Close
Enter your
text here

eDiscoveryDaily

Government Attorneys Have eDiscovery Issues Too – eDiscovery Trends
When many eDiscovery professionals talk about their clients, they’re usually talking about law firms and corporations.  However, government agencies have their own eDiscovery challenges.  According to findings from Deloitte’s 7th Annual Benchmarking Study of e-Discovery Practices for Government Agencies, attorneys and other professionals in government agencies have their own problems and concerns when it comes to eDiscovery.

One hundred twenty three (123) professionals from various government agencies participated in the survey, with attorneys comprising 80% of the respondents.  Depending on the area, the respondents showed different levels of confidence in their preparedness regarding discovery and handling of discovery matters:

  • When it comes to challenges with regard to handling, processing, reviewing, or producing ESI, the respondents ranked the most significant challenges as follows: 1) Internal systems and processes, 2) Buy-In from senior management, 3) Communicating with IT, 4) Budgetary issues/constraints;
  • When asked if they felt adequately prepared to discuss matters regarding eDiscovery with opposing counsel, 53% of the respondents said ‘Yes’;
  • However, when asked if they feel that you have adequate technical support when dealing with opposing counsel regarding electronic discovery, only 25% of the respondents said ‘Yes’;
  • From a confidence standpoint, 73% of respondents feel as confident or more confident in their ability to manage eDiscovery in their cases.  But, 84% of respondents feel somewhat or not at all effective in their agency’s ability to deal with the challenges of eDiscovery and 80% of respondents feel somewhat or not at all confident that if challenged their agency could demonstrate that their ESI was “accurate, accessible, complete and trustworthy;
  • Predictive coding may be the wave of the future, but only 17% of survey respondents indicated that they had used it in any of their cases;
  • When asked what issues are driving upper management to explore more advanced electronic discovery solutions, the most commonly identified issue was ‘respond to increasing amounts of data’ (20% of respondents).  However, 19% of respondents indicated that their upper management is not actively looking for an eDiscovery solution;
  • Top three challenges in identifying ESI identified by respondents were: 1) Volume of data, 2) obsolete or proprietary data and 3) insufficient manpower.

You can download Deloitte’s 4 page report here.  If you’re not in a mood to read and you like your findings condensed USA Today infographic style, you can open up their one page infographic here.

So, what do you think? Do you work for, or with, government agencies?  If so, do any of these findings surprise 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.

Smaller Law Firms Save Big with Cloud-Based eDiscovery – eDiscovery Trends

According to a new article in ABA Journal (Cloud-based e-discovery can mean big savings for smaller firms, written by Joe Dysart), if you are a smaller law firm, it may make more sense to “rent” your eDiscovery applications in the “cloud” rather than bring a full-fledged hardware and software solution in-house.

Dysart’s article quotes a couple of panelists from a panel session at the recent LegalTech (LTNY) conference, including panelist Alan Winchester, a partner at the New York City firm Harris Beach, who stated: “For firms without robust IT departments, it grants them the experts to manage the technology operations and security.”

The article also identifies some benefits of using cloud-based eDiscovery solutions, including:

  • No need for software updating: Updates to cloud software tend to evolve over time, with users easily absorbing smaller, steadier changes over a much longer time span.
  • Best practices are continually updated: eDiscovery cloud vendors learn to avoid the pitfalls with software much more quickly, given that they are working with multiple law firms at once. Essentially, the mistakes and misunderstandings that can happen with an eDiscovery software package tend to happen at a much faster rate.
  • No need for yearlong rollouts: With eDiscovery in the cloud, all the hardware and software installation logistics are sidestepped. Instead, firms can focus entirely on training staff and bringing them up to speed.
  • The return on investment can be very attractive: Smaller law firms may go months or even years before needing a robust eDiscovery package. Instead of spending major dollars – and then watching helplessly as the system grows obsolete – they can go to the cloud for eDiscovery on an ad hoc basis and often save handsomely.

As platform manager for CloudNine Discovery’s OnDemand® eDiscovery review application (shameless plug warning!), I can attest to the benefits above with some of our own clients.  When we have software updates to apply, it’s a simple rollout (typically on a Saturday night for up to a couple of hours – our developers have no life!) for all users of the software.  And, assisting various clients has enabled us to learn how the software can be modified to meet their needs (the priorities in our ever-changing development roadmap are largely influenced by our own clients’ requests).

