Close
Enter your
text here

eDiscoveryDaily

eDiscovery Case Law: Spoliate Evidence, Don’t Go to Jail, but Pay a Million Dollars
 

As previously referenced in eDiscovery Daily, defendant Mark Pappas, President of Creative Pipe, Inc., was ordered by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm to  “be imprisoned for a period not to exceed two years, unless and until he pays to Plaintiff the attorney's fees and costs that will be awarded to Plaintiff as the prevailing party pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C).”.  Judge Grimm found that “Defendants…deleted, destroyed, and otherwise failed to preserve evidence; and repeatedly misrepresented the completeness of their discovery production to opposing counsel and the Court.”

However, ruling on the defendants’ appeal, District Court Judge Marvin J. Garbis declined to adopt the order regarding incarceration, stating: “[T]he court does not find it appropriate to Order Defendant Pappas incarcerated for future possible failure to comply with his obligation to make payment of an amount to be determined in the course of further proceedings.”

So, how much is he ordered to pay?  Now we know.

On January 24, 2011, Judge Grimm entered an order awarding a total of $1,049,850.04 in “attorney’s fees and costs associated with all discovery that would not have been un[der]taken but for Defendants' spoliation, as well as the briefings and hearings regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions.”  Judge Grimm explained, “the willful loss or destruction of relevant evidence taints the entire discovery and motions practice.” So, the court found that “Defendants’ first spoliation efforts corresponded with the beginning of litigation” and that “Defendants’ misconduct affected the entire discovery process since the commencement of this case.”

As a result, the court awarded $901,553.00 in attorney’s fees and $148,297.04 in costs.  Those costs included $95,969.04 for the Plaintiff’s computer forensic consultant that was “initially hired . . . to address the early evidence of spoliation by Defendants and to prevent further destruction of data”.  The Plaintiff’s forensic consultant also provided processing services and participated in the preparation of plaintiff’s search and collection protocol, which the court found “pertained to Defendants’ spoliation efforts.”

So, what do you think?  Will the defendant pay?  Or will he be subject to possible jail time yet again?  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: Introduction
 

If you work in a law firm or a corporate legal department, there will be times when you turn to a service provider to help with handling discovery materials – regardless of the technology and staff resources that you have.  You might look to a service provider to handle work that your department doesn’t do.  Or maybe your own resources are tied up and you just need more capacity.  

Very often, service providers become key members of the litigation team, and critical to the team’s success.  There is, however, a lot that can go wrong – just with the slightest miscommunication.  It is, therefore, important that you have an effective plan in place for engaging service providers when you need help, for working effectively with service provider project staff, and for seamlessly incorporating the work product into the case workflow. 

There are dozens – if not hundreds – of service providers to choose from for any given task on any given case.  Where do you start?  How do you find the one that’s right for your case?  How do you communicate effectively with that service provider?  How do you ensure high quality work, that’s delivered on time and within budget?  We’ll be answering all of these questions in this blog series.  We’re going to cover:

  • Evaluating and Selecting a Service Provider
  • Preventing Problems and Monitoring Work
  • Establishing and Managing a Preferred Service Provider Program in Your Firm
  • Types of Service Providers and Questions to Ask Each Type

In the next post in this series, we’ll start with what you should be looking for when you select a service provider.

What has been your experience with service provider work?  Do you have good or bad experiences you can tell us about?  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: No Sanctions for Scrubbing Computers Assumed to be Imaged
 

When scrubbing data from a computer drive related to litigation, it’s a good idea to make absolutely sure that there is another copy of that data, via backup or forensic image.  Don’t just take someone’s word for it.

In Federal Trade Commission v. First Universal Lending, LLC, No. 09-82322-CIV, (S.D. Fla. Feb. 17, 2011), the FTC investigated the defendants for their mortgage modification practices by alleging that defendants had violated the Federal Trade Commission Act and that defendants had acted in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule. For the duration of the investigation, the court appointed a temporary receiver who took control of defendants’ business premises.

During the discovery stage, the FTC wanted to preserve relevant data that was on defendants’ computers and servers by imaging them. When defendants’ were ask about the locations of all relevant computers and servers, they failed to reveal the location of servers with relevant data. As a result, these servers were not imaged and thus the data was not preserved. Due to misleading testimony by defendants, the receiver believed that all computers and servers had been imaged. Because of the incorrect belief that all of the relevant data had been preserved, the receiver permitted defendants to scrub the computers and sell them. It turned out that some of these were the ones that had not been imaged.

