Close
Enter your
text here

eDiscoveryDaily

EDRM Announces Several Updates at Mid-Year Meeting – eDiscovery Trends

Last week, the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) conducted its mid-year meeting to enable the working groups to meet and further accomplishments in each of the teams for the year.  Having attended several of these meetings in the past, I’ve always found them to usually yield significant progress within the working groups, as well as providing a great opportunity for eDiscovery professionals to get together and talk shop.  Based on the results of the meeting, EDRM issued an announcement with updates from several of their more active projects.

Here are the updates:

  • Data Set: The Data Set project announced the launch of its new file upload utility. “The upload utility will allow us to develop a modern data set that more accurately represents the type of files that are commonly encountered in data processing,” said Eric Robi of Elluma Discovery, co-chair of the project with Michael Lappin of NUIX. The Data Set project also announced a soon-to-be-published “million file dataset” and an upcoming redacted version of the Enron data set, previously described on this blog here.
  • Information Governance Reference Model (IGRM): The IGRM team announced that its updated model (IGRM v3) was recently published and presented at ARMA International’s 57th Annual Conference & Expo and the IAPP Privacy Academy 2012. As discussed on this blog just a couple of weeks ago, the updated version adds privacy and security as key stakeholders in the model.
  • Jobs: The Jobs project continued development of the EDRM RACI (responsible, accountable, consulted, informed) Matrix, a tool designed to help hiring managers better understand the responsibilities associated with common e-discovery roles. RACI maps responsibilities to the EDRM framework so e-discovery duties associated can be assigned to the appropriate parties.
  • Metrics: The Metrics project team refined the EDRM Metrics database, an anonymous set of e-discovery processing metrics derived from actual matters, which will include a CSV upload function to make it easier for vendors and law firms to anonymously submit data to the system.  Having worked on the early stages of this project, my “hats off” to the team for the additional accomplishments.
  • Search: The Search group announced that its EDRM Computer Assisted Review Reference Model (CARRM) soon will be available for public comment. The goal of CARRM is to demystify the predictive coding process and to allow for a common communication platform between vendors and end-users at each phase of the CAR process and it will be interesting to see the document that emerges from these efforts.

EDRM meets in person twice a year, in May for the annual meeting and October for the mid-year meeting, with regular working group phone calls scheduled throughout the year to keep the projects progressing.  The next in person meeting is next year’s annual meeting, currently scheduled for May 7 thru 9, 2013.  For more information about EDRM, click here.  For information on joining EDRM, including fee information for participation, click here.

So, what do you think?  Have you been following the activity of EDRM?  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.

Government Document Productions Can Be Like Water Torture – eDiscovery Case Law

In Botell v. United States, 2012 U.S. Dist. (E.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2012), Magistrate Judge Gregory Hollows noted that the US Government’s “document production performance in these proceedings has been akin to a drop-by-drop water torture” and ordered a preclusion order prohibiting the US Government “from presenting evidence in its case that had been requested by plaintiffs in the Requests for Production, but which has not been produced” as of the date of the order.  The US was also still required to produce the documents, whether they planned to use them or not.  Judge Hollows also noted that the “Plaintiff has not waived any motion to seek further sanctions regarding non-production of documents, or spoliation of documents.”

In this wrongful death and personal injury action at Lassen Volcanic National Park when a mortared rock wall gave way killing one child and injuring another, the US Government produced over 7,000 pages of documents, yet, it was noted that “there is a glaring lack of production of emails from defendant’s agents and employees” with emails having only been produced from one custodian.  As five other custodians were referenced in the produced emails, the plaintiffs contended that emails should have been produced from them as well.  With regard to the back up of emails, one of the defendant declarations described the backup policy as follows: “[b]ack-up emails are retained for 30 days only, unless they are subject to a litigation hold notice or pertain to the BP Gulf Oil spill.”

Judge Hollows ordered the defendants to provide a declaration describing “searches conducted to locate physical and electronic copies of emails” responsive to production requests, noting the declaration “shall state the steps taken to locate these emails, whether any such emails exist, and if not, a definitive statement that they no longer exist. If further responsive documents are located, they shall be produced at the time declarations are filed.”

