Close
Enter your
text here

Industry Trends

eDiscovery Case Law: Not So Fast On eDiscovery Cost Reimbursement
 

Yesterday, we noted a potential reversal in the case approving computer-assisted review of electronically stored information (“ESI”) in the Southern District of New York.  Today, we look at another eDiscovery ruling where a significant reduction in award amount was ruled.

One of the emerging trends for 2011 was the growing number of cases where the prevailing party was awarded reimbursement of eDiscovery costs, including this case and this case.  Another case of eDiscovery cost reimbursement reported in this blog was Race Tires Amer., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire, Corp., No. 2:07-cv-1294, 2011 WL 1748620 (W.D. Pa. May 6, 2011), where U.S. District Judge Terrence F. McVerry in Pittsburgh ruled that the winning defendants in an antitrust case were entitled to reimbursement of more than $367,000 in eDiscovery costs. 

The plaintiff had argued previously that the costs should be disallowed because "electronic document collection, hard drive imaging and indexing and searching, commonly referred to as 'eDiscovery charges,' are not enumerated under Section 1920(4), and thus are not properly deemed recoverable costs."  But Judge McVerry found that Congress, in the Judicial Administration and Technical Amendments Act of 2008, modified the wording of Section 1920(4), changing the phrase "fees for exemplifications and copies of papers" to read "fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials."  Since that amendment, Judge McVerry said, "no court has categorically excluded eDiscovery costs from allowable costs."

Given the extent of the defendant’s eDiscovery activities, including copying nearly 500 gigabytes of data in response to over 400 search terms and creation of a litigation database, the court awarded $367,000 of the $389,000 eDiscovery costs requested by the defendants.

Naturally, the plaintiffs appealed that ruling to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

In a ruling that will undoubtedly not be popular with corporate defendants, the Third Circuit ruled that only an isolated portion of eDiscovery costs was taxable. As noted by the appeals court:

“The decisions that allow taxation of all, or essentially all, electronic discovery consultant charges, such as the District Court‘s ruling in this case, are untethered from the statutory mooring. Section 1920(4) does not state that all steps that lead up to the production of copies of materials are taxable. It does not authorize taxation merely because today‘s technology requires technical expertise not ordinarily possessed by the typical legal professional. It does not say that activities that encourage cost savings may be taxed.”

As a result, the appeals court significantly reduced the eDiscovery costs that the plaintiffs would have owed Hoosier and DMS under the lower court’s decision:

“We conclude that of the numerous services the vendors performed, only the scanning of hard copy documents, the conversion of native files to TIFF, and the transfer of VHS tapes to DVD involved copying, and that the costs attributable to only those activities are recoverable under § 1920(4)‘s allowance for the costs of making copies of any materials. Those costs total $30,370.42. We find that none of the charges imposed by DMS‘s vendor are taxable, and that the award in favor of Hoosier should be reduced by $95,210.13, the difference between the  electronic discovery vendors‘ charges awarded by the District Court ($125,580.55) and the charges of Hoosier‘s electronic discovery vendors we find taxable ($30,370.42).” {emphasis added}

So, what do you think?  Do you agree with the narrow ruling of taxable eDiscovery costs or do you think the original, more expansive ruling was correct?  Will this lead to more cases settling?  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: Not So Fast on Computer Assisted Review
 

A few weeks ago, in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, No. 11 Civ. 1279 (ALC) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012), Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion 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.”  However, last Tuesday (March 13), District Court Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted plaintiffs’ request to submit additional briefing on their objections to the ruling.

On February 8, the parties attended a hearing to discuss their discovery protocol, and in particular the use of computer-assisted review (also referenced as “predictive coding”).  At the hearing, Judge Peck issued a ruling, approving the use of computer-assisted review, and instructed the parties to submit a draft protocol for court approval.  Judge Peck approved the proposed protocol on February 22 that had been submitted, over the plaintiffs’ objections.  On February 24, Judge Peck issued his written opinion detailing his rulings from the February 8th hearing.