Defendants filed a motion to enjoin the prosecution and/or moved for dismissal of the case due to plaintiff’s spoliation of evidence. Defendants asserted that the FTC had either destroyed or caused to be destroyed computer evidence that would prove all of the defendants’ defenses.

The court found no basis for imposing sanctions against the FTC for the destruction of defendants’ computer system and denied defendants’ motion. The court established that it can impose an adverse inference against a party where the court finds that the party has engaged in spoliation of evidence. For this inference to be applicable there has to be a finding of bad faith. A court can make this finding through direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. If bad faith is based on circumstantial evidence, the following prerequisites must be present: (1) evidence once existed that could fairly be supposed to have been material to the proof or defense of a claim at issue in the case; (2) the spoliating party engaged in an affirmative act causing the evidence to be lost; (3) the spoliating party did so while it knew or should have known of its duty to preserve the evidence; and (4) the affirmative act causing the loss cannot be credibly explained as not involving bad faith by the reason proffered by the spoliator.

The court found that there was no direct evidence of bad faith. Further it pointed out that defendants failed to establish bad faith by circumstantial evidence, since the FTC had not destroyed the computer systems, but rather, the defendants did. The court went on to state, that even assuming, arguendo, that defendants destroyed the hard drives due to the receiver’s agent’s instruction, it did not change the fact that neither the receiver, nor the agent is the FTC.

Furthermore, the court went on that to the extent that defendants’ position could be construed to seek to attribute blame to the FTC for the receiver’s instruction to scrub the computers based on the FTCs misstatement, there was no malicious motive on the FTC’s investigator evident. This was at most negligent, and negligence is not sufficient for an adverse inference instruction as a sanction for spoliation.

Further, the defendants did not demonstrate that the absence of the missing data was fatal to their defense because it was established that alternative sources of information existed.

At last, the court emphasized that the FTC was under no obligation to preserve defendants’ evidence, especially considering the fact that the FTC never had control or dominion over the computers – the receiver did.

So, what do you think?  What are your procedures for ensuring data backup before destruction?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: eLessons Learned Blog.

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: No Bates, No Problem for Native Files

As today’s document collections are almost entirely electronic in a format used by the native application (i.e., “native files”), it has become more commonplace to produce those original native files to opposing counsel in eDiscovery.  Producing the native files saves costs in converting the files to be produced to an image format (either TIFF or PDF) before production.  And, for the recipients of a production, receiving native files enables them to also receive the metadata associated with those files (as it is contained within the files themselves).  If you don’t understand the benefits of receiving the underlying metadata, try reviewing an image of an Excel spreadsheet and see if you can understand how the numbers were calculated without the underlying formulas.  Not so easy, is it?

However, it seems to “upset the legal apple cart” when attorneys have to contemplate applying Bates numbers to native files.  Because many native file types are not stored in a typical paginated, document-oriented format, it is difficult to impossible to determine the number of pages for each file.  Because attorneys are so used to having a Bates stamp on each page of a document, many are still known to produce (and request production) in an image format, adding costs unnecessarily.  That would be like printing out every email in your Inbox before reading them.

It has become commonplace for parties to agree (and courts to accept) a file-level “Bates” or Unique Production Identifier (UPI) where each file is named with a prefix and a sequential number (just like a Bates number, only they’re not stamped in the file, but used as the file name).  These productions are usually accompanied by a data file, containing metadata for loading into a review tool, which includes the original file name and path of each file being produced.  This form of production has become common for any size of case.

If there’s a concern about referencing individual page numbers at deposition or trial, any files used as exhibits can still be converted to image (or printed) and a number applied.  You could simply use the UPI as the prefix, followed by a sequential number, so page 3 of the 11th file in the production could be stamped like this: PROD000011-00003.  This enables you to uniquely identify each native file, and still correlate the native file with pages when printed.

Of course, when you have to redact files, it’s still more common to convert those files to image and apply the redactions to the images, as redaction of native files (though performed in some cases) has not yet become a widespread practice.  One miracle at a time!

