Close
Enter your
text here

eDiscoveryDaily

Working Successfully with eDiscovery and Litigation Support Service Providers: Is Checking References Important?
 

Over the years, I’ve been asked many times to serve as a reference for vendors with which I’ve worked.  And, I’ve taken many reference-check phone calls.  More often than not, those calls were less efficient and productive than they could have been — because they weren’t planned and good questions were not asked.   In the next blogs in this series I’ll make some suggestions for doing an effective reference check.

First, recognize that checking references is very important.  Yes, it is almost certain that a vendor will direct you to clients that are satisfied, so you know — to an extent — what to expect.  You need to speak with them anyway.  There are a few reasons for this:

  • The clients provided to you as references might have had different priorities than you do.  They may be satisfied because the vendor performed well in an area that was most important to them.  That same client, however, may be able to shed light on “minor problems” that in your case could be “major problems”.  Of course, this assumes that you ask the right questions.
  • The clients provided as references may be inexperienced in eDiscovery and litigation support, and therefore not a good judge of the vendor’s work.  Clients like this may be satisfied because they had a good relationship with the vendor staff and nothing blew up in their faces.  That doesn’t necessarily mean that the work was done well or cost-efficiently.  When you speak with references, you can get a feel for their level of experience and knowledge, and be able to determine, therefore, whether their good experience with the vendor is truly indicative of high-quality and cost-effective work.
  • The clients provided as references may not have worked with the vendor on a case that was similar in scope to yours, or they not have had requirements similar to yours.  This too, can be discerned with the right questions.

In the next posts in this blog series, I’ll suggest an approach to checking references and give you examples of questions that can uncover the information you need when doing a reference check.

Do you get valuable information when you check references?  Please share any comments you might have and let us know if you’d like to know more about an eDiscovery topic.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Your ESI Collection May Be Larger Than You Think
 

Here’s a sample scenario: You identify custodians relevant to the case and collect files from each.  Roughly 100 gigabytes (GB) of Microsoft Outlook email PST files and loose “efiles” is collected in total from the custodians.  You identify a vendor to process the files to load into a review tool, so that you can perform first pass review and, eventually, linear review and produce the files to opposing counsel.  After processing, the vendor sends you a bill – and they’ve charged you to process over 200 GB!!  What happened?!?

Did the vendor accidentally “double-bill” you?  That would be great – but no.  There’s a much more logical explanation and, unfortunately, you may wind up paying a lot more to process these files that you expected.

Many of the files in most ESI collections are stored in what are known as “archive” or “container” files.  For example, as noted above, Outlook emails are typically saved for each custodian in a personal storage (.PST) file format, which is an expanding container file. For most custodians, all of their email (and the corresponding attachments, if present) resides in a few PST files.  The scanned size for the PST file is the size of the file on disk.

Did you ever see one of those vacuum bags that you store clothes in and then suck all the air out so that the clothes won’t take as much space?  The PST file is like one of those vacuum bags – it typically stores the emails and attachments in a compressed format to save space.  When the emails and attachments are processed into a review tool, they are expanded into their normal size.  This expanded size can be 1.5 to 2 times larger than the scanned size (or more).  And, that’s what many vendors will bill on – the expanded size.

There are other types of archive container files that compress the contents – .zip and .rar files are two examples of compressed container files.  These files are often used to not only to compress files for storage on hard drives, but they are also used to compact or group a set of files when transmitting them, usually in – you guessed it – email.  With email comprising a majority of most ESI collections and the popularity of other archive container files for compressing file collections, the expanded size of your collection may be considerably larger than it appears when stored on disk.  It’s important to be prepared for that and know your options when processing that data, so you can effectively anticipate those processing costs.

So, what do you think?  Have you ever been surprised by processing costs of your ESI?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Jurors and Social Media Don’t Mix

Discovery of social media is continuing to increase as a significant issue for organizations to address, with more and more cases addressing the topic, including this one and this one that have reached various conclusions regarding the discoverability of social media.  However, when it comes to social media, courts agree on one thing: jurors and social media don’t mix.  Courts have consistently rejected attempts by jurors to use social technology to research or to communicate about a case, and have increasingly provided pre-trial and post-closing jury instructions to jurors to dissuade them from engaging in this practice.

