6 J. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, § 26.154[2][a], at 26-615 (3d ed. 2012). Consequently, the analysis in which courts must engage to evaluate whether a party’s discovery responses were adequate is often a fact-intensive inquiry that requires evaluation of the procedures the producing party adopted during discovery.”

As a result, Judge Browning ruled that S2 Automation would have to provide to Micron “its search strategy for identifying pertinent documents, including the procedures it used and how it interacted with its counsel to facilitate the production process.”

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

eDiscovery Daily will return with a new post on Tuesday after the Labor Day holiday.

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.