So, what do you think?  Are your productions routinely in native format?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Facebook’s Self-Collection Mechanism

One of the most enlightening revelations resulting from my interview with Craig Ball at LegalTech (published last Friday) was regarding a feature that he mentioned which Facebook added late last year that allows any user to download their information.  I thought it was such a significant bit of information that a post dedicated to the feature (in addition to the coverage in the interview) was warranted.

This feature is available via the Account Settings menu and enables users to collect their wall posts, friends lists, photos, videos, messaging, and any other personal content, save it into a Zip file and download the Zip file.  Craig also wrote about the feature in Law Technology News last month – that article is located here.

When you initiate the download, especially if you’re an active Facebook user, it may take Facebook a while to gather all information (several minutes or more, mine took about an hour).  Eventually, you’ll get an email to let you know that your information is packaged and ready for download.  Once you verify your identify by providing your password and click “Download Now”, you’ll get a Zip file containing a snapshot of your Facebook environment in a collection of HTML files with your Wall, Profile and other pages and copies of any content files (e.g., photos, videos, etc.) that you had uploaded.

Think about the significance of this for a moment.  Now, 500 million users of the most popular social network on the planet (which includes not just individuals, but organizations as well) have a mechanism to “self-collect” their data for their own use and safekeeping.  Or, they can “self-collect” for use in litigation.  In his article, Craig likens Facebook’s download function to Staples’ famous easy button.  How can an attorney argue an overly burdensome collection when you simply have to click a button?

With a social network behemoth like Facebook now offering this feature, will other social network and cloud solution providers soon follow?  Let’s hope so.  As Craig notes in his article, “maybe the cloud isn’t the eDiscovery headache some think”.  Spread the word!

So, what do you think?  Have you been involved in a case that could have benefited from a cloud-based self-collection tool?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Craig Ball of Craig D. Ball, P.C.
 

This is the ninth (and final) of the LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and asked each of them the same three questions:

  1. What do you consider to be the current significant trends in eDiscovery on which people in the industry are, or should be, focused?
  2. Which of those trends are evident here at LTNY, which are not being talked about enough, and/or what are your general observations about LTNY this year?
  3. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Craig Ball.  Craig is a prolific contributor to continuing legal and professional education programs throughout the United States, having delivered over 600 presentations and papers.  Craig’s articles on forensic technology and electronic discovery frequently appear in the national media, including in American Bar Association, ATLA and American Lawyer Media print and online publications.  He also writes a monthly column on computer forensics and e-discovery for Law Technology News called "Ball in your Court," honored as both the 2007 and 2008 Gold Medal honoree as “Best Regular Column” as awarded by Trade Association Business Publications International.  It’s also the 2009 Gold and 2007 Silver Medalist honoree of the American Society of Business Publication Editors as “Best Contributed Column” and their 2006 Silver Medalist honoree as “Best Feature Series” and “Best Contributed Column.””  The presentation, "PowerPersuasion: Craig Ball on PowerPoint," is consistently among the top rated continuing legal educational programs from coast-to-coast.

What do you consider to be the current significant trends in eDiscovery on which people in the industry are, or should be, focused?

Price compression is a major trend.  Consumers are very slowly waking up to the fact that they have been the “drunken sailors on leave” in terms of how they have approached eDiscovery and there have been many “vendors of the night” ready to roll them for their paychecks.  eDiscovery has been more like a third world market where vendors have said “let’s ask for some crazy number” and perhaps they’ll be foolish enough to pay it.  And, if they don’t pay that one, let’s hit them with a little lower number, mention sanctions, give them a copy of something from Judge Scheindlin or Judge Grimm and then try again.  Until finally, they are so dissolved in a pool of their own urine that they’re willing to pay an outrageous price.  Those days are coming to an end and smart vendors are going to be prepare to be able to demonstrate the value and complexity behind their offerings.

