Close
Enter your
text here

Industry Trends

Judge Carter Refuses to Recuse Judge Peck in Da Silva Moore – eDiscovery Trends

It seems like ages ago when New York Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck denied the motion of the plaintiffs in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, No. 11 Civ. 1279 (ALC) (AJP) to recuse himself in the case.  It was all the way back in June.  Now, District Court Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. has ruled on the plaintiff’s recusal request.

In his order from last Wednesday (November 7), Judge Carter stated as follows:

“On the basis of this Court’s review of the entire record, the Court is not persuaded that sufficient cause exists to warrant Magistrate Judge Peck’s disqualification…Judge Peck’s decision accepting computer-assisted review … was not influenced by bias, nor did it create any appearance of bias.”

Judge Carter also noted, “Disagreement or dissatisfaction with Magistrate Judge Peck’s ruling is not enough to succeed here…A disinterested observer fully informed of the facts in this case would find no basis for recusal”.

Since it has been a while, let’s recap the case for those who may have not been following it and may be new to the blog.

Back in February, Judge Peck issued an opinion making this case 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 the 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, on May 14, Judge Peck issued a stay, stopping defendant MSLGroup’s production of electronically stored information.  Finally, on June 15, in a 56 page opinion and order, Judge Peck denied the plaintiffs’ motion for recusal, which Judge Carter has now upheld.

So, what do you think?  Will Judge Carter’s decision not to recuse Judge Peck restart the timetable for predictive coding on this case?  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.

ARMA/Forrester Survey: Only One in Eight Records Managers Trusts Their ESI – eDiscovery Trends

According to the Forrester Research and ARMA International Records Management Online Survey, Q3 2012, only 12 percent of records managers are “very confident” that, if challenged, their organization could demonstrate that their electronically stored information (ESI) is “accurate, accessible, complete and trustworthy”.  That’s less than one in eight.

The report, co-authored by ARMA and Forrester Research, contains the results of a survey of 354 records managers.

Some of the less than optimistic comments from the report include: “Records managers report abysmally low e-discovery confidence…This bleak data point represents an even lower e-discovery confidence rate than captured in past surveys…[S]urvey data show that integrated legal hold – a critical component needed for successful defensible disposition – is simply missing in organizations.”

And this: “Organizations aren’t sure of the business value or legal obligations to preserve content so they simply continue to accumulate digital debris, slowing down overtaxed systems, adding to storage costs, and posing potential additional litigation and investigation burdens over time.”

Some of the reasons cited as obstacles to improved records management include:

  • Poor systems integration – 74 percent of respondents;
  • Inadequate budget – 73 percent;
  • Lack of experienced staff – 64 percent;
  • Outdated policies or procedures – 55 percent; and
  • Lack of clear leadership – 54 percent.

So, what are organizations doing to address the obstacles?  Here are some indications:

  • 40 percent of survey respondents expect that their organization’s overall records management spending will increase at least 5% from 2012 to 2013;
  • 71 percent currently have implementation plans underway, or plans to implement records management technology within the next year;
  • 81 percent consider an improvement in records management policy consistency an important objective for their organization.

A copy of the report is available here from Forrester Research for $499.

Since, according to the Compliance, Governance and Oversight Council (CGOC), information volume doubles every 18-24 months, you would think organizations would be making greater strides in implementing information governance programs.  Of course, many information governance industry initiatives are still in relative infancy, including the Information Governance Reference Model (IGRM) Project of the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM), which was started a mere two years ago (click here for information on their newest version).  It appears that organizations still have a long way to go to get their data under control.

So, what do you think?  What, if any, records management obstacles are your organization facing?  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 Training Valued More Than eDiscovery Certification – eDiscovery Trends

According to a survey conducted by eDJ Group and reported on by Barry Murphy within eDiscovery Journal (eDiscovery Education? Yes! eDiscovery Certification? Maybe…), almost all respondents believe that eDiscovery and education and training are important and three fourths of them believe that good eDiscovery education and training programs exist today.  However, when it comes to the importance of eDiscovery certification programs and whether good programs exist today, slightly more than half of respondents responded favorably to eDiscovery certification programs.

