Close
Enter your
text here

eDiscoveryDaily

eDiscovery Best Practices: For Successful Predictive Coding, Start Randomly
 

Predictive coding is the hot eDiscovery topic of 2012, with three significant cases (Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, Global Aerospace v. Landow Aviation and Kleen Products v. Packaging Corp. of America) either approving or considering the use of predictive coding for eDiscovery.  So, how should your organization begin when preparing a collection for predictive coding discovery?  For best results, start randomly.

If that statement seems odd, let me explain. 

Predictive coding is the use of machine learning technologies to categorize an entire collection of documents as responsive or non-responsive, based on human review of only a subset of the document collection.  That subset of the collection is often referred to as the “seed” set of documents.  How the seed set of documents is derived is important to the success of the predictive coding effort.

Random Sampling, It’s Not Just for Searching

When we ran our series of posts (available here, here and here) that discussed the best practices for random sampling to test search results, it’s important to note that searching is not the only eDiscovery activity where sampling a set of documents is a good practice.  It’s also a vitally important step for deriving that seed set of documents upon which the predictive coding software learning decisions will be made.  As is the case with any random sampling methodology, you have to begin by determining the appropriate sample size to represent the collection, based on your desired confidence level and an acceptable margin of error (as noted here).  To ensure that the sample is a proper representative sample of the collection, you must ensure that the sample is performed from the entire collection to be predictively coded.

Given the debate in the above cases regarding the acceptability of the proposed predictive coding approaches (especially Da Silva Moore), it’s important to be prepared to defend your predictive coding approach and conducting a random sample to generate the seed documents is a key step to defensibility of that approach.

Then, once the sample is generated, the next key to success is the use of a subject matter expert (SME) to make responsiveness determinations.  And, it’s important to conduct a sample (there’s that word again!) of the result set after the predictive coding process to determine whether the process achieved a sufficient quality in automatically coding the remainder of the collection.

So, what do you think?  Do you start your predictive coding efforts “randomly”?  You should.  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

eDiscovery Case Law: More Sanctions for Fry’s Electronics
 

In E.E.O.C. v Fry’s Electronics, Inc., No. C10-1562RSL, 2012 U.S. Dist. (W.D. Wash. July 3, 2012), Washington District Judge Robert S. Lasnik ordered several sanctions against the defendant in this sexual harassment case (including ordering the defendant to pay $100,000 in monetary sanctions and ordering that certain evidence be considered presumptively admissible at trial), but stopped short of entering a default judgment against the defendant.  This ruling came after having previously ordered sanctions against the defendant less than two months earlier.

Prior Sanctions

On May 10, Judge Lasnik granted in part plaintiffs' motion for sanctions in this case, finding that the defendant had spoliated evidence, including data and computer hard drives. In that ruling, Judge Lasnik believed that the prejudicial effect of the spoliation could be counteracted by “(a) instructing the jury that one of the justifications for firing [one of the plaintiffs] was pretextual and (b) allowing plaintiff considerable leeway in arguing what information might have been gleaned from the computer hard drives had they not been destroyed by defendant”. At the time, Judge Lasnik also indicated “some concern regarding the efficacy and thoroughness of defendant's searches” which led to more information being discovered after he ordered a second search.

Additional Spoliation and Misconduct

During a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition held on May 30, the plaintiffs learned for the first time that the accused individual had previously been accused of sexual harassment in 2001 and that an investigation had been conducted. According to Judge Lasnik, the defendant “intentionally withheld this information and the related documents from discovery by raising unfounded objections and ‘negotiating’ a narrowing of the discovery requests” and found the defendant's conduct to be “unfair, unwarranted, unprincipled, and unacceptable”.

Misconduct by the defendants noted by Judge Lasnik also included the redaction of responsive information, “[e]ven after defendant's objections to certain discovery requests were overruled”, as well as production of hundreds of pages of information with the “fallacious argument” that they were relevant to the claims.