If you’re a small firm shopping to “rent” an eDiscovery application, consider this:

  • Know where your data is stored: It’s your data, so you should be able to know where it’s stored and know that it’s secure.  Is it stored in the US or internationally?  You don’t want to have issues getting to your data when you need it most.
  • Try it before you buy it: The cloud provider should let you conduct a no risk trial with your own data before you have to make a purchasing decision (see the banner below if you want to check out CloudNine’s no-risk trial offer).
  • Training and support should be free: The application should be easy to use, but it still helps to get training as well as application support when questions arise.  However, you shouldn’t have to pay for it.

As Dysart’s article concludes, “law firms do need to take a hard look at the technology both ways before taking the plunge”, so it’s always important to consider the pros and cons as it applies to your firm.  Nonetheless, the benefits of cloud-based eDiscovery solutions make it an attractive option for many law firms today, especially small firms with limited budget and resources to manage the ESI in their cases effectively.

So, what do you think? Have you considered cloud-based solutions for your eDiscovery projects? 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.

Ruling on ESI Discovery Dispute Delayed as Court Requests Specific Information – eDiscovery Case Law
 In Worley v. Avanquest North America Inc., No. C 12-04391 WHO (LB), 2013 U.S. Dist. (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2013), a putative class action involving PC security software, California Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler required the defendant to produce further information related to discovery disputes before a ruling would be issued.

Various discovery disputes arose in this case after the parties failed to agree on a discovery period. The applicable statute of limitations for this lawsuit was five years, and the defendant offered to preserve as evidence Electronically Stored Information (ESI) created during that five-year period. However, the plaintiffs requested an additional ten years added to the discovery period, as this would preserve “all relevant and discoverable information from the time the original versions of the software were developed to the present.”

According to the legal standard set by Rule 26, subsection (b)(1), parties may “obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense…” and relevant information “need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Therefore, Judge Beeler sided with the plaintiffs regarding an extended discovery period, stating that relevant information “such as documents relating to the software’s design and purpose, could have pre-dated the statutory period.”

However, the defendant stated that adding ten years to the discovery period would result in an unduly burdensome obligation for preservation, and would be disproportionate to the litigation. This is also addressed in subsection (b)(2)(C) under Rule 26, which states that “the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules…” if it is determined that the discovery would be “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative,” or that “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit” to the case.

Judge Beeler noted that the argument could not be addressed without further information, specifically that the parties had identified neither potential custodians, nor the amount of information the defendant actually had in its possession, since the defendant’s company acquired the software at issue in 2005. These details would be required in order for the defendant’s technical expert “to specify the burdens associated with preserving relevant information (particularly of electronically-stored information).”

Therefore, the defendant was ordered to identify custodians who would be likely to hold relevant information with regard to the plaintiff’s discovery requests, and further to “consult a person with expertise (such as an IT employee) and specify any undue burden associated with preservation, and produce non-burdensome, relevant information” before a ruling would be given. If the technical expert identified any issues that would make production of documents unduly burdensome, both parties were to “comply with the court’s discovery procedures and submit a joint discovery letter that provides details about the problems and puts their dispute in context.” Meanwhile, Judge Beeler ordered the defendant to produce the agreed documents covered by the five-year statute of limitations, noting that further “discovery can be iterative.”

The final discovery dispute concerned the defendant’s request for the plaintiffs to produce mirror image copies of hard drives belonging to the plaintiffs and their experts, in order to test the software at issue. The plaintiffs argued against this, as the hard drives contained both personal and privileged information, including financial data, family photos, and private communications. They instead proposed allowing the defendant to choose a forensic expert, who would image the hard drives and provide the defendant with specifically requested data, including “recreate[d] computing environments.”

Judge Beeler deemed the proposal “not workable,” and permitted the imaging of the drives with the allowance that the plaintiffs could use a protective order to protect any private information, and would be able to review and remove any privileged information prior to remanding the images to the defendant.

So, what do you think? Should discovery periods be limited to the statute of limitations applicable to a given case? Are protective orders sufficient to protect private information when personal-use computers are involved in litigation? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

After 2,354 Public Comments, One Major Change to the Proposed Federal Rules – eDiscovery Trends

During our recently concluded thought leader interview series, we asked each of the interviewees their thoughts about the proposed eDiscovery rules amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) that were published last August for public comment.  And, of course, they had plenty to say.  The majority of their comments related to the proposed amendment to Rule 37(e) which was intended to create a uniform national standard regarding the level of culpability required to justify severe sanctions for spoliation.  Now, it looks like the numerous public comments that were filed have resulted in a change to the rule.