On February 22 (the same day the protocol was approved, but before Judge Peck’s written opinion), the plaintiffs filed their 24 page objections to the February 8th discovery rulings, indicating their argument that the “Magistrate’s decision to adopt MSL’s predictive coding protocol is clearly erroneous and contrary to law.”  The plaintiffs specifically argued that “sanctioning the use of predictive coding in this employment discrimination case violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26” and also argued that the court’s adoption of a “novel discovery methodology” without “supporting evidence” or “standards for assessing reliability” was “clearly erroneous and contrary to law”.  On March 7, the defendant filed its opposition to plaintiffs’ objections.

Then, on March 9, the plaintiffs submitted a letter to District Judge Carter, requesting an opportunity to “file a ten-page reply brief” to the defendant’s response.  In the letter, the plaintiffs argued that Judge Peck’s written ruling, issued two days after their objections were filed, “expanded on the reasoning for the rulings he had made from the bench,” including relying on “a number of articles that were not addressed in the parties’ submissions” and making observations about plaintiffs’ objections.  As a result, the plaintiffs requested the opportunity to “squarely address Magistrate Judge Peck’s complete rulings.”  In addition, the plaintiffs argued that allowing their reply would not result in prejudice where the defendant had “the benefit” of filing its opposition to plaintiffs’ objections after the written ruling was issued and thus had the opportunity to consider Magistrate Judge Peck’s analysis when crafting their response.

Which brings us to last Tuesday (March 13), Judge Carter granted plaintiffs’ request and ordered their reply be submitted by March 19 (that’s today!).  Then, we’ll see what happens next.

So, what do you think?  Do the plaintiff’s objections have merit?  If Judge Carter throws out predictive coding, will there be hand wringing and wailing from the predictive coding vendors?  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: 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.

eDiscovery Trends: Craig Ball of Craig D. Ball, P.C., Part Two
 

This is the seventh (and final) of the 2012 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What do you consider to be the emerging trends in eDiscovery that will have the greatest impact in 2012?
  2. Which trend(s), if any, haven’t emerged to this point like you thought they would?
  3. What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends?
  4. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Craig Ball.  A frequent court appointed special master in electronic evidence, Craig is a prolific contributor to continuing legal and professional education programs throughout the United States, having delivered over 750 presentations and papers.  Craig’s articles on forensic technology and electronic discovery frequently appear in the national media, and he writes a monthly column on computer forensics and eDiscovery for Law Technology News called Ball in your Court, as well as blogs on those topics at ballinyourcourt.com. 

Our interview with Craig had so much good information in it, we couldn’t fit it all into a single post.  Yesterday, we published part one.  Enjoy the rest of the interview!

What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends?

Well, I've been coming to Legal Tech for well over a dozen years and ,each year, I think it couldn't possibly become more an eDiscovery conference (as opposed to a general forensic technology conference).  Then, next year, the aisles seem to grow longer and deeper with people providing eDiscovery solutions. 

So I'm just blown away.  I used to toil in this fairly obscure corner of the practice, and it’s now, literally, this whole event.  Walk down these aisles with me, and you'll see it's just one person after another after another offering some kind of eDiscovery tool or service or related product.  That’s also true of the educational sessions – some of which I guiltily helped plan, so the focus on eDiscovery does not come as much of a surprise.  But, remember that the vendors who sponsor these tracks have a hand in the content as well, and they’re the ones insisting, “We want to talk about eDiscovery.  We want to talk about technology-assisted review.”

It's not just because of what they're selling, although, certainly that’s a driver.  It's also what they want to hear about.  It's what their customers want to know more about. 

So, is it inconsistent that I'm saying there's not enough education about eDiscovery, and yet here, they talk of little else?  Other than LegalTech, and a few other events, the need remains to go longer and deeper.  Understanding information technology is a necessity for litigators.  That’s where the evidence lives.  IT is a discipline as broad, deep and complex in its way as the law.  Why then do we expect it should require so much less a dedication of time and effort to become even minimally proficient in information technology than it was to learn the law?

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

For me, this is the year of trying to offer an earlier acquaintance in information technology to lawyers.  I've spent almost thirty years teaching lawyers and judges about forensic technology and helping them get their arms around it.  This year, I returned to teaching law students.  My e-discovery course is offered at the University of Texas School of Law and I’m trying to help the students appreciate that in a very difficult job market, entering the profession with a practical understanding of how to attack an eDiscovery effort is a distinguishing factor in trying to find and keep employment.  It's a crucial skill set, and it's not one they can expect will be handed down to them from older lawyers.