Consideration of Default Judgment Sanction

Judge Lasnik noted that it is “once again left to determine whether to strike defendant's answer and enter default judgment against it”, but noted that dismissal is a “harsh sanction” and the following factors must be considered when determining “whether a dispositive sanction is appropriate under either its inherent powers or Rule 37(b): (1) the public's interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court's need to manage its docket efficiently and effectively; (3) the risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions; (4) the public policy in favor of considering cases on the merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.”  While finding that the first three factors supported a dispositive sanction, Judge Lasnik ruled against a dispositive sanction in factor 4, indicating that “[t]he public has an interest in a determination of those issues based on the facts, rather than by judicial fiat”.

Lesser Sanctions Ordered

Instead, Judge Lasnik ordered lesser sanctions, indicating that “Defendant's affirmative defenses related to (i) its efforts to prevent and correct harassment in the workplace, (ii) plaintiffs' failure to utilize protective and corrective opportunities provided by defendant, (iii) its good faith and/or privilege to act as it did in this case are STRICKEN.” He also stated that certain documents and testimony related to “other complaints or reports of sexual harassment” at the company were “presumptively admissible at trial”. He also ordered sanctions of $100,000 “to offset the excess costs caused by defendant’s discovery violations, to punish unacceptable behavior, and as a deterrent to future bad conduct” to be split evenly between the two individual plaintiffs, the EEOC and the Court Clerk.

So, what do you think?  Are you surprised that the defendant didn’t receive a default judgment sanction?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

eDiscovery Trends: Use of Internet-Based Tools, Predictive Coding, Up in 2012, Says ABA

According to a recently released report from the American Bar Association (ABA), use of Internet-based electronic discovery tools and predictive coding has risen in 2012.  The 2012 ABA Legal Technology Survey Report: Litigation and Courtroom Technology (Volume III) discusses the use of technology related to litigation, ranging from hardware used in the courtroom to technology related to eDiscovery and e-filing. It includes a trend report summarizing this year’s notable results and highlighting changes from previous years.

Statistical Highlights

Here are some of the notable stats from the ABA study:

Use of Internet-based eDiscovery and Litigation Support

  • 44% of attorneys whose firm had handled an eDiscovery case said they had used Internet-based eDiscovery tools (up from 31% in 2011 – a 42% rise in usage);
  • In sole practitioner firms, 33% of attorneys said they had used Internet-based eDiscovery tools whereas nearly 67% of attorneys in large firms (500 or more attorneys) indicated they had used those tools;
  • 35% of attorneys said they had used Internet-based litigation support software (up from 24% in 2011 – a 46% rise in usage).

Use of Desktop-based eDiscovery and Litigation Support

  • Use of Desktop-based eDiscovery rose from 46% to 48% (just a 4% rise in usage) and use of Desktop-based Litigation Support remained the same at 46%.

Use of Predictive Coding Technology

  • 23% of those attorneys said they had used predictive coding technology to process or review ESI (up from 15% in 2011 – a 53% rise in usage);
  • Of the firms that have handled an eDiscovery case, only 5% of sole practitioners and only 6% of firms with less than 10 attorneys indicated they had used predictive coding technology whereas nearly 44% of attorneys in large firms said they used predictive coding.

Outsourcing

  • 44% of attorneys surveyed indicated that they outsourced work to eDiscovery consultants and companies (slightly down from 45% in 2011 – a 2% drop);
  • Outsourcing to computer forensics specialists remained unchanged at 42%, according to the survey;
  • On the other hand, 25% of respondents indicated that they outsource to attorneys in other firms (up from 16% in 2011 – a 56% rise!).  Hmmm…

All percentages rounded.

The 2012 ABA Legal Technology Survey Report is comprised of six volumes, with eDiscovery results discussed in Volume III (link above), which can be purchased from the ABA for $350 (or $300 if you’re an ABA member).  If you’re just interested in the trend report, the cost for that is $55 ($45 for ABA members).

So, what do you think?  Any surprises?  Do those numbers reflect your own usage of the technologies and outsourcing patterns?  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 Best Practices: Assessing Your Data Before Meet and Confer Shouldn’t Be Expensive
 

So, you’re facing litigation and you need help from an outside provider to “get your ducks in a row” to understand how much data you have, how many documents have hits on key terms and estimate the costs to process, review and produce the data so that you’re in the best position to negotiate appropriate terms at the Rule 26(f) conference (aka, meet and confer).  But, how much does it cost to do all that?  It shouldn’t be expensive.  In fact, it could even be free.