In the story by Murphy, eDiscovery Journal displays graphs representing the results of each of the four questions, as follows:

  • In general, do you believe that good eDiscovery education and training are necessary for the betterment of the industry?: 98.3% of the respondents said yes, 1.7% of the respondents said no.
  • In general, do you believe that good eDiscovery education and training programs exist? : 74.9% of the respondents said yes, 25.1% of the respondents said no.
  • In general, do you believe that good eDiscovery certifications are necessary for the betterment of the industry? : 58.1% of the respondents said yes, 41.9% of the respondents said no.
  • In general, do you believe that good eDiscovery certification programs exist? : 54.8% of the respondents said yes, 45.3% of the respondents said no.

Based on the small footer in each of the graphs, it appears that there were 179 respondents to the four question survey.

Murphy’s eDiscovery Journal also notes several of the organizations that provide eDiscovery education, training and/or certification programs – two of which, the Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists® (ACEDS™) and The Organization of Legal Professionals (OLP) have had programs featured on this blog.  In addition to the ones that Murphy mentioned, Magellan’s Law Corporation offersDiscovery Project Management classes, conducted by our own Jane Gennarelli.

eDiscovery Certifications Compared to Other Industries

With nearly everybody saying that eDiscovery education and training is important, but less than 60% saying that eDiscovery certification is important, that’s quite a disparity, especially since many training programs offer some sort of recognition for completing the training and passing a test (either a written test or practical exercise, or both) to “certify” knowledge of the material.  In his article, Murphy notes that “eDiscovery is a process made up of many tasks, most of which are performed by various team members.  What I hear from eDiscovery professionals when it comes to certification is that there is simply not enough definition as to what it means to be a certified eDiscovery professional.”

When you look at other industries; however, the certifications are more specialized.  For example, in IT, Microsoft has certification programs for IT Professional (MCITP), Professional Developer (MCPD) and Technology Specialist (MCTS) – in each case, the “MC” stands for “Microsoft Certified”.  From a Project Management standpoint, there is the Project Management Professional (PMP) certification offered by the Project Management Institute (PMI), among others.  These certification programs all appear to be widely accepted.  Maybe specialization is the key to creating eDiscovery certification programs that are widely accepted, with each certification based on the expertise that each team member should possess?

So, what do you think?  Will eDiscovery certification programs ever become widely accepted?  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.

Are You Requesting the Best Production Format for Your Case? – eDiscovery Best Practices

One of the blogs I read regularly is Ball in your Court from Craig Ball, a previous thought leader interviewee on this blog.  His post from last Tuesday, Are They Trying to Screw Me?, is one that all attorneys that request ESI productions should read.

Ball describes a fairly typical proposed production format, as follows:

“Documents will be produced as single page TIFF files with multi-page extracted text or OCR.  We will furnish delimited IPRO or Opticon load files and will later identify fielded information we plan to exchange.”

Then, he asks the question: “Are they trying to screw you?”  Answer: “Probably not.”  But, “Are you screwing yourself by accepting the proposed form of production?  Yes, probably.”

With regard to producing TIFF files, Ball notes that “Converting a native document to TIFF images is lobotomizing the document.”  The TIFF image is devoid of any of the metadata that provides valuable information about the way in which the document was used, making analysis of the produced documents a much more difficult effort.  Ball sums up TIFF productions by saying “Think of a TIFF as a PDF’s retarded little brother.  I mean no offense by that, but TIFFs are not just differently abled; they are severely handicapped.  Not born that way, but lamed and maimed on purpose.  The other side downgrades what they give you, making it harder to use and stripping it of potentially-probative content.”

Opposing counsel isn’t trying to screw you with a TIFF production.  They just do it because they always provide it that way.  And, you accept it that way because you’ve always accepted it that way.  Ball notes that “You may accept the screwed up proposal because, even if the data is less useful and incomplete, you won’t have to evolve.  You’ll pull the TIFF images into your browser and painstakingly read them one-by-one, just like good ol’ paper; all-the-while telling yourself that what you didn’t get probably wasn’t that important and promising yourself that next time, you’ll hold out for the good stuff—the native stuff.”

We recently ran a blog series called First Pass Review – Of Your Opponent’s Data.  In that series, we discussed how useful that Early Data Assessment/FirstPass Review applications can be in reviewing your opponent’s produced ESI.  At CloudNine Discovery, we use FirstPass®, powered by Venio FPR™ for first pass review – it provides a number of mechanisms that are useful in analyzing your opponent’s produced data.  Capabilities like email analytics and message thread analysis (where missing emails in threads can be identified), synonym searching, fuzzy searching and domain categorization are quite useful in developing an understanding of your opponents production.  However, these mechanisms are only as useful as the data they’re analyzing.  Email analytics, message thread analysis and domain categorization are driven by metadata, so they are useless on TIFF/OCR/data productions.  You can’t analyze what you don’t have.