There's just simply no lore to hand down where eDiscovery is concerned, at least not much useful lore.  And so I'm gratified for the challenge, and it's very hard work.  It's much harder to teach law students than it is to teach lawyers for a host of reasons.  The challenge in teaching law students versus lawyers is giving them the crucial context.  Most haven’t much exposure to law practice, so you have to give them more information and explain much more of what you take for granted with lawyers. 

Moving forward this year, I'm also trying to find ways to do more testing of new tools and refine mechanisms for reducing the volume of electronic information, to help lawyers master strategies that will make it easier for them to hit the ground running and take advantage of some of the economies that are within easy reach.  The key is to educate them on “methods” more than “shortcuts”.  I want to show them techniques that they can apply with confidence to speed the process of identification and preservation, as well as help them apply a better and more precise working vocabulary to enable them to communicate with clarity and confidence about ESI.  Competent communication, even more than cooperation, will prove a major contributor to eliminating headaches in eDiscovery.

Thanks, Craig, for participating in the interview!

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

eDiscovery Trends: Craig Ball of Craig D. Ball, P.C.
 

This is the seventh (and final) of the 2012 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What do you consider to be the emerging trends in eDiscovery that will have the greatest impact in 2012?
  2. Which trend(s), if any, haven’t emerged to this point like you thought they would?
  3. What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends?
  4. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Craig Ball.  A frequent court appointed special master in electronic evidence, Craig is a prolific contributor to continuing legal and professional education programs throughout the United States, having delivered over 750 presentations and papers.  Craig’s articles on forensic technology and electronic discovery frequently appear in the national media, and he writes a monthly column on computer forensics and eDiscovery for Law Technology News called Ball in your Court, as well as blogs on those topics at ballinyourcourt.com. 

Our interview with Craig had so much good information in it, we couldn’t fit it all into a single post.  So, today is part one.  Part two will be published in the blog tomorrow!

What do you consider to be the emerging trends in eDiscovery that will have the greatest impact in 2012?

Well, I see several things happening.  I'm gratified that people are starting to become more resigned to the obligation to pursue eDiscovery.  I think we're seeing some better practices, particularly with respect to preservation.

The preservation message is hitting home.  Whether it’s a function of the outsize fear factor prompted by sanctions decisions or whether lawyers and businesses are becoming better informed by virtue of education and dialogue like that here at LegalTech is hard to say.  Regardless, I think the message is starting to seep through that there are  things you must do early on to identify electronically stored information and be sure that it's properly preserved.

As I walk around the show and listen to the programs, I'm amazed by all discussion of Technology Assisted Review or TAR—maybe the worst acronym that industry’s come up with since ECA.  But, they didn't choose Super Human Information Technology, so I guess we should be thankful for small blessings.  I'm sure we'll soon an article mentioning TAR and feathers.

Technology Assisted Review is the use of more sophisticated algorithms—math–and advanced analytic to take replace or supplement the individualized judgment of lawyers' respecting the responsiveness, non-responsiveness and privileged character of documents and data sets.  The notion behind TAR is that we don't need legions of young associates or contract lawyers in darkened rooms staring at screens; instead, the broad distinctions between what is most likely to be relevant and what is not will be handled robotically.  It’s floated as a more palatable, more affordable alternative to poorly-chosen key words thrown at massive data volumes–a more intelligent, more intuitive tool that does the job in a way that’s no worse than human beings, hopefully somewhat better, and in any case, for a lot less money.  That is the dream, and it’s coming closer to a reality..

But the realization out there is spotty.  Expectations are unrealistic and marketing is overheated, but we are seeing some enthusiasm amidst the skepticism.  And, I think that trend is certainly going to continue, at least as a marketing trend whether it continues as a successfully-integrated technology or not.  For the moment, it’s an option only for those with big budgets, not the rank and file firm.  No surprises there, as eDiscovery has yet to become a process lawyers know how to manage cost-effectively, But they will learn, in time.  Clients, courts and malpractice carriers will leave no option but to learn it.

Which trend(s), if any, haven’t emerged to this point like you thought they would?