Metadata Inventory

Once you’ve collected data from your custodians, it’s important to understand how much data you have for each custodian and how much data is stored on each media collected.  You should also be able to break the collection down by file type and by date range.  A provider should be able to process the data and provide a metadata inventory of the collected electronically stored information (ESI) that enables the inventory to be queried by:

  • Data source (hard drive, folder, or custodian)
  • Folder names and sizes
  • File names and sizes
  • Volume by file type
  • Date created and last date modified

When this done prior to the Rule 26(f) conference, it enables your legal team to intelligently negotiate at the conference by understanding the potential volume (and therefore potential cost) of including or excluding certain custodians, document types, or date ranges in the discovery order. 

Word Index of the Collection

Want to get a sense of how many documents mention each of the key players in the case?  Or, how many mention the key issues?  After a simple index of the data, a provider should be able to at least provide a consolidated report of all the words (not including stop words, of course), from all sources that includes number of occurrences for each word in the collected ESI (at least for files that contain embedded text).  This initial index won’t catch everything – image-only files and exception (e.g., corrupted or password protected) files won’t be included – but it will enable your legal team to intelligently negotiate at the meet and confer by understanding the potential volume (and therefore potential cost) of including or excluding certain key words in the discovery order.

eDiscovery Budget Worksheet

Loading the metadata inventory into an eDiscovery budget worksheet that includes standard performance data (such as document review production statistics) and projected billing rates and costs can provide a working eDiscovery project budget projection for the case.  This projection can enable your legal team to advise their client of projected costs of the case, negotiate cost sharing or cost burden arguments in the meet and confer, and create a better discovery production strategy.

It shouldn’t be expensive to prepare these items to develop an initial assessment of the case to prepare for the Rule 26(f) conference.  In fact, the company that I work for, CloudNine Discovery, provides these services for free.  But, regardless who you use, it’s important to assess your data before the meet and confer to enable your legal team to understand the potential costs and risks associated with the case and negotiate the best possible approach for your client.

So, what do you think?  What analysis and data assessment do you perform prior to the meet and confer?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

P.S.: No ducks were harmed in the making of this blog post.

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

eDiscovery Case Law: Major Bank and Law Firm Sanctioned for “Pattern of Discovery Abuses”
 

As noted in ABA Journal, Greenberg Traurig and its client, TD Bank, have received sanctions in Coquina Investments v. Rothstein, 10-cv-60786, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida for a “pattern of discovery abuses before, during, and after trial”.  As U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke noted, “it often times appears that this litigation was conducted in an Inspector Clouseau-like fashion.  However, unlike a Pink Panther film, there was nothing amusing about this conduct and it did not conclude neatly.”

While Judge Cooke sanctioned Greenberg Traurig, she determined that sanctions were not warranted against the individual attorneys, despite the fact that their “handling of this case left much to be desired.”  However, she noted that while “they certainly acted with negligence”, “[t]he evidence does not support a finding that any of them acted willfully or in bad faith.”

Texas-based Coquina Investors won a $67 million verdict in January for aiding and abetting fraud by then-attorney Scott Rothstein in a civil damages suit brought by investors.  It’s the first civil jury verdict in this country against a bank for aiding and abetting fraud.  Judge Cooke did find that TD Bank "willfully concealed relevant evidence from its trial counsel” and “that TD Bank "had actual knowledge of Rothstein’s fraud”.  Both parties were required to pay plaintiff’s legal fees and pursuing the sanctions.  Rothstein has been disbarred and is serving a 50-year prison sentence in a secret location under the federal witness protection program.

According to the Miami Herald, two documents were primarily at issue in the sanctions motion:

  • “Customer Due Diligence” form: This document was redacted by the bank to conceal that the bank had put a "high risk" label on Rothstein's law firm concerning its potential for money laundering. That information was not blacked out when the same document was subsequently produced in a related case against the bank, however, alerting the plaintiffs' legal team to the alteration.  The bank contended at trial it had not considered Rothstein's firm high-risk, and hence was not required to monitor his accounts closely.
  • “Standard Investigative Protocol”: This document detailed the bank's policy on knowing its customers and preventing money laundering.  TD Bank claimed prior to trial that the document didn’t exist.  It was produced months later and the delay was apparently was due to a mistake on the part of a Greenberg lawyer who is no longer with the firm.