It’s time to evolve.  To get the most information out of your opponent’s production, you need to request the production in native format.  Opponents are probably not trying to screw you by producing in TIFF format, but you are screwing yourself if you decide to accept it in that format.

So, what do you think?  Do you request native productions from your opponents?  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.

EDRM Announces Version 3 of the IGRM for Information Governance – eDiscovery Trends

This week, the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) Project, through its Information Governance Reference Model (IGRM) Project, announced today the release of version 3.0 of the IGRM.  As their press release notes, “The updated model now includes privacy and security as primary functions and stakeholders in the effective governance of information. This release of the IGRM reflects broad industry support and collaboration across the expert communities of ARMA International and CGOC (Compliance, Governance and Oversight Council).”

The importance of information governance to the eDiscovery process is clear – when organizations do not have a clear plan for managing their information and defensibly disposing of expired information at the right time, costs for managing that information to respond to discovery requests soar.  The IGRM Project’s mission is to “provide a common, practical framework enabling organizations to establish information governance programs that more effectively deal with the rising volume and diversity of information and the risks, costs, and complications this presents”.  Information Governance is an organization-wide process, affecting Legal, Records, IT and Business organizations within the organization.

The IGRM project was started a mere two years ago, in 2010.  Why does the IGRM exist?  Their early survey of corporate practitioners, conducted jointly with the CGOC, makes it clear:

  • 100% of respondents stated that defensible disposal was the primary purpose of information governance;
  • 66% of IT and 50% of RIM (records management) respondents said their current responsibility model for information governance was ineffective; and
  • 80% of respondents across Legal, IT, and RIM said they had little or very weak linkage between legal obligations for information/data and records management.

As the latest press release notes, “IGRM v3.0 now incorporates Privacy and Security as key stakeholders, reflecting the increasing importance of Privacy and Security duties and the efficiencies organizations can achieve when privacy and security efforts are more holistically integrated with other essential governance practices and programs.”  The diagram above reflects the change – there is a new stakeholder group in blue within the diagram, representing Privacy & Security.

As for other details detailing the IGRM v3.0 update, a white paper is available on the EDRM site (with a link available to download a PDF of the white paper).

EDRM (via the IGRM project) and CGOC have been busy on the Information Governance front this year, as noted by these past stories on our blog here, here and here.  Kudos to all involved in these efforts!

So, what do you think?  Where does your organization stand with regard to information governance efforts?  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.

Want to be an eDiscovery PM? Roll Up Your Sleeves. – eDiscovery Trends
 

I received an intriguing announcement from The Organization of Legal Professionals (OLP) regarding a new five month intensive certificate course in eDiscovery Project Management.  The first course begins on November 13 and runs through the end of April, meeting essentially weekly with all classes recorded so that you can catch up if you miss one.  Here are some details about the program.

It’s a seven course program that focuses on the “practical application of legal, IT and project management skills to interactive scenarios in an interactive, web-based, live simulation environment.”  The seven courses cover the following topics:

  • Fundamentals of eDiscovery
  • Advanced eDiscovery
  • eDiscovery Project Management
  • Legal Project Management
  • The Phases of the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM)
  • Design and Implementation of eDiscovery Cost Controls
  • International eDiscovery, eDisclosure and Information Governance

There is also an eDiscovery Case Management Lab following completion of the seven courses, a hands-on workshop which “reviews the student’s knowledge of the framework, models and practices for managing a real-life case”.

I contacted Chere Estrin, Managing Administrator for OLP and asked her how this training program differs from other programs out there and what are OLP’s goals for the program.  Here are some of her comments:

  • OLP has its roots in eDiscovery.  Our core business is eDiscovery and legal technology.
  • Our program is designed around the eDiscovery practical assignments that students are most likely to receive.
  • OLP's instructors are well-known in the eDiscovery field and are experienced teachers.
  • OLP offers students a free one-year membership to OLP that gives students approximately 100 free webinars throughout the year plus other valuable benefits.
  • OLP students can return throughout their lifetime to audit any of the eDiscovery certificate courses at no charge.
  • OLP has an outstanding Board of Governors and Advisory Council comprised of top experts in eDiscovery who work to promote quality continuing legal education.
  • OLP certificate students can take the eDiscovery Certification Exam (CeDP) and prep course at a significant discount as long as they meet the requirements to sit for the exam such as the necessity of having a minimum of 3 years hands-on eDiscovery experience.
  • OLP offers a job placement assistance program for life.