Oh, that's an easy one.  That's education.  I am appalled at the dearth of high-caliber educational options available to lawyers in this crucial and very costly corner aspect of the practice.  E-discovery education is still afflicted by the scourge of the one-hour CLE.  You know, where some earnest person’s trotted out for 30, 45 minutes, maybe an hour of introduction to electronic discovery.  That continuing, repeated, cursory treatment of this challenging area is what’s supposed to make us confident and competent.  It doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.

Lawyers are still not learning enough about the information infrastructure of their clients.  They're picking up a few buzz words.  I’ll see it some meet-and-confers.  It's like watching a little kid use a curse word.  This sort of smile creeps across their face when they’ve managed to work the word “metadata” into the conversation.  As though using the term is a talisman–a substitute for actually knowing what they're talking about.

I don't mean to be so dismissive, but it's really gets almost that absurd sometimes.  We don't have enough education.  We don't have enough lawyers starting to get it.  Most channel their energy and ingenuity into look for reasons why they don’t need to know this stuff.  The handful that really do want to learn have precious few places to go short of self-instruction.  We need to change that.

We need a Manhattan Project in this country to help rescue the experienced lawyers and bring them up to speed.  We need a sort of reset, getting all trial lawyers talking about these topics in an intelligent, productive, and perhaps most importantly of all, cost-effective way.

Thanks, Craig, for participating in the interview!

To the readers, just a reminder to stay tuned for part two of our interview with Craig tomorrow!  And, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic!

eDiscovery Trends: Ralph Losey of Jackson Lewis, LLP, Part Two
 

This is the sixth of the 2012 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year.

Today’s thought leader is Ralph Losey. Ralph is an attorney in private practice with the law firm of Jackson Lewis, LLP, where he is a Partner and the firm's National e-Discovery Counsel. Ralph is also an Adjunct Professor at the University of Florida College of Law teaching eDiscovery and advanced eDiscovery. Ralph is also a prolific author of eDiscovery books and articles, the principle author and publisher of the popular e-Discovery Team® Blog and founder and owner of an intensive online training program, e-Discovery Team Training, with attorney and technical students all over the world.

Our interview with Ralph had so much good information in it, we couldn’t fit it all into a single post.  Yesterday was part 1.  Here's the rest of the interview!

Are there any other key trends you see?  Is there anything else interesting in terms of the trends you see here at LegalTech, at least as far as the curriculum goes?

[Interviewed the first morning, before the show began]  In all candor, the show hasn't begun yet, so I haven't seen anything.  I'm doing four presentations on predictive coding and one with Craig Ball, which I'm looking forward to.  I hope I don't suffer too bad of a public humiliation by Master Ball. 

But, you know, the keynote speech that's getting ready to start is on ethics, and I see a lot of ethics in the curriculum.  I'm pleased by that.  I do lecture a lot on eDiscovery ethics, and I think it comes down to fundamentally what we are doing with discovery.  Are we, as legal practitioners, willing to stop playing “hide the ball”, stop all this nonsense and waste of money, and get down to actually finding the key facts and getting them out there quickly?  That's always been my attitude, but I was lucky – I was brought up in a firm that really put ethics first and money second.  But, there are a lot of people out there for which money's first, and ethics is a gray area.

Ethics is not a gray area.  We're supposed to try and get the case resolved and save money for our clients.  That's rule one.  Just do it speedy and inexpensively.  A lot of lawyers, say, “yeah, right” and that's how they make a living.  Well, shame on them.

You don’t make a living by exploiting your clients.  You make a living by winning cases, and sometimes the best way to win a case is to settle it when you realize the facts are against you – not to try to change the facts or hide the facts.  So that's ethics.  Most clients want ethical lawyers like that.

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

I'm doing a lot of law firm training.  I do that internally and, since my current law firm specializes in labor and employment only, we're not really a competitor to most law firms.  So, we actually can offer a service to help train other law firms in eDiscovery.

I'm also now doing a lot of training for our corporate clients.  We represent Fortune 500 type companies, and it's important for those companies to be prepared for eDiscovery.  Now that we’re coming out of the recession, companies can spend the money needed to get ready for litigation and eDiscovery that they put off before, because of other priorities.  Companies are now saying “I want to finally get my e-mail retention policy in order.  I want to figure out how to get a litigation hold implemented in my company without causing all kinds of disruption and chaos and confusion and expense.”