A spokeswoman for the law firm said it will comply with the judge's decision. “We regret the deficiencies that gave rise to this order,” she wrote in an email.  However, TD Bank plans to appeal both the sanctions ruling and the underlying $67 million jury award, a spokeswoman wrote in an email.

So, what do you think?  Are you surprised that the individual attorneys weren’t sanctioned, as well?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

eDiscovery Case Law: No Sanctions When You Can’t Prove Evidence Was Destroyed
 

In Omogbehin v. Cino, No. 11-2223, 2012 U.S. App. (3d Cir. June 20, 2012), the plaintiff claimed that the District Court erred in denying his motion for spoliation sanctions and appealed to the US Third Circuit Court of Appeals, but lost as the appellate court upheld the rulings by the district judge and magistrate judge.

In this employment discrimination case, the plaintiff (Stephen Omogbehin) filed a motion for adverse inference jury instructions with the belief that the defendants destroyed or suppressed certain eMails during discovery. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, he not only failed to demonstrate evidence of spoliation, he also could not even prove that the alleged eMails existed. Two of the defendants claimed no such eMails existed, with support from their IT experts, who explained that all eMails from the relevant time frame had been produced.

Four-Prong Test

The appellate court upheld the rulings by the district judge and magistrate judge, who had used the four-prong test to determine whether spoliation occurred, requiring the plaintiff to demonstrate that “[1] the evidence was in the party’s control; [2] the evidence is relevant to the claims or defenses in the case; [3] there has been actual suppression or withholding of evidence; and, [4] the duty to preserve the evidence was reasonably foreseeable to the party.” Only after establishing that spoliation occurred, would a separate analysis be conducted to determine whether sanctions are appropriate. To obtain an adverse inference instruction, a party must show “there has been an actual suppression or withholding of the evidence.”

The Magistrate Judge denied Omogbehin's motion because he had failed to show that the emails were actually sent or received, let alone that that any spoliation occurred, much less that it was done intentionally.  The District Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge, concluding that Omogbehin had not satisfied his burden of establishing facts from which the court could "at least infer that the evidence existed in the first place."

The appellate court noted that the defendants “produced the information and documents that Omogbehin requested; that they did not contain what he had hoped or expected is not sufficient to satisfy his burden. He must provide some proof that what he seeks actually existed, but failed to do so.”

Compare to Zubulake

This is an interesting contrast to the Zubulake case, which was also an employment discrimination case.  In that case, Laura Zubulake preserved and produced her own copies of emails that the defendants failed to produce (at least initially) which led to the court’s decision to order discovery from backup tapes that led to additional productions of relevant emails.  Due to the fact that tapes from some key individuals were missing and that the other tapes had led to discovery of additional relevant emails, the court ultimately concluded that the destruction of those tapes resulted in spoliation of relevant evidence.  Zubulake was able to prove a pattern of spoliation that Omogbehin was unable to prove.

So, what do you think?  Have you ever pursued, or been forced to defendant against, spoliation sanctions?  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 Trends: The Growth of eDiscovery is Transparent
 

With data in the world doubling every two years or so and the variety of issues that organizations need to address to manage that data from an eDiscovery standpoint, it would probably surprise none of you that the eDiscovery market is growing.  But, do you know how quickly the market is growing?

According to a new market report published by Transparency Market Research (and reported by BetaNews), the global eDiscovery market is expected to rise 275% from 2010 to 2017.  Their report eDiscovery (Software and Service) Market – Global Scenario, Trends, Industry Analysis, Size, Share and Forecast, 2010 – 2017 indicates that the global eDiscovery market was worth $3.6 billion in 2010 and is expected to reach $9.9 billion by 2017, growing at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 15.4% during that time.  Here are some other noteworthy stats that they report and forecast:

  • The U.S. portion of the eDiscovery market was valued at $3.0 billion in 2010, and is estimated to grow at a CAGR of 13.3% from 2010 to 2017 to reach $7.2 billion by 2017 (240% total growth);
  • The eDiscovery market in the rest of the world was valued at $600 million in 2010, and is estimated to grow at a CAGR of 23.2% from 2010 to 2017 to reach $2.7 billion by 2017 (450% total growth – wow!);
  • Not surprisingly, the U.S. is expected to continue to be the leader in terms of revenue with 73% of global eDiscovery market share in 2017;
  • The report also breaks the market into software based eDiscovery and services based eDiscovery, with the global software based eDiscovery market valued at $1.1 billion in 2010 and expected to grow at a CAGR of 11.5% to reach $2.5 billion by 2017 (227% total growth) and the global services based eDiscovery market valued at $2.5 billion in 2010 and expected to grow at a CAGR of 17.0% to reach $7.4 billion by 2017 (296% total growth).

According to the report, key factors driving the global eDiscovery market include “increasing adoption of predictive coding, growing risk mitigation activities in organizations, increase in criminal prosecutions and civil litigation and growth of record management across various industries”.  They predict that “[i]n the next five years, the e-discovery industry growth will get further support from increasing automatic enterprise information archiving applications, growth in multi-media search for sound and visual data, next generation technology growth for cloud computing i.e. virtualization and increasing involvement of organizations in the social media space.”

The report also discusses topics such as pricing trends, competitor analysis, growth drivers, opportunities and inhibitors and provides company profiles of several big players in the industry.  The 96 page report is available in a single user license for $4,395 up to a corporate license for $10,395.

So, what do you think?  Do those growth numbers 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.

eDiscovery Trends: Interview with Laura Zubulake of Zubulake’s e-Discovery, Part 2
 

Last week, we discussed the new book by Laura A. Zubulake, the plaintiff in probably most famous eDiscovery case ever (Zubulake vs. UBS Warburg), entitled Zubulake's e-Discovery: The Untold Story of my Quest for Justice.  I also conducted an interview with Laura last week to get her perspective on the book, including her reasons for writing the book seven years after the case ended and what she expects readers to learn from her story.

The book is the story of the Zubulake case – which resulted in one of the largest jury awards in the US for a single plaintiff in an employment discrimination case – as told by the author, in her words.  As Zubulake notes in the Preface, the book “is written from the plaintiff’s perspective – my perspective. I am a businessperson, not an attorney. The version of events and opinions expressed are portrayed by me from facts and circumstances as I perceived them.”  It’s a “classic David versus Goliath story” describing her multi-year struggle against her former employer – a multi-national financial giant.  The book is available at Amazon and also at CreateSpace.

Our interview with Laura had so much good information in it, we couldn’t fit it all into a single post.  Yesterday was part 1.  Here is the second and final part!

What advice would have for plaintiffs who face a similar situation to the one you faced?

I don’t give advice, and I’ll tell you why.  It’s because every case is different.  And, it’s not just the facts of the case but it’s also the personal lives of the plaintiffs.  So, it’s very difficult for me to do that.  Unless you’re in someone else’s shoes, you really can’t appreciate what they’re going through, so I don’t give advice.

What do you think about the state of eDiscovery today and where do you think that more attention could be paid to the discovery process?

While I don’t work in the industry day-to-day, I read a lot and keep up with the trends and it’s pretty incredible to me how it has changed over the past eight to nine years.  The first opinions in my case were in 2003 and 2004.  Back then, we had so little available with regard to technology and legal guidance.  When I attend a conference like LegalTech, I’m always amazed at the number of vendors and all the technology that’s now offered.  From that standpoint, how it has matured as an industry is a good thing.  However, I do believe that there are still important issues with regard to eDiscovery to be addressed.  When you read surveys and you see how many corporations still have yet to adopt certain aspects of the eDiscovery process, the fact that’s the case raises concern.  Some firms have not implemented litigation holds or document retention policies or an information governance structure to manage their information and you would think by now that a majority of corporations would have adopted something along those lines. 

I guess organizations still think discovery issues and sanctions won’t happen to them.  And, while I recognize the difficulty in a large organization with lots of employees to control everything and everybody, I’m surprised at the number of cases where sanctions occur.  I do read some of the case law and I do “scratch my head” from time to time.  So, I think there are still issues.