By the February 15 deadline for the comment period, no less than 2,354 public comments had been filed.  Much of the controversy related to Rule 37(e)(1)(B), which included a hotly debated amendment that the court may impose sanctions or order an adverse jury instruction, but only if it finds that the failure to preserve caused “substantial prejudice” in the litigation and was “willful or in bad faith,” or that the failure to preserve “irreparably deprived a party of any meaningful opportunity” to litigate the claims in the action.

Two subcommittees made significant changes to the rule, dropping the conditions for sanctions, which would appear to restore authority to the judiciary to decide the appropriateness of sanctions.  Here is the revised proposed rule in full:

Rule 37. Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions

(e) FAILURE TO PRESERVE ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION. Absent  exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions under these rules on a party for failing to provide electronically stored information lost as a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system. If a party failed to preserve electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation, the court may:

(1) Order measures no greater than necessary to cure the loss of information, including permitting additional discovery; requiring the party to produce information that would otherwise not be reasonably accessible; and ordering the party to pay the reasonable expenses caused by the loss, including attorney’s fees.

(2) Upon a finding of prejudice to another party from loss of the information, order measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice.

(3) Only upon a finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation:

(A) presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party;

(B) instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the party; or

(C) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment.

(4) In applying Rule 37(e), the court should consider all relevant factors, including:

(A) the extent to which the party was on notice that litigation was likely and that the information would be relevant;

(B) the reasonableness of the party’s efforts to preserve the information;

(C) the proportionality of the preservation efforts to any anticipated or ongoing litigation; and

(D) whether, after commencement of the action, the party timely sought the court’s guidance on any unresolved disputes about preserving discoverable information.

So, what do you think? Are the changes an improvement?  Did the subcommittees go far enough? 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 Daily Is Forty Two!

Months old, that is.  Hey, that’s 24 1/2 in dog years!

It slipped up on us!  Forty two months ago last week, eDiscovery Daily was launched.  It’s hard to believe that it has been 3 1/2 years since our first three posts that debuted on our first day.  887 posts later, a lot has happened in the industry that we’ve covered.  You may be right, we may be crazy for committing to a daily post each business day, but we still haven’t missed a business day yet.  Twice a year, we like to take a look back at some of the important stories and topics during that time.  So, here are just a few of the posts over the last six months you may have missed.  Enjoy!

Thanks for your support!  We’ve grown readership over 350% since the first six month period and almost octupled (that’s grown 8 times in size!) our subscriber base since those first six months!  We’re soon approaching 300,000 visits to our blog and, later this year, will publish our 1,000th post!

And, we owe it all to you!  Thanks for the interest you’ve shown in the topics!  We will do our best to continue to provide interesting and useful eDiscovery news and analysis.  And, as always, 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.

Clawback Rights Upheld and Plaintiff Sanctioned for Refusal to Comply Concerning Inadvertently Produced Privileged Documents – eDiscovery Case Law
In RIPL Corp. v. Google Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02050-RSM, 2013 U.S. Dist. (W.D. Wash. Dec. 17, 2013), seven discovery-related motions were heard concerning this trademark infringement action. The various motions to seal, compel, enforce, and sanction were filed after the parties had entered into a stipulated protective order. Washington District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez granted in part, denied in part, and deferred in part the various motions.

The protective order in force included a clawback provision, which required inadvertently produced attorney-client privileged documents to be returned or destroyed, with certification for the deletion or destruction of the documents, provided the party invoking the provision took the steps of “promptly notifying the recipient(s) and expressly articulating the basis for the asserted privilege or immunity.”

In the filing, the defendant stated that privileged documents had been inadvertently produced to the plaintiff on July 2, 2013. However, counsel for the defendant did not realize the documents had been disclosed until August 12, 2013, while preparing for the defendant’s deposition. The defendant conducted a search the next day for other privileged documents that may have been disclosed, and communicated via email with the plaintiff to exercise the clawback provision. The plaintiff at this point refused to return or destroy the documents at issue.

When the defendant filed a motion to enforce the protective order and clawback provision, it also requested that the plaintiff be sanctioned for filing documents under seal that quoted the privileged documents at issue, and filed a request to strike, along with other motions.