It just takes preparation.  It takes time.  The fundamental way to do that is to set up your own internal team, eDiscovery team.  That's one of the main ideas that I've been talking about for six years now when I started my blog, e-Discovery Team®, is the joint approach of people working together.  Get the IT people, the law people and the management people working together as teams for – in this case – litigation readiness.

It can cost a fair amount of money to do it right.  But, if you spend $100,000 now to get ready and get your systems in order, you can save yourself millions later on and also save yourself the embarrassment of making a mistake, of being found out to be a spoliator.  There are plenty of examples where it makes sense to spend a little money up front to save more money down the road.  So, I want to encourage companies to think about that, whether they use me or somebody else.  There are a number of attorneys that provide those services, and it's money well spent.  Pay me a little bit now or pay me a lot later.

Ten years ago, when Cisco was probably the first company in the country to form their own eDiscovery team, it was after they faced hundreds of investor law suits.  They found that by forming their own eDiscovery team, they reduced their litigation expenses by 90 percent because most of their litigation expenses were related to eDiscovery.  While I'm not promising you'll save 90 percent like Cisco did, I am saying it's a well-established fact that spending a little money up front to prepare will help you save costs in the long run.

I'd also like point out to people the other program that I've developed, which I call eDiscovery team training.  And you'll also find that on the web, at e-Discovery Team Training.  I took what I had developed in law school in teaching eDiscovery to law students for the past three or four years, and I developed an online program with the University of Florida, School of Law.  With their permission, I developed my own private version of that, which is actually much longer and harder than what I taught to law students.  Law students had to take it in two months.

So, I've developed a program that built on that, which you can take up to two years to complete.  It's 75 hours of work to go through the training program and it's all online.  It has homework assignments at the end for additional reading and presents different essays, hypertext-type writings and videos.  It takes advantage of the power of online education, which I really think is more the future than these expensive, face-to-face education programs, like we have at LegalTech.

There are still a few events that I'll go to each year (like LegalTech and the Sedona Conference), and then I'll train inside corporations or in my own law firm.  The fact that most lawyers aren't doing eDiscovery is not because they're trying to do anything wrong or hide the truth.  They simply don't know how.  And if you teach them how to do it, they'll do it.  This is against a lot of vendors' models – they would rather serve a nice fish dinner.  I'm more into teaching people how to fish so that they can feed themselves, and that's what I go around trying to do.

Thanks, Ralph, for participating in the interview!

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

eDiscovery Trends: Ralph Losey of Jackson Lewis, LLP
 

This is the sixth of the 2012 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year.

Today’s thought leader is Ralph Losey. Ralph is an attorney in private practice with the law firm of Jackson Lewis, LLP, where he is a Partner and the firm's National e-Discovery Counsel. Ralph is also an Adjunct Professor at the University of Florida College of Law teaching eDiscovery and advanced eDiscovery. Ralph is also a prolific author of eDiscovery books and articles, the principle author and publisher of the popular e-Discovery Team® Blog and founder and owner of an intensive online training program, e-Discovery Team Training, with attorney and technical students all over the world.

Our interview with Ralph had so much good information in it, we couldn’t fit it all into a single post.  So, today is part one.  Part two will be published in the blog tomorrow!

Many people are saying that 2012 is the year of technology assisted review.  What do you think needs to happen for that to come true?

Well, many things.  First of all, we need to have better training for lawyers so that they'll know how to use the technology.  If you bring an advanced computer to anyone, they're going to need some kind of instruction on how to use it.  You have to have people trained to use the tools.  That's very important and I spend a lot of time focusing on training in my firm and around the country to other attorneys and bar groups.  The tool alone really can't do much or help you unless you fit in the use of it into a larger, legal methodology.

In other words, just bringing in technology in itself doesn't answer any questions.  It may answer some, but it doesn't give you the answers you need in order to use it in your practice.

I'm a legal practitioner.  I've been practicing law, for, I guess about 32 years now.  So, that's how I look at technology – as tools to practice law and represent clients.  And, the truth is most people don't know how to use predictive coding yet, so we're going to have a training and learning curve like you do with any new technology.