Obviously, the hot topic now is predictive coding.  My concern is that people perceive that as the “end all” and the ultimate answer to questions.  I think that processes like predictive coding will certainly help, but I think there’s still something to be said for the “human touch” when it comes to reviewing documents. I think that we’re making progress, but I think there is still more yet to go.

I read in an article that you were considering opening up an eDiscovery consulting practice.  Is that the case and, if so, what will be unique about your practice?

It’s something that I’m considering.  I’ve been working on the book, but I’d like to get back into more of a routine and perhaps focus on education for employees.  When people address eDiscovery issues, they look to implement technology and look to establish retention policies and procedures to implement holds, and that’s all good.  But, at the same time, I think there should be more efforts to educate the employees because they’re the ones who create the electronic documents.  Educate them as to the risks involved and procedures to follow to minimize those risks, such as litigation holds.  I think if you have an educated workforce and they understand that “less is more” when writing electronic documents, that they don’t always have to copy someone or forward something, that they can be more selective in their writing to reduce costs.

I think because of my background and my personal experiences and because I’m not an attorney, I can relate more to the typical worker.  I was on the trading desk and I know the day-to-day stresses of trying to manage email, trying to do the right thing, but also trying to be productive.  I think I can also relate to senior management and advise them that, although they may not recognize the risk, the risk is there.  And, that’s because I’ve been a worker, I’ve been on the trading desk, I’ve been through litigation, I’ve actually reviewed documents and I’ve gone to trial.  So, if you think that not implementing information governance or other eDiscovery policies is a good idea, that’s not the case.  Corporations should see this as an opportunity to manage information and use those management structures for the benefit of their company.

Thanks, Laura, 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.

eDiscovery Trends: Interview with Laura Zubulake of Zubulake’s e-Discovery
 

Last week, we discussed the new book by Laura A. Zubulake, the plaintiff in probably most famous eDiscovery case ever (Zubulake vs. UBS Warburg), entitled Zubulake's e-Discovery: The Untold Story of my Quest for Justice.  I also conducted an interview with Laura last week to get her perspective on the book, including her reasons for writing the book seven years after the case ended and what she expects readers to learn from her story.

The book is the story of the Zubulake case – which resulted in one of the largest jury awards in the US for a single plaintiff in an employment discrimination case – as told by the author, in her words.  As Zubulake notes in the Preface, the book “is written from the plaintiff’s perspective – my perspective. I am a businessperson, not an attorney. The version of events and opinions expressed are portrayed by me from facts and circumstances as I perceived them.”  It’s a “classic David versus Goliath story” describing her multi-year struggle against her former employer – a multi-national financial giant.  The book is available at Amazon and also at CreateSpace.

Our interview with Laura had so much good information in it, we couldn’t fit it all into a single post.  So, today is part 1.  Part 2 will be published in the blog tomorrow!

Why did you decide to write the book at this time, seven years after the case was decided?

Actually, I’ve been working on the book for several years and I think it got to the point where I decided either I publish or I don’t publish.  It’s been a work-in-progress for some time and took me longer than I would have expected or liked, but it finally came together.  I probably started it a couple of years after everything was finalized, so it has taken from that point until now to complete it and get it to the point where it is now that I was happy with the results.

What do you expect that those who are familiar with the Zubulake opinions to get out of the book?

Number one, I think it’s really important to note that it’s from the plaintiff’s perspective.  What I find is that most of what you read about in the industry and hear at eDiscovery and legal conferences discuss topics from a defense standpoint.  Most are either a consultant to a defendant or an attorney representing a defendant and I find that the plaintiff’s voice is rarely heard.  And, I felt that I saw things differently from not only the defendant but also my attorneys from time to time because it was my case, I was taking the risks and I had a lot at stake.  So, I think hearing from the plaintiff not just about going through the motions filed and oral arguments and all that but also about life at home and what it’s like dealing with the day-to-day stresses as a plaintiff in a case that lasts three years.  I wanted people to appreciate the difficulty of it. I’m sure most people would assume it’s difficult, but I’m not sure how much people understand about the isolation and how going through litigation can be a lonely place. I write about that in the book.