In arguing the motion to enforce, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had waived its right to claw back the documents because “prompt” and “inadvertent” had not been defined under the protective order. The plaintiff cited the balancing test of Federal Rule of Evidence 502(b) for waiving attorney-client privilege with regards to “inadvertent” and claimed that the clawback request had not been “prompt.”

Judge Martinez rejected the arguments of the plaintiff concerning the clawback request, stating that there is “no requirement that, in order to supplant Rule 502(b), an agreement provide adequate detail regarding ‘what constitutes inadvertence, what precautionary measures are required, and what the producing party’s post production responsibilities are to escape waiver.’” Simply, it was ruled that “terms like ‘inadvertence’ and ‘prompt’ need not be defined in the protective order” under Rule 502. The plaintiff was ordered to certify the deletion or destruction of all unredacted copies of the privileged documents at issue within ten days.

The defendant’s request for sanctions were denied concerning the plaintiff’s filing documents under seal that contained quotes from attorney-client privileged documents. However, Judge Martinez ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s fees and costs for bringing the motion, as a sanction for refusing to comply with the clawback provision and “hold[ing] the documents hostage for roughly two months in violation of the Protective Order.”

So, what do you think? Should a time limit be imposed as the definition of “prompt” with regard to stipulated protective orders? Should parties be permitted to submit attorney-client privileged information under seal when privileged documents are received inadvertently? 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.

Electronic Discovery Dispute Sees Court Requesting Cooperation from Both Parties to Avoid “Court-Ordered Middle Ground” – eDiscovery Case Law
In Fort Worth Employees’ Retirement Fund v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., No. 09 Civ. 3701 (JPO) (JFC), 2013 U.S. Dist. (S.D.N.Y. Dec.16, 2013), a complex discovery dispute arose during the process of this securities action lawsuit revolving around the defendants’ loan products and offerings with regards to a specific consumer class, in which the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel an expanded discovery.

Prior to the motion, the defendants had used approximately 80,000 search terms to produce discovery documents, which had yielded around 875,000 hits. The documents had not been turned over, as they were being reviewed for production. However, the plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ search terms were “woefully deficient” in filing the motion to compel. The specific request was for more search terms, more custodians, and an extended discovery time period in order to receive all relevant information.

Search terms already in use by the defendants included the names of the 9 securities offerings at issue within the lawsuit, the loan numbers for roughly 35,000 loans under review, CUSIP numbers assigned to more than 300 underlying certificates for the securities offerings, names and dates assigned to loan transactions, and the lead plaintiffs’ names, as well as their advisors. The defendants also used several abbreviations and variations for each term to uncover relevant electronically stored information (ESI) in which actual terms might have been truncated or modified.

In response to the motion to compel, the defendants stated the search terms were comprehensive. However, the plaintiffs complained that the number of documents was “‘actually minimal’ for a case of this size” and that the names and numbers used would turn up “just a few specific, narrow categories of information,” while excluding “broad categories of documents that do not specifically reference ‘a particular loan, loan pool or securitization in the text of the documentor e-mail’ but instead address general practices or concerns, such as ‘widespread abandonment of underwriting guidelines.’” The plaintiffs further cited the March 30, 2011, Order of the Honorable John G. Koeltl, U.S.D.J., claiming that “documents do not need to be specifically related to the loans and offerings at issue in this case to be relevant.”

The request by the plaintiffs asked that the defendants add a search protocol to incorporate “combinations of terms aimed at discovering relevant documents that are not loan specific,” to include terms like “the names of loan originators, due diligence firms, rating agencies, and ‘descriptors’ (such as ‘awful’ and ‘toxic’).” The defendants objected to the additional 116,000 proposed search terms as too broad and unduly burdensome, since its sampling indicated that the expanded terms would “yield an unreviewable pool of over 11 million documents.”

Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, after hearing the positions of both parties, found some truth in each side’s argument. While the plaintiffs had “provided sufficient justification for expanding search terms beyond numbers and names to ensure that the ESI search captures all of the relevant documents pertaining to the loans and offerings at issue,” the defendants would face “an unreasonable burden of production” using the plaintiffs’ proposed search terms, as they would be required to “sift through voluminous irrelevant documents added to the search results.”

In such disputes regarding discovery, a court-ordered middle ground is often supplied as a remedy. However, Judge Francis did not issue an order, stating that it would be “impractical and inappropriate” due to the “nature of this request and the complexities of crafting a search protocol.” Instead, the parties were urged to “reexamine their positions and work together in good faith to create a mutually acceptable ESI search regime.” Failing a cooperative agreement by both parties, a special master would be appointed to the case in order to recommend an appropriate search protocol, with the costs to be split between plaintiffs and defendants.

