Close
Enter your
text here

eDiscoveryDaily

Working Successfully with eDiscovery and Litigation Support Service Providers: Preventing Quality Problems
 

In the past few posts in this series, we’ve discussed ways to minimize the possibility of problems with costs and meeting deadlines.  There are also steps you can take to increase the likelihood of high quality work that will meet your expectations. 

It starts when you are evaluating and selecting a vendor.  Based on your review of a vendor’s qualifications, procedures and technology, along with feedback you’ve received from references, make sure you select a vendor that is likely to do high quality work and that has a good track record. 

Once a project is underway, look at the vendor’s work to ensure it meets your expectations.  This is especially important with work that is labor-intensive.  In fact, there are three levels of quality control that you should be doing:

  1. A review of initial work done by each staff member:  As staff members finish initial batches of work, look at it right away and verify that it is correct.  This way, mistakes made because someone misunderstood instructions can be cleared up very quickly, before a lot of work is done that will need to be re-done.
  2. Ongoing QC of work throughout the project:  Even if everyone on the staff knows how to do the work, that doesn’t mean they will do it right all the time.  Mistakes are inevitable and work should be spot-checked throughout a project to ensure that errors are kept to a minimum.  It’s a good idea to have project staff dedicated to doing on-going quality control reviews.
  3. Random sampling done by senior litigation team members:  In addition to routine quality control done by project staff members, its always a good idea to ask senior members of the litigation team to periodically look at a sampling of the work, to ensure that stakeholder expectations are in sync with the work of the project staff.

What steps do you take to ensure high quality work from a vendor with which you are working?  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: Preventing Unexpected Schedule Problems
 

Of all the problems you might have to report to an attorney, the worst may be that you are going to miss a production deadline.  Deadlines get missed because document or data collections are larger than expected, the task is more difficult than expected, sufficient technical resources aren’t allocated to the project, or the project simply isn’t staffed properly.  Good communication up front with a vendor, and good monitoring throughout a project can minimize the chance of missing deadlines. 

Here are some steps you can take to prevent deadline problems and keep a vendor on track with your schedule requirements:

  • During the vendor evaluation and selection process, get commitments from a vendor on scaling up to accommodate changes in volume.  Ask about their ability to add staff, technical resources, or second shifts to meet deadlines if things get off track.
  • Before signing a contract with a vendor, ask for a schedule that includes weekly estimates of completed work, and that includes expected staffing levels for labor-intensive work.
  • In addition, require that the vendor provide you with weekly status reports that include estimated weekly numbers, actual weekly numbers, estimated to-date numbers, actual to-date numbers, and variances.  This will enable you to see – each week – how the project is going and whether the schedule is slipping.  Carefully review status reports as they are received and speak to the vendor right away if things are getting off-track.  Be proactive in requesting additional resources if the project is getting off-schedule.
  • Require that the vendor notify you in writing – in advance – if a deadline will be missed.
  • When you communicate schedule information to a vendor, build in pad!  For example, give the vendor a deadline well in advance of a production date.
  • Stay in constant communication with the litigation team about discovery issues.  The more notice that you have about additional documents or data, the more notice you can give to the vendor.

What steps do you take to prevent schedule problems with vendor work?  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: Written Litigation Hold Notice Not Required

The Pension Committee case was one of the most important cases of 2010 (or any year, for that matter).  So, perhaps it’s not surprising that it is starting to become frequently cited by those looking for sanction for failure to issue a written litigation hold.

In Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Country Gourmet Foods, LLC, No. 08-CV-561S(F), (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2011), a U.S. District Court in the Western District of New York declined to follow the Pension Committee decision in the Southern District of New York to the extent that the Pension Committee decision held “that implementation of a written litigation hold notice is required in order to avoid an inference that relevant evidence has been presumptively destroyed by the party failing to implement such written litigation hold.”