Chere noted that “[t]here is only one other program that I know of that is similar”, which is the program at Bryan University; however, according to her, there is a “huge difference in price” ($4,000 for the 5-month OLP program compared to $20,000 for the 8-month Bryan University program).  She also notes that there is a no-interest payment plan available for the OLP program.  As for the goal of the program, she notes that it is the same as the goal for all OLP programs – “to offer top, quality education to as many legal professionals as possible at reasonable and affordable costs.”

It will be interesting to see how the program is received and perhaps talk to a few of the students from the initial program, so hopefully we’ll be able to follow up in a few months.

So, what do you think?  Do you need eDiscovery project management training?  If so, would a program like this be of interest to you?  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.

Don’t Be “Duped”, Files with Different HASH Values Can Still Be the Same – eDiscovery Best Practices

A couple of months ago, we published a post discussing how the number of pages in each gigabyte can vary widely and, to help illustrate the concept, we took one of our blog posts and put it into several different file formats to illustrate how each file had the same content, yet was a different size.  That’s not the only concept that example illustrates.

Content is Often Republished

How many of you have ever printed or saved a file to Adobe Acrobat PDF format?  Personally, I do it all the time.  For example, I “publish” marketing slicks created in Microsoft® Publisher, “publish” finalized client proposals created in Microsoft Word and “publish” presentations created in Microsoft PowerPoint to PDF format regularly.  Microsoft now even includes Adobe PDF as one of the standard file formats to which you can save a file, I even have a free PDF print driver on my laptop, so I can conceivably create a PDF file for just about anything that I can print.  In each case, I’m duplicating the content of the file, but in a different file format designed for publishing that content.

Another way content is republished is via the ubiquitous “copy and paste” capability that is used by so many to duplicate content to another file.  Whether copying part or all of the content, “copy and paste” functionality is essentially available in just about every application to be able to duplicate content from one application to the next or even one file to the next in the same application.

Same Content, Different HASH

When publishing a file to PDF or copying the entire contents of a file to a new file, the contents of the file may be the same, but the HASH value, which is a digital fingerprint that reflects the contents and format of the file, will be different.  So, a Word file and the PDF file published from the Word file may contain the same content, but the HASH value will be different.  Even copying the content from one file to another in the same software program can result in different HASH values, or even different file sizes.  For example, I copied the entire contents of yesterday’s blog post, written in Word, into a brand new Word file.  Not only did they have different HASH values, but they were different sizes – the copied file was 8K smaller than the original.  So, these files, while identical in content, won’t be considered “duplicates” based on HASH value and won’t be “de-duped” out of the collection as a result.  As a result, these files are considered “near-dupes” for analysis purposes, even though the content is essentially identical.

What to Do with the Near-Dupes?

Identifying and culling these essentially identical near-dupes isn’t necessary in every case, but if it is, you’ll need to perform a process that groups similar documents together so that those near-dupes can be identified and addressed.  We call that “clustering”.  For more on the benefits of clustering, check out this blog post.

So, what do you think?  What do you do with “dupes” that have different HASH values?  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.

When is a Billion Dollars Not Enough? – eDiscovery Case Law
 

When it’s Apple v. Samsung, of course!

According to the Huffington Post, Apple Inc. requested a court order for a permanent U.S. sales ban on Samsung Electronics products found to have violated its patents along with additional damages of $707 million on top of the $1.05 billion dollar verdict won by Apple last month, already one of the largest intellectual-property awards on record.

Back in August, a jury of nine found that Samsung infringed all but one of the seven patents at issue and found all seven of Apple's patents valid – despite Samsung's attempts to have them thrown out. They also determined that Apple didn't violate any of the five patents Samsung asserted in the case.  Apple had been requesting $2.5 billion in damages.  Trial Judge Lucy Koh could still also triple the damage award because the jury determined Samsung had acted willfully.

Interviewed after the trial, some of the jurors cited video testimony from Samsung executives and internal emails as key to the verdict, which was returned after just 22 hours of deliberation, despite the fact that the verdict form contained as many as 700 points the jury (including charges brought against different subsidiaries of the two companies addressing multiple patents and numerous products).