So, what do you think? Should defendants expect to produce a higher volume of electronic discovery documents in cases that are larger in scope? Is the possibility of general relevance to the issues before the court enough to expand the burden of eDiscovery for defendants? 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.

Craig Ball of Craig D. Ball, P.C. – eDiscovery Trends, Part 2

This is the eleventh (and final) of the 2014 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders after LTNY this year (don’t get us started) and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What significant eDiscovery trends did you see at LTNY this year and what do you see for 2014?
  2. With new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure now in the comment phase, do you see those being approved this year and what do you see as the impact of those Rules changes?
  3. It seems despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery?  Do you agree with that and, if so, what do you think can be done to improve the situation?
  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 1,500 presentations and papers. Craig’s articles on forensic technology and electronic discovery frequently appear in the national media, and just ended nine years writing a monthly column on computer forensics and eDiscovery for Law Technology News called Ball in your Court.  He currentlyblogs on those topics at ballinyourcourt.com.

As usual, Craig gave us so much useful information that we decided to spread it out, yesterday was Part 1 of the interview and here is the rest!

It seems despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery?  Do you agree with that and, if so, what do you think can be done to improve the situation?

I have to marvel at the ingenuity of my colleagues who have so effectively deflected the obligation to learn much of the nuts and bolts of eDiscovery.  A mastery of buzzwords and buzz concepts is not the same thing.  You can almost see the eagerness of some to deploy certain ideas that they have picked up as though simply encanting a buzz word is the same as applying it in a practical fashion.  Lawyers focus on the work product privilege as a means to avoid transparency in essential applications.  They trot out something that they’ve distilled from Zubulake, now ten years old.  Again, they are fighting the last war.  They are still over-preserving in shocking ways and still issuing legal holds that are boilerplate.  They’re still failing to give useful information in legal hold notices (as they can’t tell people to do what they themselves don’t know how to do).  We’re seeing little creativity and a copious quantity of uninspired mimicry.  It isn’t working.

The problem I have with this is that it is that eDiscovery isn’t that hard.  We make it hard.  We sit down in a room and start talking about the moving parts and everyone starts getting very depressed.  They’re desperate to seize upon a one-dimensional solution – they want to find a hammer that they can bang against everything.  It isn’t that hard.  Though there are strategies that you need for different kinds of evidence, there are recognitions you must make that there are different users that use data in different ways.  Different levels of fragility.  But, we’re not talking about learning Chinese pictographs here, we’re talking about a small handful of common productivity file types and a tiny handful of mechanisms for communication.  In any other industry, they would be so happy to have so little complexity to deal with; but in our industry, any complexity at all seems to be overwhelming.  And, it frustrates me because, if lawyers would devote a bit of of genuine energy and time to this, and if we made more resources available to them, we could really make not just incremental strides, but great leaps in reducing the cost and anguish associated with electronic discovery.  It’s not that hard, it doesn’t have to be that expensive.  But, it does require a certain minimal fluency to understand what you’re dealing with.

We all work with digital information, all day, every day.  Right now you are taping me on a digital recorder, we’re having a conversation on digital phones where the conversation is being converted into packets and it’s moving back and forth.  I’m staring at two screens now with my email on the left screen and the internet on the right screen with my smart phone and my tablet close by.  That’s modern life.  If we don’t approach electronic discovery with the same engagement that we do with digital tools in other aspects of our lives, we’re doomed to continue to commit malpractice in both how we approach eDiscovery and how we spend our client’s money on eDiscovery.  And, it’s just sad, it remains deeply sad.

We aren’t deploying the right tools.  Soon, our opponents and courts will realize that we’re fighting the last war and that it’s very easy to step around our defenses.  We haven’t put the tools–the weapons in the hands of the infantry – the working stiff lawyer – to allow them to begin to deal with electronic discovery.

How is it going to get better?  Right now, the only path I see is going to be the enthusiast, the individual lawyer who – out of boredom, ambition or aversion unemployment – decides that they’re going to craft a new career path for themselves.  I hear from one of those lawyers nearly every day, so that means that I hear from 150-200 lawyers each year who tell me that they want to do what I do.  That’s great, but the resources for them to achieve that, to get the information they need, are still sparse in the context of law practice.  You can go out there and learn forensics and information systems and IT.  But, to integrate the parts of those disciplines that are attendant to eDiscovery, it’s difficult.  We’re still having electronic discovery taught, by and large, by people who consider it a body of law and who shun its technology aspect.