I am seeing people recognizing that the “gravy train” is over except for the most egregious challenging eDiscovery situations where numbers really have little meaning.  When you’re talking about tens of thousands of employees and petabytes of data, the numbers can get astronomical.  But, for the usual case, with a more manageable number of custodians and issues, people are waking up to the fact that we can’t keep reinventing this wheel of great expense, so clients are pushing for more rational approaches and a few forward thinking vendors are starting to put forward some products will allow you to quantify what your exposure is going to be in eDiscovery.  We’re just not going to see per GB processing prices that are going to be measured in the double and triple digits – that just can’t go, at least when you’re talking about the raw data on the input side.  So, I’m seeing some behind the firewall products, even desktop products, that are going to be able to allow lawyers and people with relatively little technical expertise to handle small and medium sized cases.  Some of the hosting services are putting together pricing where, though I haven’t really tested them in real world situations, are starting to sound rational and less frightening.

I’m continuing to see more fragmentation in the market and I would like to see more integrated products, but it’s still like packaging a rather motley crew of different pieces that don’t always fit together well at all.  You’ve got relatively new review tools, some strong players like Clearwell and stronger than they used to be players like Relativity.  You’ve got people “from down under” that are really changing the game like Nuix.  And, you’ve got some upstarts – products that we’ve really not yet heard of at all.  I’m seeing at this conference that any one of them has the potential of becoming an industry standard.  I’m seeing some real innovation, some real new code bases coming out and that is impressive to me because it just hadn’t been happening before, it’s been “old wine in new bottles” for several years.

I also see some new ideas in collection.  I think people are starting to embrace what George Socha would like for me to aptly call the left side of the EDRM.  A lot of people have turned their heads away from the ugly business of selecting data to process and the collection of it and forensic and chain of custody issues and would gather it up any way they liked and process it.  But, I think there are some new and very viable ways that companies are offering for self-collection, for tracking of collection, for desk side interviews, and for generation and management of legal holds.  We’re seeing a lot of things emerging on that front.  Most of what I see in the legal hold management space is just awful.  That doesn’t mean it’s all awful, but most of it is awful.  It’s a lot of marketing speak, a lot of industry jargon, wrapped around a very uncreative, somewhat impractical, set of tools.  The question really is, are these things really much better than a well designed spreadsheet?  Certainly, they’re more scalable, but some have a “rushed to market” feel to me and I think it’s going to take them some time to mature.  Everyone is jumping on this Pension Committee bandwagon that Judge Scheindlin created for us, and not everyone has brought their Sunday best.

As for social media, it is a big deal because, if you’re paying attention to what’s happening with the generation about to explode on the scene, they simply have marginalized email.  Just as we are starting to get our arms around email, it’s starting to move off center stage.  And, I think the most important contribution to eDiscovery in 2010 has occurred silently and with little fanfare and I’d like to make sure you mention it.  In November, Facebook, the most important social networking site on the planet, very quietly provided the ability for you to package and collect, for personal storage, the entire contents of your Facebook life, including your Wall, your messaging, and your Facemail.  For all of the pieces of your Facebook existence, you can simply click and receive it back in a Zip file.  The ability to preserve and, ultimately, reopen and process that data is the most forward thinking thing that has emerged from the social networking world since there has been a social networking world.  How wonderful that Facebook had the foresight to say “you know, it would be nice if we could give people their entire Facebook stuff in a neat package in a moment in time”.

None of the others have done that yet, but I think that Facebook is so important that it’s going to make that a standard.  It’s going to need to be in Google Apps, it’s going to need to be in Gmail.  If you’re going to live your life “in the cloud”, then you’re going to have to have a way to grab your life from the cloud and move it somewhere else.  Maybe their portability was a way to head off antitrust, for all I know.  Whatever their motivation, I don’t think that most lawyers know that there is essentially this one-click preservation of Facebook.  If a vendor did it, you would hear about it in the elevators here at the show.  Facebook did it for free, and without any fanfare, and it’s an important thing for you to get out there.  The vendor that comes out with a tool that processes these packages that emerge, especially if they announce it when the Oscars come out {laugh}, is well positioned.

So, yes, social networking is important because it means that a lot of things change, forensics change.  You’re just not going to be able to do media forensics anymore on cloud content.  The cloud is going to make eDiscovery simpler, and that’s the one thing I haven’t heard anybody say, because you’ll have less you’ll need to delete and it’s much more likely to be gone – really gone – when you delete it (no forensics needed).  Collection and review can be easier.  What would you rather search, Gmail or Outlook?  Not only can Outlook emails be in several places, but the quality of a Google-based search is better, even though it’s not built for eDiscovery.  If I’m going to stand up in court and say that “I searched all these keywords and I saw all of the communications related to these keywords”, I’d rather do it with the force of Google than with the historically “snake bitten” engine for search that’s been in Outlook.  We always say in eDiscovery that you don’t use Outlook as a review and search tool because we know it isn’t good.  So, we take the container files, PSTs and OSTs and we parse them in better tools.  I think we’ll be able to do it both ways. 