Vendors also need to start bringing the prices down so that it's more affordable and make it accessible to a large number of attorneys, rather than just a few attorneys that can afford to handle it in large cases.  I've been complaining about this to vendors for a while now.  The good news is I think that they're listening.  I'm beginning to see prices come down and I think this trend will continue.  It's in their own best interest to do that because in the long run, they are going to be more successful in bringing this technology to attorneys and making money for their companies if they look at more of a large scale, larger volume, lower profit as opposed to making larger amounts of profit and fewer projects.

I think most of the vendors are receptive to that.  The reason they probably just don't jump on it right away is the demand isn’t there yet.  Build it and they will come.  But, they're only coming in small numbers.  When they're only coming in small numbers in order to pay for their business, they have to charge a lot.

So, it's a circle.  It comes back again to training.  An educated consumer will want this.  I want this.  I like it, and I want it affordable.

Do you think that it's just merely a matter of bringing prices down?  Or is it being creative in how you price differently?

Well, it's both.  The bottom line is always the bottom line, but it’s important to get there in a way that's win-win for both the consumer (law firms and corporate law departments) and for the provider.  So, there needs to be creative solutions.  As a result, I think people are now “putting on their thinking caps” and coming up with new ways to price solutions because there are different needs.  I have my own ideas on how I want to use it, and so I want people to price accordingly.  I don't want there to be a “one-size-fits-all” type of solution.  I think the vendors are hearing that, too.

You had a recent blog post about bottom line proportional review and you noted that the larger cases have a lot at stake, so the budget is much higher.  How does it work for smaller cases?

It's going to take a legal method, and I think that the method I described (bottom line proportional review) is the way to make it happen.  In order to make bottom line driven review (where you're basically setting a budget up front) to be acceptable to the requesting party, they're going to want to make sure that this isn't just another way to “hide the ball”.  They're going to want to make sure that they can find the relevant evidence that they need to evaluate their case to either see that they've got a winning case (so they can move for a summary-judgment, establish a strong settlement position, or go to trial) or see that they have a weak case and value it accordingly.

We all want to find out as quickly as possible how good a case it is.  We really don't want to spend all of our time and money just doing discovery.  The whole point of discovery is to discover how good your case is and then resolve it.

I'm very oriented to resolving cases.  That's really most of my life.  I wasn't an eDiscovery lawyer most of my career.  I was a trial lawyer, and I think that perspective is lacking from some of the vendors and some of the analysts and some of the other people in eDiscovery.  People seem to think discovery is an end in itself.  It's not.  It's just a way to prepare for trial.

So, there is no reason to get all of the relevant evidence.  That's an archaic notion of the past.  There's too much relevant evidence.  All that counts is the important relevant evidence.  The smoking guns are what counts.  The highly relevant or hot documents are what counts.

You do have to wade through some relevant documents to get there, but the point is to get there.  It gets back to my “seven plus or minus two” rule.  It's not my rule.  It's an old rule of persuasion.  That's never going to change.  People are never going to remember more than seven documents at a trial.  They just can't.  The juror's mind is not capable of it.

Lawyers can handle probably several hundred exhibits, and they can keep it in their head.  But, they don't make the decisions.  And, the several hundred exhibits are merely predicates or evidentiary foundations in order to get the key exhibits out there that you then use in your closing argument.

The point of discovery and litigation is to identify and locate these key documents.  When you understand that, then you'll accept and understand the fact that you don't need all relevant information, all relevant documents.  You just need the most highly relevant documents so that you can feel pretty confident you've got the handful of documents you need to try the case.

The thing that’s exciting about predictive coding is its ranking abilities.  You don't have to look at the junk that's not really that relevant.  You only look at the most relevant documents, whether it’s the most relevant 5,000, 50,000 or 100,000.  Whatever it is that's appropriate to your size case.  You're not going to look at 100,000 documents in a $250,000 dollar discrimination case.  It makes no sense.

That's where you get back to proportionality.  It's a somewhat long answer to your question, but people need to understand that this isn't a way to hide the truth.  It's really a way to get the truth out there in an efficient, economic manner.

So, based on the five dollar per document review cost example in your post, if you have $25,000 to spend, you can review the top 5,000 documents, right?

That's right.  And the five dollars is just like a working number that you use.  Some document collections can be even more expensive and difficult.  For example, a collection with a lot of 20-page spreadsheets (where you actually determine what's confidential and what's not in each sheet) can drive that number up.  Banking cases are a nightmare.  You've got all this financial information, where some of it's relevant and some of it's not.  For other cases, it can be a lot cheaper.  But, you also have to take some vendor claims with a big grain of salt.  “Oh, I'll do your whole thing for you for a buck a document.”  Will you?  Really?  What does that include?