A recent example of juror misconduct related to social media is this case, where one of the jurors actually attempted to “Friend” one of the defendants on Facebook.  With so much information at our disposal these days and so many ways to communicate, some jurors can be easily tempted to ignore court instructions and behave badly.

At its December 2009 meeting, the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management (CACM) endorsed a set of suggested jury instructions for district judges to consider using to help deter jurors from using electronic technologies to research or communicate about cases on which they serve.  These proposed instructions were published in thisMemorandum in late January.  These instructions were designed to prevent jurors from two activities:

  1. Independently researching a case, including through the internet or other electronic means,
  2. Communicating about the case, including by electronic means such as email or social media sites such as Facebook.

Several states, such as California and New York, have crafted and adopted their own instructions to regulate the use of social media and other electronic means to research a case.  It seems like a “no-brainer” that every state will eventually be forced to promote or adopt such instructions.  Of course, it also seems like a “no-brainer” for jurors to refrain from such activities anyway, but I guess this is the world we live in today, right?

So, what do you think?  Does your state have standard jury instructions prohibiting social media use?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Working Successfully with eDiscovery and Litigation Support Service Providers: Dotting the I’s and Crossing the T’s
 

Yesterday, we talked about information to include in a Request for Proposal (RFP) to request eDiscovery and litigation support services.  Before moving forward with a service provider for a project, there are a few due diligence steps you should take to protect yourself and your case-sensitive information.

First, it may be appropriate to ask the service provider to verify that it does not have a conflict of interest.  For many eDiscovery services, this step may not be necessary.  If, however, you are asking a service provider to assist with substantive consultative help, you want to ensure that – at a minimum – it is not providing similar services to the other side in the litigation.

Once you’ve established that there is no conflict, you want to protect case information that you provide to the vendor – information in the form of communication and information in the documents and data.  Require that the vendor sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) before communicating or transmitting sensitive and confidential information.

And finally, you and the vendor should both sign off on a Service Level Agreement (SLA) that clearly defines the work to which you’ve agreed.  A Service Level Agreement should include — at a minimum:

  • A complete description of each service to be performed
  • A complete description of each deliverable
  • A description of agreed upon performance levels (guarantees and warranties provided by the service provider; this may be in the form of quality assurance guarantees, system availability and downtime, and so on).

In addition, a service level agreement might include the following information

  • Pricing for services
  • Billing information
  • Contact information

One other important “due diligence” step is checking references.  We’ll cover that in the next posts in this series.  I’ll give you some suggestions for doing an effective reference check that will get at the information you need to know.

What due diligence steps do you take with a service provider?  Please share any comments you might have and let us know if you’d like to know more about an eDiscovery topic.

Working Successfully with eDiscovery and Litigation Support Service Providers: Information to Provide in an RFP
 

Open, two-way communication with a service provider is absolutely critical to a successful project.  It needs to start early, even before a project starts.  For many projects, it starts with the Request for Proposal (RFP).  Your goal with an RFP is to get good information from a vendor: information on pricing, information on schedule, information on approach, and information on deliverables.  To give you complete, accurate information, they need information from you.

Include this information in your RFPs:

  • Information about your Firm/Organization (location, key contacts)
  • Information about the Case (the party you represent, the case schedule)
  • Information about the Proposal Submission Process (contact information for the person who can answer questions about the RFP; contact information for those to whom the proposal should be submitted; the date the proposal is due; in what form the proposal should be delivered; any requirements you have regarding the format of the proposal)
  • Description of the Services you will Require
  • Information about the Scope of the Project  (the size of a document/data collection, types and characteristics of the documents/data)
  • Information on the Deliverable to the Vendor (when documents/data will be available to the vendor; in what form they will be delivered)
  • Description of the Deliverables you Require (formats, media, data elements, etc.)
  • Date by which the Project must be Completed (and include interim milestone dates if that’s appropriate)
  • Description of your Planned Participation in the Project (will you participate in training?  will you be onsite for any portion of the project?)
  • Description of your Preferred Method of Communication with the Service Provider
  • Description of your Requirements regarding Status Reports (how often do you require them? what information should be included?  to whom should they be submitted?)

Later in this blog series, we’ll discuss what questions you should ask in a proposal for several types of eDiscovery services.