I foresee a day not long off when Google will allow either the repatriation of those collections for use in more powerful tools or will allow different types of searches to be run on the Gmail collections other than just Gmail search.  You may be able to do searches and collect from your own Gmail, to place a hold on that Gmail.  Right now, you’d have to collect it, tag it, move it to a folder – you have to do some gyrations.  I think it will mature and they may open their API, so that there can be add-on tools from the lab or from elsewhere that will allow people to hook into Gmail.  To a degree, you can do that right now, by paying an upgrade fee for Postini, where they can download a PST with your Gmail content.  The problem with that is that Gmail is structured data, you really need to see the threading that Gmail provides to really appreciate the conversation that is Gmail.  Whereas, if you pull it down to PST (except in the latest version of Outlook, which I think 2010 does a pretty good job of threading), I don’t know if that is replicated in the Postini PST.  I’ll have to test that.

Office 2010 is a trend, as well.  Outlook 2010 is the first Microsoft tool that is eDiscovery friendly, by design.  I think Exchange 2010 is going to make our lives easier in eDiscovery.  We’re going to have a lot more “deleted” information hang around in the Windows 7 environment and in the Outlook 2010 and Exchange 2010 environment.  Data is not going away until you jump through some serious hoops to make it go away.

I think the iPad is also going to have quite an impact.  At first, it will be smoke and mirrors, but before 2011 bids us goodbye, I think the iPad is going to find its way into some really practical, gestural interfaces for working with data in eDiscovery.  I’ve yet to see anything yet but a half-assed version of an app.  Everyone rushed out and you wanted some way to interface with your product, but they didn’t build a purpose-built app for the iPad to really take advantage of its strengths, to be able to gesturally move between screens.  I foresee a day where you’ll have a ring of designations around the screen and you’ll flip a document, like a privileged document, into the appropriate designation and it will light up or something so that you know it went into the correct bin – as if you were at a desk and you were moving paper to different parts of the desk.  Sometimes, I wonder why somebody hasn’t thought of this before.  I’ve done no metrics, I’ve done no ergonomic studies to know that the paper metaphor serves the task well.  But, my gut tells me that we need to teach lawyers to walk before they can run, to help them interact with data in a metaphor that they understand in a graphical user interface.  Point and click, drag and drop, pinch and stretch, which are three dimensional concepts translated into a two dimensional interface. The interface of the iPad is so intuitive that a three year old could figure it out.  Just like Windows Explorer impacted the design of so many applications (“it’s an Explorer-like interface”), the iPad will do the same.

Which of those trends are evident here at LTNY, which are not being talked about enough, and/or what are your general observations about LTNY this year?

{Interviewed on the second afternoon of LTNY}  I think that the show felt well attended, upbeat, fresher that it has in two years.  I give the credit to the vendors showing up with some genuinely new products, instead of renamed, remarketed new products, although there’s still plenty of that.  There were so many announcements of new products before the show that you really wonder how new is this product?  But, there were some that really look like they were built from the ground up and that’s impressive.  There’s some money being spent on development again, and that’s positive.  The traffic was better, I’m glad we finally eliminated the loft area of the exhibit hall that would get so hot and uncomfortable.  I thought the traffic flow was very difficult in a positive way, which is to say that there were a lot of warm bodies out there, walking and talking and looking.

Henry Dicker and his team should be congratulated and I wouldn’t be surprised if they set a record over the past several years at this show.  The budgets were showing, money was freed up and that’s a positive for everyone in this industry.  Also, the quality of the questions being put forward in the educational tracks are head and shoulders better, more incisive and insightful and more advanced.  We’re starting to see the results of people working at the “201 level”, but we still don’t have enough technologists here, it’s still way too lawyer heavy.  This is the New York market, everybody is chasing after the Fortune 500, but everything has to be downward scalable too.  A good show.