Thanks, Ralph, for participating in the interview!

And to the readers, just a reminder that part two of our interview with Ralph Losey will be published tomorrow.  Don't miss it!  And, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic!

eDiscovery Trends: DOJ Criminal Attorneys Now Have Their Own eDiscovery Protocols
 

Criminal attorneys, are you discouraged that there is a lack of eDiscovery rules and guidelines for criminal cases?  If you work for the Department of Justice or other related law enforcement agencies, cheer up!

As noted in the Law Technology News article, DOJ Lays Down the Law on Criminal E-Discovery Protocols, written by Evan Koblentz, the government's Joint Electronic Technology Working Group (JETWG), led by the DOJ, unveiled its best practices guide for eDiscovery at a federal software summit in Washington on February 10.  The 21 page document, “intended for cases where the volume and/or nature of the ESI produced as discovery significantly increases the complexity of the case”, primarily consists of three sections:

  • Recommendations for ESI Discovery in Federal Criminal Cases: Provides a general framework for managing ESI, including planning, production, transmission, dispute resolution, and security;
  • Strategies and Commentary on ESI Discovery in Federal Criminal Cases: Provide more detailed guidance for implementing the recommendations – this section will evolve to reflect experiences in actual cases; and
  • ESI Discovery Checklist: One page checklist for addressing ESI production issues.

While the one page checklist has several items that would apply to any case, there are some items specific to criminal cases that would make it a handy reference for conducting eDiscovery on those cases.  The three sections are based on ten basic principles, which should have familiarity to those who have been dealing with eDiscovery in civil cases.  They are as follows:

  1. Lawyers have a responsibility to have an adequate understanding of electronic discovery.
  2. In the process of planning, producing, and resolving disputes about ESI discovery, the parties should include individuals with sufficient technical knowledge and experience regarding ESI.
  3. At the outset of a case, the parties should meet and confer about the nature, volume, and mechanics of producing ESI discovery. Where the ESI discovery is particularly complex or produced on a rolling basis, an on-going dialogue may be helpful.
  4. The parties should discuss what formats of production are possible and appropriate, and what formats can be generated. Any format selected for producing discovery should maintain the ESI’s integrity, allow for reasonable usability, reasonably limit costs, and, if possible, conform to industry standards for the format.
  5. When producing ESI discovery, a party should not be required to take on substantial additional processing or format conversion costs and burdens beyond what the party has already done or would do for its own case preparation or discovery production.
  6. Following the meet and confer, the parties should notify the court of ESI discovery production issues or problems that they reasonably anticipate will significantly affect the handling of the case.
  7. The parties should discuss ESI discovery transmission methods and media that promote efficiency, security, and reduced costs. The producing party should provide a general description and maintain a record of what was transmitted.
  8. In multi-defendant cases, the defendants should authorize one or more counsel to act as the discovery coordinator(s) or seek appointment of a Coordinating Discovery Attorney.
  9. The parties should make good faith efforts to discuss and resolve disputes over ESI discovery, involving those with the requisite technical knowledge when necessary, and they should consult with a supervisor, or obtain supervisory authorization, before seeking judicial resolution of an ESI discovery dispute or alleging misconduct, abuse, or neglect concerning the production of ESI.
  10. All parties should limit dissemination of ESI discovery to members of their litigation team who need and are approved for access, and they should also take reasonable and appropriate measures to secure ESI discovery against unauthorized access or disclosure.

Evan’s article provides comments from Andrew Goldsmith, the national criminal eDiscovery coordinator, regarding the efforts and intent of the document and training program for DOJ attorneys and other law enforcement personnel, as well as efforts of the department to determine how to apply commercial, civil litigation oriented, eDiscovery software to criminal cases.  It’s a good read and the guidelines look promising as a resource for criminal attorneys to manage eDiscovery in those cases.