Number two, a lot has been written about the Zubulake opinions.  Most of it is accurate, but not all of it.  I thought some of the things that were not accurate should be clarified because they were important.  Like, for instance, the role that the adverse inference instruction apparently played to the jury.  I only learned about its role in the verdict during post trial discussions.  Whenever I mention that observation to people, they find that interesting.  I think there are events throughout the litigation that people might learn that what they read in the press is not necessarily 100% accurate.

Also, I think that eDiscovery is still an issue for a lot of medium sized corporations (and probably large corporations, as well).  I think hearing from someone who went through the process would be valuable to them, especially when you consider that I did so without the aid of legal guidelines because there were very few guidelines at the time as I mentioned and also very little technology available.  I had to do it from a very basic standpoint.  So, when you learn anything, it’s really good to learn it from the foundation, from the basics.  From that, you can apply technology and strategies that have been developed over the years.  So, I’m hoping that everybody who reads it will learn something from my experience.

What do you expect that those who are unfamiliar with, or don’t understand the significance of, the Zubulake opinions to get out of the book?

Well, it’s difficult to write a book. When I wrote my first book several years ago about convertible securities, that was what I did for a living and I knew them very well.  I lived this case, so, clearly, I knew it very well.  The problem you have as a writer is not assuming that the reader knows what you know.  So, I tried to write it as clearly as possible and some who are experts in eDiscovery may not find the book to be technical enough, but that was intentional as my goal was to try to appeal to as broad an audience as possible.  That’s always difficult, but that was my goal.  I hope readers learn about the significance of the opinions, learn about the changes in law, and appreciate the plaintiff's viewpoint.

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 Case Law: Counsel, The Inadvertent Disclosure "Buck" Stops With You
 

Here is yet another case of inadvertently disclosed privileged documents.  In Blythe v. Bell, 2012 NCBC 42, North Carolina Business Superior Court Judge James L. Gale denied a motion for an order compelling the return of privileged documents inadvertently disclosed by the defendants, ruling that privilege had been waived on those documents.

In this case, the defendants produced 3.5 million documents on two hard drives which were ultimately determined to contain approximately 1,700 potentially privileged documents (the documents were to or from the outside counsel’s domain, an easy criteria to identify potentially privileged documents).  The defendants contracted with an outside consultant (Computer Ants) to obtain, process, and search their eMails for responsive documents.  For their part, the plaintiffs questioned whether Computer Ants was sufficiently qualified as an expert in electronic discovery to reasonably justify Defendants’ reliance on it to protect against the production of privileged information.  Prior to establishing Computer Ants, the owner (Thomas Scott) had worked as a truck driver, a Bass Pro Shop Security Manager, a respiratory therapist, and a financial auditor for a retail seller.  He had “never provided any forensic computer services in the context of a lawsuit” nor had ever “been engaged as a computer expert or provided an opinion in any legal proceeding”.  Sounds as if the plaintiffs had a legitimate concern.

Judge Gale used a five-factor balancing test previously used in Morris v. Scenera Research, LLC, which considers: “(1) the reasonableness of the precautions taken to prevent inadvertent disclosure; (2) the number of inadvertent disclosures; (3) the extent of the disclosures; (4) any delay in measures taken to rectify the disclosures; and (5) the overriding interests of justice.”

Judge Gale noted that “One federal district court characterizes the need for advance efforts to protect against waiver as “’paramount.’”  However, the defendant produced “the hard drives prepared by Computer Ants without any review or sampling or other quality assurance effort to assess whether the consultant’s efforts had been successful in eliminating privileged communications. Defendants admit that they relied exclusively on ‘this contractor and this procedure’ to filter out documents potentially subject to the attorney-client privilege.”

Since “the multi-factor balancing test applied by the federal courts on this record is controlled by the first factor”, Judge Gale, while noting that the “court takes no pleasure in finding the waiver of attorney-client privilege”, nonetheless had no choice but to do so based on the first factor alone.

So, what do you think?  How do you evaluate your eDiscovery provider to ensure their qualifications?  What precautions do you take to prevent inadvertent disclosure?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Source: JD Supra, via Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard LLP

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.