Steuben Foods alleged that Country Gourmet breached its exclusive supply contract with Steuben when County Gourmet sold all its assets except the supply contract to Campbell Soup. Campbell sought sanctions against Steuben when several emails were not produced by Steuben and Steuben conceded that its litigation hold procedure had not included a written notice. Steuben’s corporate counsel had orally directed each of eight managers and corporate officers to identify all electronically stored information, including paper documents and email communications, pertaining to Country Gourmet or Campbell and not to discard or delete or otherwise destroy such documents pending the litigation.

Campbell pointed to the Pension Committee decision, Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities, LLC, 685 F. Supp. 2d 456, 476 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), “in which the court found that the absence of a written litigation hold notice supported its conclusion that plaintiffs had been grossly negligent in their obligations to preserve relevant electronically stored documents and that plaintiffs’ document production failures, coupled with the absence of a timely written litigation hold, permitted the inference that relevant documents were culpably destroyed or lost as a result.”

The court declined to infer from the absence of a written litigation hold, as the Pension Committee court did, that relevant documents were culpably destroyed or lost:

“Accordingly, the court in this case declines to hold that implementation of a written litigation hold notice is required in order to avoid an inference that relevant evidence has been presumptively destroyed by the party failing to implement such written litigation hold.”

The court noted that the relatively small size of Steuben with 400 employees “lends itself to a direct oral communication of the need to preserve documents relevant to Plaintiff’s case” and was a reason “why a written litigation hold is not essential to avoid potential sanctions for spoliation.” In any event, according to the court, Campbell was not prejudiced by any failure of Steuben to produce email because Country Gourmet provided copies of the email to Campbell and Campbell could show no prejudice resulting from any claimed negligence of Steuben in not having a written litigation hold.

So, what do you think?  Should a written litigation hold be required in every case?  Would that have made a difference in this one?  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 Best Practices: Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?
 

Does anybody really know what time it is?  Does anybody really care?

OK, it’s an old song by Chicago (back then, they were known as the Chicago Transit Authority).  But, the question of what time it really is has a significant effect on how eDiscovery is handled.

Time Zone: In many litigation cases, one of the issues that should be discussed and agreed upon is the time zone to apply to the produced files.  Why is it a big deal?  Let’s look at one example:

A multinational corporation has offices from coast to coast and potentially responsive emails are routinely sent between East Coast and West Coast offices.  If an email is sent from a party in the West Coast office at 10 PM on June 30, 2005 and is received by a party in the East Coast office at 1 AM on July 1, 2005, and the relevant date range is from July 1, 2005 thru December 31, 2006, then the choice of time zones will determine whether or not that email falls within the relevant date range.  The time zone is based on the workstation setting, so they could actually be in the same office when the email is sent (if someone is traveling).

Usually the choice is to either use a standard time zone for all files in the litigation – such as Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) or the time zone where the producing party is located – or to use the time zone associated with each custodian, which means that the time zone used will depend on where the data came from.  It’s important to determine the handling of time zones up front in cases where multiple time zones are involved to avoid potential disputes down the line.

Which Date to Use?: Each email and efile has one or more date and time stamps associated with it.  Emails have date/time sent, as well as date/time received.  Efiles have creation date/time, last modified date/time and even last printed date/time.  Efile creation dates do not necessarily reflect when a file was actually created; they indicate when a file came to exist on a particular storage medium, such as a hard drive. So, creation dates can reflect when a user or computer process created a file. However, they can also reflect the date and time that a file was copied to the storage medium – as a result, the creation date can be later than the last modified date.  It’s common to use date sent for Sent Items emails and date received for Inbox emails and to use last modified date for efiles.  But, there are exceptions, so again it’s important to agree up front as to which date to use.

So, what do you think?  Have you had any date disputes in your eDiscovery projects?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Best Practices: What Are the Skeletons in Your ESI Closet?
 

At eDiscoveryDaily, we try not to re-post articles or blog posts from other sources.  We may reference them, but we usually try to add some commentary or analysis to provide a unique spin on the topic.  However, I read a post Thursday on one of the better legal blogs out there – Ride the Lightning from Sharon Nelson – that was a guest post by Jim McGann, VP of Information Discovery at Index Engines that I thought was well done and good information for our readers.  Jim has been interviewed by eDiscoveryDaily here and here and always has terrific insight on ESI issues.  You can click here to read the post directly on Ride the Lightning or simply read below.