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

My mission for 2014 is wake our readers up on the issue of form of production.  That’s a little silly because your readers are among the most enlightened of consumers of electronic discovery.  But, helping requesting parties change the archaic way they ask for ESI has been a big part of what I want to accomplish in 2014.  And, helping them to make sensible choices about forms of production so that they can get complete and utile forms, That’s not always a native form, but it’s rarely static images.  I know that is something that I’ve jawed about for a long time and I imagine there are quite a few people that are tired of hearing me speak about it, but I’m finally starting to get some traction.

Judges are starting to listen and understand.  As we chip away at this absurd practice to turn everything into electronic paper, what becomes clear is that the processes that we’ve developed to produce spreadsheets and PowerPoints in native forms apply with equal force and success to Word documents, and now you realize that you’ve covered the Microsoft Office complement of data.  Those are the files that tend to make up the most common attachments to emails and, oh, by the way, emails can be provided in functional formats that are also complete.  Everyone technologist knows what’s in an email.  It has to have a certain complement of features to be called an email and traverse the internet.  Why don’t we just start providing emails in forms that function?  Helping parties to exchange forms that function is my mission for 2014.

I don’t expect that by next year that I will tell you that everyone has awakened to the fact that native and near-native productions are cheaper and better.  Let’s face it, there are a lot of people conserving very old tools and workflows who will not give them up until they are forced to give them up.  There are all sorts of changes for the greater good that decent, intelligent people resist too long, just as they did with women’s suffrage and civil rights.  I don’t mean to trivialize civil rights by comparing them to litigants’ rights, but changes must and shall come to pass.  We must evolve to become Juris Doctor Electronicus: modern, digitally-capable counsel.

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!

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.

Craig Ball of Craig D. Ball, P.C. – eDiscovery Trends, Part 1

This is the eleventh (and final) of the 2014 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders after LTNY this year (don’t get us started) and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What significant eDiscovery trends did you see at LTNY this year and what do you see for 2014?
  2. With new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure now in the comment phase, do you see those being approved this year and what do you see as the impact of those Rules changes?
  3. It seems despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery?  Do you agree with that and, if so, what do you think can be done to improve the situation?
  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 1,500 presentations and papers. Craig’s articles on forensic technology and electronic discovery frequently appear in the national media, and just ended nine years writing a monthly column on computer forensics and eDiscovery for Law Technology News called Ball in your Court.  He currentlyblogs on those topics at ballinyourcourt.com.

As usual, Craig gave us so much useful information that we decided to spread it out, so today is Part 1 of the interview and tomorrow, we will post the rest!

What significant eDiscovery trends did you see at LTNY this year and what do you see for 2014?

The most significant trend that I saw at LegalTech was the absence of a new direction.  Honestly, if you had blindfolded me and put down in LegalTech 2014, I could have not told you that it wasn’t LegalTech 2013 and I would have been challenged to have distinguished it from LegalTech 2012.  I’ve probably been to fifteen or sixteen shows and I don’t think I’ve ever seen one that was so much a clone of a prior year and failed to reveal any innovation as patently as this LegalTech.  That’s not a lack of optimism on my part, but truly a recognition that everyone was showing something that was, at best, an incremental refinement of what they had been offering.  That’s not to say that the eDiscovery tools that I looked at were not better than the eDiscovery tools that I looked at last year.  For the most part, many of them had refinements that were indicative of vendors listening to their clients.

One thing I’m surprised that I didn’t hear more about at LegalTech is BYOD (bring your own device).  When it comes to privacy, corporations tend to say “you’re on our premises, you’re using our devices…oh, wait a minute, you were using our devices, but now we’re making you bring your own device”.  We should be talking about how we will’ successfully integrate BYOD into our “we own it, so we control it, so we can look at it” mindset.  The notion that we’re going to be able to monitor people’s devices through agents – that’s ten year old technology with modest uptake.  By the time we get it in place, we’ll be way past it.