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

The first week of June, I’m going to be teaching a technology for lawyers and litigation support professionals academy with an ultra all star cast of a very small, but dedicated faculty, including Michael Arkfeld, Judge Paul Grimm, Judge John Facciola, and others.  It’s called the eDiscovery Training Academy and will be held at the Georgetown Law School. It’s going to be rigorous, challenging, extremely technical and the hope is that the people emerge from that week genuinely equipped to talk the talk and walk the walk of productive 26(f) conferences and real interaction with IT personnel and records managers.  We’re going to start down at the surface of the magnetic media and we’re going to keep climbing until we can climb no further.

Thanks, Craig, for participating in the interview!

And to the readers, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic!

Managing an eDiscovery Contract Review Team: Use the Team’s Knowledge

The document review effort is the litigation team’s first in-depth exposure to the client’s electronic documents.  The review staff will have more exposure to a broader range of documents than anyone else on the team, at least in the beginning of the case.  When you are using contract reviewers, they will go away when the review is completed.  You don’t want to lose what they’ve learned when the project is over, so you should take some steps to use their knowledge.  Here are two things you can do:

  • Ask for summary memos:  Ask supervisors on the project to prepare a summary memo for each custodian.  To get good summary information you should provide specific instructions for the information you would like included.  You could, for example, ask for this information about each custodian:
    • A description of the types of documents in the collection (for example, letter, monthly reports, work sheets, and so on).
    • A description of the general topics that are covered.
    • An approximate date range of the documents in the custodian’s files.
    • A list of key individuals (and organizations) with whom the custodian frequently corresponds.
  • Interview the review team:  Meet periodically with the group.  Spend an hour at the end of a workday and interview them about what they are seeing in the collection.  If there are certain topics you are hoping to see covered in the documents, ask the team about them.  Likewise, if there are certain topics that you hope not to see, ask about those as well.  This type of exchange will serve three purposes:
    • It will give senior litigation team members useful information about the document collection.
    • It will be useful for review team members to learn about what other team members are seeing.
    • It’s great for team morale.  It really reinforces that their work is important and that their input is valuable.

What steps do you take to make use of what the review team learns in the document review?  Do you have suggestions you can share with us?

This concludes our blog series on Managing an eDiscovery Contract Review Team.  I hope you found it useful!

Please share any comments you have and let us know if you’d like to know more about an eDiscovery topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Tom O’Connor of Gulf Coast Legal Technology Center
 

This is the eighth of the LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and asked each of them the same three questions:

  1. What do you consider to be the current significant trends in eDiscovery on which people in the industry are, or should be, focused?
  2. Which of those trends are evident here at LTNY, which are not being talked about enough, and/or what are your general observations about LTNY this year?
  3. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Tom O’Connor.  Tom is a nationally known consultant, speaker and writer in the area of computerized litigation support systems.  A frequent lecturer on the subject of legal technology, Tom has been on the faculty of numerous national CLE providers and has taught college level courses on legal technology.  Tom's involvement with large cases led him to become familiar with dozens of various software applications for litigation support and he has both designed databases and trained legal staffs in their use on many of the cases mentioned above. This work has involved both public and private law firms of all sizes across the nation.  Tom is the Director of the Gulf Coast Legal Technology Center in New Orleans.

What do you consider to be the current significant trends in eDiscovery on which people in the industry are, or should be, focused?

I think that there is still a lack of general baseline understanding of, not just eDiscovery principles, but technology principles.  Attorneys have been coming to LegalTech for over 30 years and have seen people like Michael Arkfeld, Browning Marean and folks like Neil Aresty, who got me started in the business.  The nouns have changed, from DOS to Windows, from paper to images, and now its eDiscovery.  The attorneys just haven’t been paying attention.  Bottom line is: for years and years, they didn’t care about technology.  They didn’t learn it in law school because a) they had no inclination to learn technology and b) they didn’t have any real ability to learn it, myself included.  With the exception of a few people like Craig Ball and George Socha, who are versed in the technical side of things – the average attorney is not versed at all.  So, the technology side of the litigation world consisted of the lit support people, the senior paralegals, the support staff and the IT people (to the minimal extent they assisted in litigation).  That all changed when the Federal Civil Rules changed, and it became a requirement.