Law firms and corporations alike tend to keep data storage devices well beyond what their compliance requirements or business needs actually dictate.  These so-called “skeletons in the closet” pose a major problem when the entity gets sued or subpoenaed. All that dusty data is suddenly potentially discoverable. Legal counsel can be proactive and initiate responsible handling of this legacy data by defining a new, defensible information governance process.

  1. Understand all data sources. The first choice when faced with an ESI collection is to look at current online network data. However, many other sources of email and files exist on corporate networks, sources that may be more defensible and even cost effective to collect from, including offsite storage typically residing on backup tapes. Tape as a collection source has been overlooked because it was historically difficult and expensive to collect from legacy backup tapes.
  2. Get proactive with legal requirements. Defining what ESI data should be kept and placed on litigation hold and what can be purged are the first steps in a proactive strategy. These legal requirements will allow clients to put a policy in place to save specific content, certain custodians and intellectual property so that it is identifiable and ready for on demand discovery.
  3. Understand technology limitations. Only use tools that index all the content, and don’t change any of the metadata. Some older search solutions compromise the indexing process, and this may come to haunt you in the end.
  4. Become a policy expert. As new technology comes on the market, it tends to improve and strengthen the discovery process. Taking the time to understand technology trends allows you to stay one step ahead of the game and create a current defensible collection process and apply policy to it.

So, what do you think?  Do you have “skeletons” in your ESI closet?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Facebook Did Not Deduce That They Must Produce

In this case, United States Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd of the Northern District of California compelled Facebook to produce ESI that was previously produced in a converted, non-searchable format and further ordered Facebook not to use a third-party vendor’s online production software to merely “provide access” to it.  The court’s order granting the plaintiff’s Motion To Compel Production in In re Facebook PPC Advertising Litigation, 2011 WL 1324516 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 6, 2011) addressed the importance of ESI Protocols, the requirement to produce ESI in native formats, and production of documents versus providing access to them.  A copy of the order can be found here.

Several plaintiffs brought a class action against Facebook for breach of contract and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, suing Facebook for allegedly misrepresenting the quality of its “click filters,” which are filters used to prevent charging merchants when advertisements are inadvertently clicked.  When discovery disputes occurred, plaintiffs filed their Motion To Compel, alleging:

  1. Facebook refused to agree to an ESI Protocol to establish the manner and form of electronic production, including agreement on search words or phrases, custodians and time frames for production,
  2. Facebook uploaded its responses to discovery requests to a commercial website (Watchdox.com) in a manner that seriously limited the plaintiffs’ ability to review them.  Documents on Watchdox.com could not be printed and Facebook, citing confidentiality concerns, retained the ability to cause documents to expire and no longer be accessible after a period of time.
  3. The documents loaded to Watchdox.com, as well as others that were actually produced, were not in their native format, and thus were unsearchable and unusable.  One such document was an 18,000 page customer complaint database printed to PDF which lacked any searchable features.

With regard to the refusal to agree to an ESI protocol, Facebook argued that such a protocol would result in “forcing the parties to anticipate and address all potential issues on the form of electronic production” and “would likely have the result of frustrating and slowing down the discovery process.” The court rejected this argument, noting “The argument that an ESI Protocol cannot address every single issue that may arise is not an argument to have no ESI Protocol at all”.

In reviewing Facebook’s production protocol, the Court noted that “each of these steps make the discovery process less efficient without providing any real benefit.” and found that Facebook’s privacy concerns were unreasonable since a two tiered protective order already existed in the case as well as the fact that confidential documents could be marked as such to prevent inadvertent disclosures.  The Court held that Facebook’s use of Watchdox.com was unduly burdensome on the Plaintiffs and thus ordered Facebook to produce any documents that had been uploaded to Watchdox.com in their native searchable formats.  The Court also ordered Facebook to reproduce previously produced documents that were provided in an unsearchable format in their native searchable formats.