As for trends in general, I had dinner with Browning Marean the other evening.  Browning is “everyone’s favorite uncle” in eDiscovery – he’s a thoughtful and witty fellow with DLA Piper, the world’s largest law firm that no one has ever heard of.  Browning said something to me while we were discussing his time serving in the Navy in Vietnam and he used the phrase that the Navy is always “fighting the last war.”  I think “Generals always fight the last war” is the famous line.  That’s where we are in eDiscovery.  The product refinements that I’m seeing are designed to fight the last war.  That’s a serious concern.  Because when one refines their ability to do things that are increasingly less and less relevant, they aren’t preparing to fight the battle they’ve got to fight.  I’m seeing refinements to software and workflows that are geared to a type of ESI that, unbeknownst to many at LegalTech, is disappearing.  I saw almost no one that had a coherent solution for cloud collection and processing or for handheld devices.  And, if you aren’t going to be where the evidence lives, you’re not going to be of as much value.  Instead, I saw a lot of self-congratulatory back slapping from both attendees and vendors about how well they were prepared to win the last war.

The fact that there was so little evidence of genuine innovation is expressed in many ways.  We are still looking at an entrenched generation of lawyers who are persuaded that they can keep the “status quo” in place and continue to do things the way they’ve always done them, albeit with a veneer of technology.  Sadly, I’ve become convinced that where I thought we could bring them along and educate them, I’m realizing that they will simply have to “shuffle off the mortal coil” of law before we realize the efficiencies and changes that are necessary to really use electronic evidence to its highest and best purpose.  We could salvage and re-purpose their expertise but, by-and-large, they’re resolutely unwilling to re-educate themselves for a digital world.

With new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure now in the comment phase, do you see those being approved this year and what do you see as the impact of those Rules changes?

The question in my mind is whether they will receive alterations that will improve them and, if they do see changes, at what point are the changes sufficiently substantive to require them to re-initiate the public comment process on a revised set of proposals?  People being people and government being government, there will be a lot of reluctance to let the proposals be altered to an extent that they should be for fear that will trigger the need to go through a new comment period.  So, there will be a lot of ingenuity applied to avoid changes that reflect themselves too substantively in the proposed language.  That’s an impetus for the rules changes to pass with little change save that reflected in the commentary.

I see the changes being positive in many ways.  There are certainly some tweaks to the rules that are brilliant.  I remain concerned, as many do, about the change to Rule 37(e).  Certainly, the old 37(e) was a stillborn and the new rule is quite the opposite.  I wish it did not manifest such a mistrust of members of the federal judiciary in terms of their ability to regulate litigation and, when necessary, to punish malfeasance.  I believe strongly that our existing cadre of judges is very capable of restraint when it comes to sanctions, and generally manifest a rational and measured approach in terms of analyzing a state of affairs and deciding whether or not to sanction.  And before you ask, I most definitely include Judge Shira Scheindlin in that group.  The sanctions cases most discussed of late—like Sekisui—when you look at them closely, they are very measured and minor in terms of what they do.  Even the dreaded “Adverse Inference Instruction” in the latest iterations has been so weak and deferential to the opinions of the jury that it has much less tendency to have an impact comparable to those Judge Scheindlin issued ten years ago in Zubulake. People don’t look at those adverse inferences as closely as they should – if they did, I think they would realize that they are a very measured response.

I think that my greatest concern about the rules is something that has not been discussed.  We are at a juncture where we need more—not less– of the much reviled “discovery about discovery.” We must approach discovery with increased transparency and scrutiny of process–making that routine would have a significant effect on reducing the cost and complexity of eDiscovery.  Yet, we have some fairly powerful corporate lobbying efforts afoot to clamp the lid down more tightly on such things and take away the needed translucency into process that allows you to say “hey, don’t do it that way” before a lot of money goes down the drain.  I’m amazed at how many people on “the other side” (whatever side that is) are so tied up with misperceived work product privilege rights that they are arguing that they should be able to complete a defective eDiscovery effort at enormous cost to their client before the other side can say “stop, you’re doing it all wrong.”

I realize that the conversations between opponents have not been unguarded and are not always as constructive as they should be.  They’re way too combative.  People are still so afraid that they react from fear rather than from knowledge.  Nonetheless, there are certain aspects of an eDiscovery effort – the mechanisms of collection, culling, search, sources, structure of databases and, above all, forms of production (where we are finally and happily starting to make some progress) – that are so fundamental to integrity of process that they must be discussed up-front.  Those things must be hashed out before any significant money is spent on the collection, processing, review and production process.