So, what do you think?  Do these guidelines show promise for eDiscovery in criminal cases?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

eDiscovery Trends: Jim McGann of Index Engines
 

This is the third of the 2012 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What do you consider to be the emerging trends in eDiscovery that will have the greatest impact in 2012?
  2. Which trend(s), if any, haven’t emerged to this point like you thought they would?
  3. What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends?
  4. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Jim McGann.  Jim is Vice President of Information Discovery at Index Engines.  Jim has extensive experience with the eDiscovery and Information Management in the Fortune 2000 sector. He has worked for leading software firms, including Information Builders and the French-based engineering software provider Dassault Systemes.  In recent years he has worked for technology-based start-ups that provide financial services and information management solutions.

What do you consider to be the emerging trends in eDiscovery that will have the greatest impact in 2012?  And which trend(s), if any, haven’t emerged to this point like you thought they would?

I think what we're seeing is a lot of people becoming a bit more proactive.  I may combine your questions together because I'm surprised that people haven’t become proactive sooner.  LegalTech has included a focus on litigation readiness for how long? Ten years or so?  And we're still dealing with how to react to litigation, and you're still seeing fire drills occur.  There’s still not enough setting up of environments in the corporate world and in the legal world that would enable customers to respond more quickly.  It surprises me how little has been developed in this regard.. 

I think the reason for the slow start is that there are a lot of regulations that have been evolving and people haven't really understood what they need to prepare and how to react.  There’s been ten years of LegalTech and we're still struggling with how to respond to basic litigation requests because the volume has grown, accessibility arguments have changed, Federal rules have been solidified, and so forth.

What we're seeing when we go and talk to customers (and we talk to a lot of end-user customers that are facing litigation) is IT on one end of the table saying, ‘we need to solve this for the long term’, and litigation support teams on the other end of the table saying, ‘I need this today, I’ve been requesting data since July, and I still haven't received it and it's now January’.  That's not good.

The evolution is from what we call “litigation support”.  Litigation support, which is more on the reactive side to proactive litigation readiness, expects to be able to push a button and put a hold on John Doe's mailbox.  Or, specifically find content that’s required at a moment's notice.

So, I think the trend is litigation readiness.  Are people really starting to prepare for it?  Every meeting that we go into, we see IT organizations, who are in the compliance security groups, rolling up their sleeves and saying I need to solve this for my company long term but we have this litigation.  It's a mixed environment.  In the past, we would go meet with litigation support teams, and IT wasn't involved.  You're seeing buzz words like Information Governance.  You're seeing big players like IBM, EMC and Symantec jumping deep into it.

What's strange is that IT organizations are getting involved in formalizing a process that hasn't been formalized in the past.  It's been very much, maybe not “ad hoc”, but IT organizations did what they could to meet project needs.  Now IT is looking at solving the problem long term, and there’s a struggle.  Attorneys are not the best long term planners – they're doing what they need to do.  They've got 60 days to do discovery, and IT is thinking five years.  We need to balance this out.

What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends?

We're talking to a lot of people that are looking at next generation solutions.  The problems have changed, so solutions are evolving to address how you solve those problems.

There's also been a lot of consolidation in the eDiscovery space as well, so people are saying that their relationship has changed with their other vendors.  There have been a lot of those conversations.

I'm not sure what the attendance is at this year’s show, but attendees seem to be serious about looking for new solutions.  Maybe because the economy was so bad over the past year or maybe because it's a new budget year and budgets are freeing up, but people are looking at making changes, looking at new solutions.  We see that a lot with service providers, as well as law firms and other end users.

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

We’ve announced the release of Octane Version 4.3, which preserves files and emails at a bit level from MS Exchange and IBM Lotus Notes, as well as indexing forensics images and evidence files at speeds reaching 1TB per hour using a single node.  Bit-for-bit email processing and forensic image indexing speeds are unprecedented breakthroughs in the industry.  Bit-level indexing is not only faster but also more reliable because email is stored in its original format with no need for conversion.  Index Engines can also now index terabytes of network data including forensic images in hours, not weeks, like traditional tools.  So, we’re excited about the new version of Octane.

We’ve also just announced a partnership with Merrill Corporation, to provide our technology to collect and process ESI from networks, desktops, forensic images and legacy backup tapes, for both reactive litigation and proactive litigation readiness.  Merrill has recognized the shift in reactive to proactive litigation readiness that I mentioned earlier and we are excited to be aligned with Merrill in meeting the demands of their customers in this regard.

Thanks, Jim, for participating in the interview!

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