So, what do you think?  Is merely providing access to documents sufficient for production?  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: Preventing Unexpected Costs
 

Unfortunately, it’s just not possible to know up-front precisely what a litigation support or eDiscovery project will cost.  There are too many unknowns, and, therefore, too many opportunities for surprises regarding costs.  You can, however, avoid some of those surprises with good upfront communication with the vendor.

Here are some steps you can take to prevent surprises and control costs:

  • Make sure that you have a clear understanding of every unit price the vendor provides to you in an estimate.  Some tasks may be charged per-page, others per-document, others per gigabyte, and others on an hourly basis.  Make sure that you understand how the work is being charged and that you agree that the price model makes sense.
  • Require that the service provider prepare an estimate of total project costs in addition to providing unit pricing.  That estimate should be based on a reasonable estimate of the size of the collection and on assumptions about the project that you provide to the vendor.  Ask the vendor to include all incidental cost components in the estimate.  For example, it the vendor charges for project management, supplies and shipping, require that the estimate include these costs based on their experience with similar projects.
  • Before signing a contract, come to agreement on how any changes in the assumptions will affect the price.
  • Review a sample invoice and make sure that you understand its components.  You may need to verify the vendor’s invoices, so make sure that they provide an invoice you understand.  Changing the format of an invoice may not be easy for a vendor, so it’s probably not reasonable to ask them to do so.  You could, however, ask for a cover letter with each invoice explaining charges that may not be clear or evident .  It’s always better to ask for these types of “extras” before signing a contract with a vendor.
  • Find out what the vendor’s policy is on price changes or notification of such.

These are easy steps that don’t take much time.  This extra effort up-front, however, can avoid surprises and disagreements down the road.

What steps do you take to prevent cost problems with vendor work?  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: Monitoring Work and Preventing Problems
 

So many law firm litigation support folks that I know have an unpleasant war story or two about a project they did with a vendor.  I usually find these frustrating, because more often than not, the problems could have been avoided.  Taking a few preventative steps early on, and doing a good job of monitoring project activity can make all the difference.   In the next few posts in this series, we’re going to look at ways to make the projects you do with vendors run smoother.

First, let’s look at the potential problem areas.  There are three:

  • Unexpected project costs
  • Missed deadlines
  • Poor work quality

Very often, the problems in these areas result from poor communication between the litigation team and the service provider.  Sometimes, the problems stem from poor up-front communication, which results in a misunderstanding of requirements, priorities and expectations.  Other times, the problems arise because of poor communication during the project itself.

There are several steps you can take up-front to minimize the potential for problems.  These steps will foster a good understanding of expectations and requirements and build lines of communication into the process.  Constant communication with the service provider throughout the life of the project is likewise important.  If you are in frequent communication you are likely to catch problems before they get out of hand and before they turn into major headaches.

The next several blog posts will cover steps you can take to minimize the potential for problems with unexpected project costs, problems with meeting deadlines, and problems with sub-standard work quality.

What steps do you take to prevent problems with vendor work?  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: Checking for Malware is the First Step to eDiscovery Processing
 

A little over a month ago, I noted that we hadn’t missed a (business) day yet in publishing a post for the blog.  That streak almost came to an end last week.

As I often do in the early mornings before getting ready for work, I spent some time searching for articles to read and identifying potential blog topics and found a link on a site related to “New Federal Rules”.  Curious, I clicked on it and…up popped a pop-up window from our virus checking software (AVG Anti-Virus, or so I thought) that the site had found a file containing a “trojan horse” program.

The odd thing about the pop-up window is that there was no “Fix” button to fix the trojan horse.  There were only choices to “Ignore” the virus or “Move it to the Vault”.  So, I chose the best available option to move it to the vault.

Then, all hell broke loose.

I received error messages that my hard drive had corrupted, that my RAM was maxed – you name it.

Turns out the trojan horse has provided a “rogue” pop-up window, designed to look like AVG Anti-Virus, to dupe me into activating the program by clicking on a button.  If you studied the Trojan War in school, you know that’s why they call it a “trojan horse” – it fools you into letting it into your system.