Yet, there is a machismo out there reflective of outdated Sedona notions of “the other side is always right, no matter how wrong they are.”  The producing party is always right, even if they don’t know their butt from a hole in the ground when it comes to eDiscovery.  The consequence of that, the ego, the machismo of “you’ll see what I give you when I give it to you, and only then may you object” is such a waste of effort.  There are just some things that are so irretrievable that, unless you deal with them before they happen, they’re faits accompli to failure.  This idea that we’re going to waste months and millions of dollars to visit a broken production on an opponent and only then does the opponent  get to challenge it is just ridiculous.  It’s wasteful and shameful, and I’m frustrated that people don’t take a step away from their egos and say “this transparency thing is not a weakness, it’s a strength,” and instead seek to show off the wisdom and defensibility of their plan.  That let’s the other side can take shots at the plan while it’s still easy, fast and cheap to fix it.  But, no, they just want to do everything twice; and as long as people continue to be paid by the hour, doing everything twice is profitable for everybody but the litigants.

Stay tuned for Part 2 tomorrow!

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!

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 Professional Profile: Do You Know Duane Lites?

This blog is the first in a series aimed at helping you to get to know your peers better.  Each week I’ll give you career highlights of a law firm or corporate law department eDiscovery professional.  Today’s profile is on Duane Lites – an eDiscovery and Litigation Support veteran.

______________________________________

Duane is the Director of Litigation Support at Jackson Walker LLP, located in the firm’s Dallas office.  Jackson Walker is one of the largest ‘all Texas’ firms with 350+ lawyers in seven offices located throughout the state.  Duane has been with the firm since 2007.

Duane manages the firm’s Litigation Support department, which offers litigation support and eDiscovery services to all the firm’s litigators.  The department does its own eDiscovery processing, manages document reviews, provides trial graphic services, provides litigation support consulting services and on occasion provides forensics services. Duane manages the day-to-day operations of the department, trains and manages the staff (located in 4 of the firm’s offices), develops and implements department policies and procedures, consults with litigators, and procures and implements technology based on the practices and needs of the litigators.

In the mid 1980s Duane worked as a computer programmer at an oil and gas company in Dallas.  His boss left to take a position at a litigation support vendor, and convinced Duane to join him there in 1986.  Duane’s first work in litigation support was on a large asbestos case, working with a paper collection of about 500,000 documents (that was a huge case in the 1980s!). He worked converting key-punched data into load-ready form for the vendor’s timeshare system. Over time, he moved into working more with the databases and was heavily involved with integrating images with databases when that technology was first implemented in the industry. Between then and starting at Jackson Walker, Duane worked at two other law firms in Dallas and also spent some time with a few Litigation Support vendors and consulting organizations to round out his experience.  Over time he realized that his preference was being in a firm, assisting and working directly with litigation teams, understanding their needs, and finding solutions to their problems.

The move to Jackson Walker was a good one for Duane. He has buy-in at all levels. Litigators through the firm’s executive managers support his efforts, trust his judgment, and provide the resources he needs to optimize the department’s value to the firm.

One of the most valuable things Duane has learned in his years as a litigation technology professional is that ‘relationship’ is critical to the success of a litigation support department and to effectively marketing litigation support and eDiscovery services within a firm. To be successful you really need to understand what the lawyers are doing and what they need.  The best way to do that is to develop good relationships with them.

His biggest challenge today is managing resources with workflow — the workflow is increasing at a faster pace than the resources are, and managing that can be tricky.  One of his initiatives for this year is to get everyone in his department cross-trained, thereby giving him more flexibility in allocating resources.

Throughout his career, Duane has been active in professional organizations and endeavors.  He is a past president of the Dallas Fort Worth Association of Litigation Support Managers, a member of ILTA, on the editor board of the Litigation Support Today publication, and a co-founder of the popular Yahoo Group, The Litigation Support List.  Started in 1998, the list has grown its membership to over 9,000 litigation technology professionals. Duane still maintains and monitors the list.

Duane was born and raised in Texas and has been in Dallas for almost 30 years.  He is a history buff.  In his spare time he researches American history, builds military dioramas, and enjoys antique shopping with his wife. He has recently taken up restoring antique desk fans, circa the early 1900s. He also enjoys golf, sporting events, and spending time with his family.

He’ll be at the upcoming annual ILTA conference in Nashville in August.  Say hello or introduce yourself if you haven’t yet met him. Duane always enjoys meeting peers in the litigation support and eDiscovery community.

Please let us know if there are eDiscovery topics you’d like to see us cover in eDiscoveryDaily.

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.