Summarizing the production issue in his order, Judge Hollows noted as follows:

“At this juncture, the United States has purportedly been looking for documents for months, yet the undersigned, to the date of the hearing, does not have confidence that an organized, thorough search has been performed. Rather, defendant’s document production performance in these proceedings has been akin to a drop-by-drop water torture. At some point, plaintiff must be protected from the United States’ further belated production of pertinent documents.”

As a result, Judge Hollows issued the preclusion order, with the possibility of more sanctions to come.

So, what do you think?  Was the ruling harsh 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.

No Bates Numbers in a Native Production? Get Over It! – eDiscovery Best Practices

Last week, we discussed the benefits of requesting document productions in native format, including the ability to use Early Data Assessment/FirstPass Review applications to analyze your opponents produced data and metadata, using capabilities like email analytics and message thread analysis (where missing emails in threads can be identified), synonym searching, fuzzy searching and domain categorization.  If you don’t understand the benefits of receiving the underlying metadata, try reviewing an image of an Excel spreadsheet and see if you can understand how the numbers were calculated without the underlying formulas.  Not so easy, is it?

However, one objection that attorneys provide against producing documents in native format is that they’re not conducive to Bates labeling.  Some native file types, such as Excel files, are not stored in a typical paginated, document-oriented format, so it is difficult or even impossible determine the number of pages for each file.  Other file types vary the number of pages and placement of text on pages based on the document styles applied.  For example, Word uses document styles based on the fonts installed on the workstation to display the content of the Word document; however, if the chosen font is not available when the document is viewed on another workstation, Word will substitute with another font and style that can change the formatting and even which page content appears.  Since attorneys are so used to having a Bates stamp on each page of a document, many are still known to produce (and request production) in an image format, adding costs unnecessarily.  Would those same attorneys print out every email in their Inbox before reading them?

However, most courts today accept a file-level “Bates” or Unique Production Identifier (UPI) where each file is named with a prefix and a sequential number.  These numbers look just like Bates numbers, except they’re not stamped in the file itself; instead, they are used as the file name.  These productions are usually accompanied by a data file, containing metadata for loading into a review tool, which includes the original file name and path of each file being produced.

So, how do you get around the issue of referencing individual page numbers for presentation at deposition or trial?  Those files can still be converted to image (or printed) and a number applied for presentation.  It’s common to simply use the Bates number as the prefix, followed by a sequential number, so page 6 of the 45th file in the production could be stamped like this: PROD000045-00006.  This enables you to tie back to the production, yet only convert to image those files that need to be presented.

So, what do you think?  How do you handle production numbering in native productions?   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.

Avoiding the Redaction “Epic Fail” – eDiscovery Best Practices

On the surface, it may seem easy enough to redact a document during eDiscovery review to obscure confidential or privileged information.  All you need to do is draw a black box over the affected text, right?  Not so fast, my friend.  There’s a lot more to consider in order to ensure that you don’t inadvertently produce information that was intended to be redacted.  Here are a few redaction “epic fails” and how to avoid them.

Failure to “Burn” the Redaction into the Image

If the redaction isn’t “burned” into the image so that it cannot be removed, the redacted data can still be viewed (as these unfortunate folks found out).  Especially when your images are Adobe Acrobat PDF files, the most common mistake is to redact by obscuring the text by drawing a black box over the text or images you want redacted.  A simple “cut and paste” can remove the black box, revealing the redacted text.  Acrobat provides a redaction tool (for those editing the PDF there) to properly apply a redaction – it’s best to save the file to a new name after the redaction has been applied.

If you’re using a review application to manage the review, the application should ensure a “burned in” redaction for anything exported or printed, regardless of whether it lets you look at the redacted data within the application itself.  For example, CloudNine Discovery’s review application, OnDemand®, provides a tool to enable the reviewer to draw a gray box over the text to be redacted so that text can still be viewed within the application.  However, if the file is exported or printed, that box gets “burned” in as a black box to completely obscure the redacted text.

Failing to Update Corresponding Text Files to Remove Redacted Text

Even if the image is handled properly, you can still disclose redacted text if you don’t make sure that the corresponding text file, whether extracted from the native file or generated via Optical Character Recognition (OCR), isn’t updated to remove the redacted text.  If you don’t update the corresponding text files, you’re allowing redacted text to slip through the production “back door”.  This happens more often than you might think.