What information do you provide to a service provider in an RFP?  Please share any comments you might have and let us know if you’d like to know more about an eDiscovery topic.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Testing Your Search Using Sampling

Friday, we talked about how to determine an appropriate sample size to test your search results as well as the items NOT retrieved by the search, using a site that provides a sample size calculator.  Yesterday, we talked about how to make sure the sample size is randomly selected.

Today, we’ll walk through an example of how you can test and refine a search using sampling.

TEST #1: Let’s say in an oil company we’re looking for documents related to oil rights.  To try to be as inclusive as possible, we will search for “oil” AND “rights”.  Here is the result:

  • Files retrieved with “oil” AND “rights”: 200,000
  • Files NOT retrieved with “oil” AND “rights”: 1,000,000

Using the site to determine an appropriate sample size that we identified before, we determine a sample size of 662 for the retrieved files and 664 for the non-retrieved files to achieve a 99% confidence level with a margin of error of 5%.  We then use this site to generate random numbers and then proceed to review each item in the retrieved and NOT retrieved items sets to determine responsiveness to the case.  Here are the results:

  • Retrieved Items: 662 reviewed, 24 responsive, 3.6% responsive rate.
  • NOT Retrieved Items: 664 reviewed, 661 non-responsive, 99.5% non-responsive rate.

Nearly every item in the NOT retrieved category was non-responsive, which is good.  But, only 3.6% of the retrieved items were responsive, which means our search was WAY over-inclusive.  At that rate, 192,800 out of 200,000 files retrieved will be NOT responsive and will be a waste of time and resource to review.  Why?  Because, as we determined during the review, almost every published and copyrighted document in our oil company has the phrase “All Rights Reserved” in the document and will be retrieved.

TEST #2: Let’s try again.  This time, we’ll conduct a phrase search for “oil rights” (which requires those words as an exact phrase).  Here is the result:

  • Files retrieved with “oil rights”: 1,500
  • Files NOT retrieved with “oil rights”: 1,198,500

This time, we determine a sample size of 461 for the retrieved files and (again) 664 for the NOT retrieved files to achieve a 99% confidence level with a margin of error of 5%.  Even though, we still have a sample size of 664 for the NOT retrieved files, we generate a new list of random numbers to review those items, as well as the 461 randomly selected retrieved items.  Here are the results:

  • Retrieved Items: 461 reviewed, 435 responsive, 94.4% responsive rate.
  • NOT Retrieved Items: 664 reviewed, 523 non-responsive, 78.8% non-responsive rate.

Nearly every item in the retrieved category was responsive, which is good.  But, only 78.8% of the NOT retrieved items were responsive, which means over 20% of the NOT retrieved items were actually responsive to the case (we also failed to retrieve 8 of the items identified as responsive in the first iteration).  So, now what?

TEST #3: If you saw this previous post, you know that proximity searching is a good alternative for finding hits that are close to each other without requiring the exact phrase.  So, this time, we’ll conduct a proximity search for “oil within 5 words of rights”.  Here is the result:

  • Files retrieved with “oil within 5 words of rights”: 5,700
  • Files NOT retrieved with “oil within 5 words of rights”: 1,194,300

This time, we determine a sample size of 595 for the retrieved files and (once again) 664 for the NOT retrieved files, generating a new list of random numbers for both sets of items.  Here are the results:

  • Retrieved Items: 595 reviewed, 542 responsive, 91.1% responsive rate.
  • NOT Retrieved Items: 664 reviewed, 655 non-responsive, 98.6% non-responsive rate.

Over 90% of the items in the retrieved category were responsive AND nearly every item in the NOT retrieved category was non-responsive, which is GREAT.  Also, all but one of the items previously identified as responsive was retrieved.  So, this is a search that appears to maximize recall and precision.

Had we proceeded with the original search, we would have reviewed 200,000 files – 192,800 of which would have been NOT responsive to the case.  By testing and refining, we only had to review 8,815 files –  3,710 sample files reviewed plus the remaining retrieved items from the third search (5,700 – 595 = 5,105) – most of which ARE responsive to the case.  We saved tens of thousands in review costs while still retrieving most of the responsive files, using a defensible approach.