So, if I pick up a piece of paper here and ten years ago used this as an exhibit, would the judge say “Hey, counsel, that’s quite a printout you have there, is that a Sans Serif font?  Is that 14 point or 15 point?  Did you print this on an IBM 3436?”  Of course not.  The judge would authenticate it and admit it – or not – and there might be an argument.  Now, when we go to introduce evidence, there are all sorts of questions that are technical in nature – “Where did you get that PST file?  How did that email get generated?  Did you run HASH values on that?”, etc.  And, I’m not just making this up.  If you look at decisions by Judge Grimm or Facciola or Peck or Waxse, they’re asking these questions.  Attorneys, of course, have been caught like the “deer in the headlights” in response to those questions and now they’re trying to pick up that knowledge.  If there’s one real trend I’m seeing this year, it’s that attorneys are finally taking technology seriously and trying to play catch up with their staff on understanding what all of this stuff is about.  Judges are irritated about it.  We have had major sanctions because of it.  And, if they had been paying attention for the last ten years, we wouldn’t be in the mess that we are now.

Of course, some people disagree and think that the sheer volume of data that we have is contributing to that and folks like Ralph Losey, who I respect, think we should tweak the rules to change what’s relevant.  It shouldn’t be anything that reasonably could lead to something of value in the case, we should “ratchet it down” so that the volume is reduced.  My feeling on that is that we’ve got the technology tools to reduce the volume – if they’re used properly.  The tools are better now than they were three years ago, but we had the tools to do that for awhile.  There’s no reason for these whole scale “data dumps” that we see, and I forget if it was either Judge Grimm or Facciola who had a case where in his opinion he said “we’ve got to stop with these boilerplate requests for discovery and responses for requests for discovery and make them specific”.

So, that’s the trend I see, that lawyers are finally trying to take some time to try to get up to speed – whining and screaming pitifully all the way about how it’s not fair, and the sanctions are too high and there’s too much data.  Get a life, get a grip.  Use the tools that are out there that have been given to you for years.  So, if I sound cynical, it’s because I am.

Which of those trends are evident here at LTNY, which are not being talked about enough, and/or what are your general observations about LTNY this year?

{Interviewed on the final afternoon of LTNY}  Well, as always, a good show.  This year, I think it was a great show, which is actually a bit of a surprise to me.  I was worried, not that it would go down from last year, but that we had maybe flattened out because of the economy (and the weather).  But, the turnout was great, the exhibit halls were great, a lot of good information.  I think we’re seeing a couple of trends from vendors in general, especially in the eDiscovery space.  We’re seeing vendors trying to consolidate.  I think attorneys who work in this space are concerned with moving large amounts of data from one stage of the EDRM model to another.  That’s problematic, because of the time and energy involved, the possible hazards involved and even authentication issues involved.  So, the response to that is that some vendors attempt to do “end-to-end” or at least do three out of the six stages and reduce the movement or partner with each other with open APIs and transparent calls, so that process is easier.

At the same time, we’re seeing the process faster and more efficient with increased speed times for ingestion and processing, which is great.  Maybe a bigger trend and one that will play out as the year goes along is a change in the pricing model, clearly getting away from per GB pricing to some other alternative such as, maybe, per case or per matter.  Because of the huge amount of data we have do so.  But also, we’re leaving out an area that Craig Ball addressed last year with his EDna challenge – what about the low end of the spectrum?  This is great if you’re Pillsbury or DLA Piper or Fulbright & Jaworski – they can afford Clearwell or Catalyst or Relativity and can afford to call in KPMG or Deloitte.  But, what about the smaller cases?  They can benefit from technology as well.  Craig addressed it with his EDna challenge for the $1,000 case and asked people to respond within those parameters.  Browning Marean and I were asking “what about the $500,000 case?”  Not that there’s anything bad about low end technology, you can use Adobe and S1 and some simple databases to do a great job.  But, what about in the middle, where I still can’t afford to buy Relativity and I still can’t afford to process with Clearwell?  What am I going to use?  And, that’s where I think new pricing and some of the new products will address that.  I’ve seen some hot new products, especially cloud based products, for small firms.  That’s a big change for this year’s show, which, since it’s in New York, has been geared to big firms and big cases.