Producing Un-Redacted Native Files

If you’re producing native files, you’ve hopefully discussed with opposing counsel how to handle native files that require redaction.  Typically, the approach is to convert those to an image format and redact the image.  Sometimes the parties agree to “redact” the native files themselves and produce those.  If so, as is the case with Adobe PDF files, there’s a right way and wrong way to redact native files.  Changing the text to white or the background to match the text color is not the same as redacting the text.  All you have to do is to revert back to the original formatting or simply highlight the affected area to see the redacted text.  Instead, you’ll want to agree on a procedure where the text is deleted or replaced with an equal amount of meaningless content (e.g., all “X”s) to preserve text flow and pagination (make sure track changes is off before redacting).  You may even want to agree to copy the entire content of a redacted document to a new file (to remove residual document composition information that might remain).  To see what I “redacted” up above, highlight it with your cursor.  🙂

Failing to Redact Metadata

You may redact content on the document that you produce separately as metadata, via a load or data file.  Failing to check the produced metadata for redacted documents could enable redacted data to slip through.  So, don’t forget to check and remove any sensitive data here, as well.

Quality Control (QC) Check before Producing

Generally, when producing documents with redactions, you should have a checklist that ensures that image redactions are “burned” in, that redacted native files (if produced natively) are properly redacted, and that corresponding text files and metadata have been checked to ensure that redacted data has been removed from those as well.  Otherwise, your production of redacted materials can wind up as an “epic fail”.

So, what do you think?  How do you handle redactions within your productions?  Do you have a process to QC check redactions before producing?  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.

Cloning of Computer Files: When There’s a Will, There’s a Way – eDiscovery Case Law

In Matter of Tilimbo, No. 329/M-2007, 2012 N.Y. Misc. (Surr. Ct., Bronx Cnty. Aug. 22, 2012), a court held it was permissible to order cloning of computer files where doing so did not place an unreasonable burden on a nonparty, appropriate steps were taken to protect any privileged information, and the nonparty had not previously produced the requested information in hard copy.

In this claim based on a will contest, the plaintiffs moved for an order permitting their computer forensic expert to examine the personal computer hard drive of a nonparty witness, the deceased’s attorney Patrick Wynne, limited to finding and reviewing documents related to Rose Tilimbo, her will, as well as a deed transfer from her to Salvatore Tilimbo that formed the basis of the will contest. Wynne objected on the basis that he had already, at the court’s direction, been deposed on the subject and “provided an affirmation stating that he conducted the requisite diligent search of his ‘computer files and any other [additional] relevant files’ and did not find responsive documents or computer files.” He argued that “a balancing of the sanctity of the attorney-client privilege against the scope of permissible discovery warrant[ed] the denial of the motion.”

Noting that ESI of a nonparty is discoverable, the court held that so long as it did not place an unreasonable burden on Wynne, a solo practitioner, the examination and cloning of Wynne’s computer was permissible. Although Wynne had produced in hard copy all of the documents he said he possessed, the court pointed out that such disclosures did not prevent the ESI itself from being sought. In addition, Wynne had not been able to produce any documents related to the deed transfer at issue, and any such documents that existed would clearly be material and relevant to the case. Therefore, the court offered the following parameters for the cloning:

“The court finds that the cloning would not place an unreasonable burden upon Wynne if all of the computers can be cloned at his office in four hours or less on a date and at a time that he selects, which may include in whole or in part a time after normal business hours. Alternatively, the cloning will be allowed outside of Wynne’s office if it can be done by removing the computer(s) on a Saturday at any time selected by Wynne and returned to his office by Monday between 8:30 and 9:00 a.m. If Wynne prefers, the computer(s) may be removed from his office on any other day, provided the computer(s) are returned to his office within 24 hours. If the cloning is to be done outside of Wynne’s office and more than one computer is to be cloned, then at Wynne’s option, only one computer may be removed from his office at a time. In the event that the cloning can be accomplished within the time allocated herein either at Wynne’s office or by removal of the computer(s), Wynne shall have the right to select whether or not he wants the cloning to be done at his office. In the event that the cloning requested by the movants cannot be performed within the time frame provided herein, the court finds that the disruption to Wynn’s practice of law outweighs the benefits that the movants might obtain from the information provided by the cloning. Furthermore, should a computer be removed from Wynne’s office and not returned within the time provided herein, the movants shall pay Wynne $200 for each hour or part thereof that the return is delayed.”

In addition, the forensic analysts were limited to locating documents likely to lead to discoverable evidence related to the decedent and were given specific instructions on what to do with any unrelated documents that were accidentally uncovered.