While its common to refer to all types of malware as “viruses”, a computer virus is only one type of malware.  Malware includes computer viruses, worms, trojan horses, spyware, dishonest adware, scareware, crimeware, most rootkits, and other malicious and unwanted software or program.  A report from Symantec published in 2008 suggested that "the release rate of malicious code and other unwanted programs may be exceeding that of legitimate software applications”.

I’ve worked with a lot of clients who don’t understand why it can take time to get ESI processed and loaded into their review platform.  Depending on the types of files, several steps can be required to get the files ready to review, including “unarchiving” of container files, OCR (of image only files) and, of course, indexing of the files for searchability (among other possible steps).  But, the first step is to scan the files for viruses and other malware that may be infecting the files.  If malware is found in any files, the files have to be identified.  Then, those files will either be isolated and logged as exceptions or the virus software will attempt to remove the malware.  While it may seem logical that the malware should always be removed, doing so is technically altering the file, so counsel need to agree that malware removal is acceptable.  Either way, the malware needs to be addressed so that it doesn’t affect the entire collection.

As for me, as soon as the infection was evident, I turned my laptop off and turned it over to our support department at Trial Solutions.  By the end of the day, I had it back, good as new!  Thanks, Tony Cullather!

So, what do you think?  How do you handle malware in your collections?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Best Practices: 4 Steps to Effective eDiscovery With Software Analytics
 

I read an interesting article from Texas Lawyer via Law.com entitled “4 Steps to Effective E-Discovery With Software Analytics” that has some interesting takes on project management principles related to eDiscovery and I’ve interjected some of my thoughts into the analysis below.  A copy of the full article is located here.  The steps are as follows:

1. With the vendor, negotiate clear terms that serve the project's key objectives.  The article notes the important of tying each collection and review milestone (e.g., collecting and imaging data; filtering data by file type; removing duplicates; processing data for review in a specific review platform; processing data to allow for optical character recognition (OCR) searching; and converting data into a tag image file format (TIFF) for final production to opposing counsel) to contract terms with the vendor. 

The specific milestones will vary – for example, conversion to TIFF may not be necessary if the parties agree to a native production – so it’s important to know the size and complexity of the project, and choose only an experienced eDiscovery vendor who can handle the variations.

2. Collect and process data.  Forensically sound data collection and culling of obviously unresponsive files (such as system files) to drastically decrease the overall review costs are key services that a vendor provides in this area.  As we’ve noted many times on this blog, effective culling can save considerable review costs – each gigabyte (GB) culled can save $16-$18K in attorney review costs.

The article notes that a hidden cost is the OCR process of translating extracted text into a searchable form and that it’s an optimal negotiation point with the vendor.  This may have been true when most collections were paper based, but as most collections today are electronic based, the percentage of documents requiring OCR is considerably less than it used to be.  However, it is important to be prepared that there are some native files which will be “image only”, such as TIFFs and scanned PDFs – those will require OCR to be effectively searched.

3. Select a data and document review platform.  Factors such as ease of use, robustness, and reliability of analytic tools, support staff accessibility to fix software bugs quickly, monthly user and hosting fees, and software training and support fees should be considered when selecting a document review platform.

The article notes that a hidden cost is selecting a platform with which the firm’s litigation support staff has no experience as follow-up consultation with the vendor could be costly.  This can be true, though a good vendor training program and an intuitive interface can minimize or even eliminate this component.

The article also notes that to take advantage of the vendor’s more modern technology “[a] viable option is to use a vendor's review platform that fits the needs of the current data set and then transfer the data to the in-house system”.  I’m not sure why the need exists to transfer the data back – there are a number of vendors that provide a cost-effective solution appropriate for the duration of the case.

4. Designate clear areas of responsibility.  By doing so, you minimize or eliminate inefficiencies in the project and the article mentions the RACI matrix to determine who is responsible (individuals responsible for performing each task, such as review or litigation support), accountable (the attorney in charge of discovery), consulted (the lead attorney on the case), and informed (the client).

Managing these areas of responsibility effectively is probably the biggest key to project success and the article does a nice job of providing a handy reference model (the RACI matrix) for defining responsibility within the project.

So, what do you think?  Do you have any specific thoughts about this article?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.