Role of Adverse Inference Sanction

As noted on this blog last month, Samsung received an adverse inference instruction from California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal just prior to the start of trial as failure to turn “off” the auto-delete function in Samsung’s proprietary “mySingle” email system resulted in spoliation of evidence as potentially responsive emails were deleted after the duty to preserve began.  As a result, Judge Grewal ordered instructions to the jury to indicate that Samsung had failed to preserve evidence and that evidence could be presumed relevant and favorable to Apple.  However, Judge Lucy Koh decided to modify the “adverse inference” verdict issued for the jury to include instructions that Apple had also failed to preserve evidence.  Therefore, it appears as though the adverse inference instruction was neutralized and did not have a significant impact in the verdict; evidently, enough damning evidence was discovered that doomed Samsung in this case.

Friday's Filings

In a motion filed on Friday, Apple sought approximately $400 million additional in damages for design infringement by Samsung; approximately $135 million for willful infringement of its utility patents; approximately $121 million in supplemental damages based on Samsung's product sales not covered in the jury's deliberation; and approximately $50 million of prejudgment interest on damages through December 31 – total of $707 million requested.  Apple also requested an injunction to cover "any of the infringing products or any other product with a feature or features not more than colorably different from any of the infringing feature or features in any of the Infringing Products."

Not surprisingly, Samsung submitted a filing on Friday, requesting a new trial “enabling adequate time and even-handed treatment of the parties”, stating “The Court's constraints on trial time, witnesses and exhibits were unprecedented for a patent case of this complexity and magnitude, and prevented Samsung from presenting a full and fair case in response to Apple's many claims.”

So, what do you think?  Will Apple get more money?  Will Samsung get a new trial?  If so, will there be more discovery sanctions?  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 Acquisitions: Industry Consolidation Continues
 

If you think there have been a lot of acquisitions in the eDiscovery industry, you’re right.  Now, thanks to Rob Robinson and his Complex Discovery blog, you can get a sense of just how many acquisitions there have been.  Rob has provided a post showing 10 Years of eDiscovery Mergers, Acquisitions and Investments.

While Rob acknowledges that it’s a “non-comprehensive overview” of “key and publicly announced eDiscovery related mergers, acquisitions and investments since 2002”, he does provide 133 of them in the list – dating all the way back to April of 2002 when Kroll and Ontrack became one company.  For each, he provides the announcement date, acquired company, acquiring or investing company and acquisition amount (if known).  The early years (2002-2005) only have ten entries total, so there could certainly (and understandably) be some early years acquisitions unaccounted for.  Nonetheless, a few observations:

  • Since the beginning of 2010, there have been at least 79 mergers, acquisitions and investments (over half the list).  There have been 5 acquisitions (and one investment) since the beginning of August alone.
  • What is the largest acquisition on the list (based on those that show reported acquisition amounts)?  If you said the HP acquisition of Autonomy in August of last year ($11.7 billion), you’d be wrong.  The largest acquisition on the list is Symantec’s purchase of Veritas software way back in December of 2004 ($13.5 billion).  Veritas had made its own acquisition of KVS less than 10 months earlier.
  • The company with the most acquisitions on the list is Huron, with 6 acquisitions.  Close on their heels is Symantec (5 acquisitions), LexisNexis (4 acquisitions), Thomson Reuters (4 acquisitions, when they acquired LiveNote back in 2006, they were still known as Thomson) and Autonomy (4 acquisitions, then acquired themselves by HP last year).
  • Just because you’ve been acquired once doesn’t mean you can’t be acquired again.  Applied Discovery, Black Letter Discovery, CaseLogistix, CT Summation and Kroll were all acquired twice during this span and Daticon was acquired three times!
  • Think a major, long term software company can’t be acquired?  Two products that have been around for decades, Summation and Concordance, have each been acquired in the past decade – Summation twice (by Wolters Kluwer in 2004 and AccessData in 2010).
  • Think that eDiscovery is only for specialized companies?  Think again.  Heavyweights such as HP (3 acquisitions), Computer Associates (3 acquisitions), IBM (2 acquisitions), Deloitte (2 acquisitions) and Microsoft (1 acquisition) all acquired eDiscovery companies over the last 10 years.

Thanks, Rob, for such an informative compilation of eDiscovery acquisitions, mergers and investments!

So, what do you think?  Do you think eDiscovery consolidation will continue at this pace?  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.