Keep in mind that this is a simple example — we’re not taking into account misspellings and other variations we may want to include in our criteria.

So, what do you think?  Do you use sampling to test your search results?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Best Practices: A “Random” Idea on Search Sampling
 

Friday, we talked about how to determine an appropriate sample size to test your search results as well as the items NOT retrieved by the search, using a site that provides a sample size calculator.  Today, we’ll talk about how to make sure the sample size is randomly selected.

A randomly selected sample gives each file an equal chance of being reviewed and eliminates the chance of bias being introduced into the sample which might skew the results.  Merely selecting the first or last x number of items (or any other group) in the set may not reflect the population as a whole – for example, all of those items could come from a single custodian.  To ensure a fair, defensible sample, it needs to be selected randomly.

So, how do you select the numbers randomly?  Once again, the Internet helps us out here.

One site, Random.org, has a random integer generator which will randomly generate whole numbers.  You simply need to supply the number of random integers that you need to be generated, the starting number and ending number of the range within which the randomly generated numbers should fall.  The site will then generate a list of numbers that you can copy and paste into a text file or even a spreadsheet.  The site also provides an Advanced mode, which provides options for the numbers (e.g., decimal, hexadecimal), output format and how the randomization is ‘seeded’ (to generate the numbers).

In the example from Friday, you would provide 660 as the number of random integers to be generated, with a starting number of 1 and an ending number of 100,000 to get a list of random numbers for testing your search that yielded 100,000 files with hits (664, 1 and 1,000,000 respectively to get a list of numbers to test the non-hits).  You could paste the numbers into a spreadsheet, sort them and then retrieve the files by position in the result set based on the random numbers retrieved and review each of them to determine whether they reflect the intent of the search.  You’ll then have a good sense of how effective your search was, based on the random sample.  And, probably more importantly, using that random sample to test your search results will be a highly defensible method to verify your approach in court.

Tomorrow, we'll walk through a sample iteration to show how the sampling will ultimately help us refine our search.

So, what do you think?  Do you use sampling to test your search results?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Determining Appropriate Sample Size to Test Your Search
 

We’ve talked about searching best practices quite a bit on this blog.  One part of searching best practices (as part of the “STARR” approach I described in an earlier post) is to test your search results (both the result set and the files not retrieved) to determine whether the search you performed is effective at maximizing both precision and recall to the extent possible, so that you retrieve as many responsive files as possible without having to review too many non-responsive files.  One question I often get is: how many files do you need to review to test the search?

If you remember from statistics class in high school or college, statistical sampling is choosing a percentage of the results population at random for inspection to gather information about the population as a whole.  This saves considerable time, effort and cost over reviewing every item in the results population and enables you to obtain a “confidence level” that the characteristics of the population reflect your sample.  Statistical sampling is a method used for everything from exit polls to predict elections to marketing surveys to poll customers on brand popularity and is a generally accepted method of drawing conclusions for an overall results population.  You can sample a small portion of a large set to obtain a 95% or 99% confidence level in your findings (with a margin of error, of course).

So, does that mean you have to find your old statistics book and dust off your calculator or (gasp!) slide rule?  Thankfully, no.

There are several sites that provide sample size calculators to help you determine an appropriate sample size, including this one.  You’ll simply need to identify a desired confidence level (typically 95% to 99%), an acceptable margin of error (typically 5% or less) and the population size.

So, if you perform a search that retrieves 100,000 files and you want a sample size that provides a 99% confidence level with a margin of error of 5%, you’ll need to review 660 of the retrieved files to achieve that level of confidence in your sample (only 383 files if a 95% confidence level will do).  If 1,000,000 files were not retrieved, you would only need to review 664 of the not retrieved files to achieve that same level of confidence (99%, with a 5% margin of error) in your sample.  As you can see, the sample size doesn’t need to increase much when the population gets really large and you can review a relatively small subset to understand your collection and defend your search methodology to the court.

On Monday, we will talk about how to randomly select the files to review for your sample.  Same bat time, same bat channel!