So, what do you think?  Should cloning of the computer have been allowed?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).  For eDiscovery news and best practices, check out the Applied Discovery Blog here.

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

eDiscovery Training Valued More Than eDiscovery Certification – eDiscovery Trends

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

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

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

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

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

eDiscovery Certifications Compared to Other Industries

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

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

So, what do you think?  Will eDiscovery certification programs ever become widely accepted?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what do you think?  Do you request native productions from your opponents?  If not, why not?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Defendant Appeals Sanctions, Only to See Sanction Amount Raised on Appeal – eDiscovery Case Law
 

In Multifeeder Tech. Inc. v. British Confectionery Co. Ltd., No. 09-1090 (JRT/TNL), (D. Minn. Sept. 18, 2012), the defendant had been previously sanctioned $500,000 ($475,000 to the plaintiff and $25,000 to the court) and held in contempt of court by the magistrate judge for spoliation, who also recommended an adverse inference instruction be issued at trial.  The defendant appealed to the district court, where Minnesota District Judge John Tunheim increased the award to the plaintiff to $600,000.  Oops!

Background

In this breach of contract case, the magistrate court granted the plaintiff’s motion in 2010 to compel discovery of several specific document requests after the defendants failed to comply with those requests.  After the defendant had still failed to comply six months later, the plaintiff motioned the court for sanctions due to the defendant’s failure to comply with the court’s previous 2010 order. While granting the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, the magistrate judge also ordered that the parties try to cooperate to agree on the handling of eDiscovery in the case. Failing an agreement, each side would then be permitted to submit a proposal for the court to use to establish an eDiscovery protocol.

Forensic Examination of Defendant’s Computers

When the parties could not come to an agreement, they did so, and the court chose the plaintiff’s proposal, appointing a computer forensic expert to image and examine the defendant’s computers, allocating the forensic discovery costs between the parties.  The forensic examination identified several occurrences of spoliation by the defendant, including commercial wiping software found on one custodian’s computer with “six deletions occurring after both the commencement of the lawsuit and issuance of the ESI Protocol Order” and concealment of an encrypted volume and deletion of a PST file by a vice president of the company.

Sanctions Ordered by Magistrate Court

After reviewing the facts and sanctions at the Court's disposal, the Magistrate Judge recommended that:

(1)   An adverse inference instruction be given with regard to the defendant’s destruction of evidence;

(2)   The defendant be held in civil contempt, and ordered to pay $25,000 to the Court and $475,000 to the plaintiff.  With regard to the $475,000, the Court found that amount to constitute reasonable expenses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) because "it encompasses much of CFS's current unpaid invoices, some past paid amounts by Multifeeder to CFS, and reasonable legal fees and costs for litigating this discovery debacle."

Both Parties Object to Sanction Amount

The defendant objected with regard to the finding of spoliation by the two individuals, objected that the $475,000 sanction was too high because the plaintiff was partly responsible for the “massive” costs for the forensic examination and appealed to the district court.  In turn, the plaintiff also objected to the sanction amount, indicating that the “award fails to adequately cover the reasonable expenses it incurred as a result of [the defendant’s] conduct” and asked that the total amount be raised to over $692,000.

Sanction Amount is Increased, not Decreased

Judge Tunheim upheld the finding of spoliation against the two individuals.  With regard to the sanction amount, Judge Tunheim noted that “the recommended $475,000 sanction is insufficient” and found as follows:

“The Court has also considered that this is not the first sanctions order in this case; British's repeated violations of the Court's discovery orders warrant significant sanctions to deter British from further misconduct. Therefore, the Court finds that a sanction of $600,000 represents reasonable expenses and attorneys' fees because it encompasses much of CFS's current unpaid invoices, at least some past paid amounts by Multifeeder to CFS, and reasonable legal fees and expenses in litigating this discovery dispute.” [emphasis added]

Judge Tunheim also ordered the defendant to pay “half of the sanctions award, $300,000, within 90 days of the date of this Order. The second half of the sanctions award will be payable no later than 120 days of the date of this Order.”

So, what do you think?  Should the defendant appeal again or quit before they get further behind?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what do you think?  Where does your organization stand with regard to information governance efforts?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what do you think?  Do you need eDiscovery project management training?  If so, would a program like this be of interest to you?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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