So, what do you think?  Do you use sampling to test your search results?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Working Successfully with eDiscovery and Litigation Support Service Providers: The Evaluation Process
 

Sometimes selecting a service provider for a project will be a quick, easy process.  You may have a small project — similar to others you’ve handled — that you need to get up and running quickly.   If you have a list of good vendors with which you’ve worked, it may be as easy as a phone call or two to check availability and you’ll be all set.  In other cases, your selection process may be more involved.  Perhaps you are looking to build a preferred vendor program or you’ve got a large case involving many stakeholders who are looking for a thorough evaluation.  When a thorough evaluation is needed, here’s a suggested approach:

  1. Make a list of candidates:  Include vendors that have done a good job for you in the past.   Ask peers in the industry for suggestions.  In some cases, stakeholders may ask you to consider vendors with which they have a relationship.
  2. Make initial calls:  Call each vendor to get general information, to ensure they don’t have a conflict of interest, and to gauge their availability and interest in the project.  Revise the list if necessary.
  3. Send out Request for Proposal (RFP) / Request for Information (RFI):  In the next posts in this series, we’ll talk about these documents, so stay tuned.
  4. Review the responses.  Check the responses for completeness.  If there are holes, you can request missing information, or you might consider scratching a vendor from the list if there was blatant disregard for the requirements. 
  5. Follow-up:  You’ll probably have questions about every proposal, and you’ll want to clarify some points with each vendor.  And, there may be some points you’ll want to negotiate.  Even if a proposal is clear and doesn’t require an explanation, it’s useful to verify your understanding of approach and pricing.
  6. Rank each vendor:  List each evaluation point by importance, and rank each vendor for each point.  While this is an important step and a valuable tool, don’t let it replace good judgment.  Sometimes your instincts may tell you something different than the rankings do, and that should not be ignored!
  7. Check references for the vendors of most interest.  Later in this series, we’ll talk about effectively checking references.
  8. Make your selection (or your recommendation to the stakeholders).
  9. Notify the vendor you’ve selected and agree to a contract.
  10. Contact the other vendors and tell them they were not selected.

What has been your experience with evaluating and selecting service providers?  Please share any comments you might have and let us know if you’d like to know more about an eDiscovery topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Destroy Data, Pay $1 Million, Lose Case

A federal judge in Chicago has levied sanctions against Rosenthal Collins Group LLC and granted a default judgment to the defendant for misconduct in a patent infringement case, also ordering the Chicago-based futures broker’s counsel to pay “the costs and attorneys fees incurred in litigating this motion” where plaintiff’s agent modified metadata related to relevant source code and wiped several relevant disks and devices prior to their production and where the court found counsel participated in “presenting misleading, false information, materially altered evidence and willful non-compliance with the Court’s orders.”

In Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC v. Trading Techs. Int’l, No. 05 C 4088, 2011 WL 722467 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 23, 2011), U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman assessed a sanction of $1 million to Rosenthal Collins (RCG) and granted defendant/counter-plaintiff Trading Technologies’ (TT) motion for evidentiary sanctions and default judgment.  Much of the reason was due to the actions of RCG’s agent, Walter Buist.  Here’s why:

  • During Buist’s deposition, he admitted to “turning back the clock” to change the “last modified” date on the previously modified source code to make it appear that the modifications had occurred much earlier.  Despite clear evidence of these facts, RCG continued to deny them, even calling the claims “libelous,” “audacious,” and “Oliver Stone-esque.”
  • Buist also later admitted “wiping” six of seven zip disks that originally contained the relevant source code.  While he did not admit wiping the seventh disk, it was also wiped, and the Court found that it was “impossible to believe that it is merely coincidence that the seventh disk happened to be wiped on May 2, 2006, which just happened to be the same day that TT was scheduled to inspect it.”
  • The Court found that here was evidence that “virtually every piece of media ordered produced by the Court in May 2007 and July 2008 was wiped, altered, or destroyed.”
  • Despite RCG’s (and its counsel’s) attempts to distance itself from “its own agent, employed for the purposes of pursuing this litigation” and disavowing any “actual knowledge” of wrongdoing, Buist was RCG’s agent and, therefore, RCG was bound by Buist’s behavior and actions.
  • Even if RCG and its counsel had no knowledge of the destruction of the evidence, the destruction might have been avoided if RCG had complied with the Court’s orders in a timely manner to produce the materials and/or preserved the evidence by taking custody of it.

So, what do you think?  Should parties and their counsel be liable for the actions of an agent on their behalf?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.