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

I think the things that excite me the most that are going on this year are the educational efforts I’m involved in.  They include Ralph Losey’s online educational series through his blog, eDiscovery Team and Craig Ball through the eDiscovery Training Academy at Georgetown Law School in June.  Both are very exciting.

And, my organization, the Gulf Coast Legal Technology Center continues to do a lot of CLE and pro-bono activities for the Mississippi and Louisiana bar, which are still primarily small firms.  We also continue to assist Gulf Coast firms with technology needs as they continue to rebuild their legal technology infrastructure after Katrina.

Thanks, Tom, 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!

Managing an eDiscovery Contract Review Team: Keep the Staff Motivated
 

In the last blog post, we talked about steps you can take to ensure high-quality, consistent work from a contract review staff.  There is one more, very important thing you should do:  keep the staff motivated.  There is no question that a motivated, content staff will produce better work than a staff that is indifferent.  Here are a few things you can do:

  • Give them the big picture:  Let the review staff know how their work fits into the overall litigation process, how their work product will be used, and how important their contribution is to the case.
  • Keep them up-to-date on the status of the case:  Let them know what’s going on.  Tell them when case milestones have been met, when initial production deadlines have been met, and what the attorneys are doing.  
  • Have senior attorneys give them some attention:  Ask senior attorneys on the case to stop by periodically and speak to the group.  This, more than anything, will reinforce how important their work is to the case.
  • Give frequent feedback to each member of the team:  Each supervisor should be responsible for giving regular feedback to members of the team.  This should be a daily task, done with team members on a rotating basis.  Every team member – even those doing excellent work – should get one-on-one time with the supervisor. 
  • Make sure the work environment is comfortable and pleasant:  Things like good lighting, comfortable chairs, good ventilation and a comfortable temperature can have a huge effect on both morale and productivity.

What do you do to keep a contract review staff motivated?  Do you have suggestions you can share with us?  Please share any comments you have and let us know if you’d like to know more about an eDiscovery topic.

eDiscovery Trends: George Socha of Socha Consulting
 

This is the seventh of the LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and asked each of them the same three questions:

  1. What do you consider to be the current significant trends in eDiscovery on which people in the industry are, or should be, focused?
  2. Which of those trends are evident here at LTNY, which are not being talked about enough, and/or what are your general observations about LTNY this year?
  3. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is George Socha.  A litigator for 16 years, George is President of Socha Consulting LLC, offering services as an electronic discovery expert witness, special master and advisor to corporations, law firms and their clients, and legal vertical market software and service providers in the areas of electronic discovery and automated litigation support. George has also been co-author of the leading survey on the electronic discovery market, The Socha-Gelbmann Electronic Discovery Survey.  In 2005, he and Tom Gelbmann launched the Electronic Discovery Reference Model project to establish standards within the eDiscovery industry – today, the EDRM model has become a standard in the industry for the eDiscovery life cycle and there are eight active projects with over 300 members from 81 participating organizations. George has a J.D. for Cornell Law School and a B.A. from the University of Wisconsin – Madison.

What do you consider to be the current significant trends in eDiscovery on which people in the industry are, or should be, focused?

On the very “flip” side, the number one trend to date in 2011 is predictions about trends in 2011.  They are part of a consistent and long-term pattern, which is that many of these trend predictions are not trend predictions at all – they are marketing material and the prediction is “you will buy my product or service in the coming year”.

That said, there are a couple of things of note.  Since I understand you talked to Tom about Apersee, it’s worth noting that corporations are struggling with working through a list of providers to find out who provides what services.  You would figure that there is somewhere in the range of 500 or so total providers.  But, my ever-growing list, which includes both external and law firm providers, is at more than 1,200.  Of course, some of those are probably not around anymore, but I am confident that there are at least 200-300 that I do not yet have on the list.  My guess when the list shakes out is that there are roughly 1,100 active providers out there today.  If you look at information from the National Center for State Courts and the Federal Judicial Center, you’ll see that there are about 11 million new lawsuits filed every year.  I saw an article in the Cornell Law Forum a week or two ago which indicated that there are roughly 1.1 million lawyers in the country.  So, there are 11 million lawsuits, 1.1 million lawyers and 1,100 providers.  Most of those lawyers have no experience with eDiscovery and most of those lawsuits have no provider involved, which means eDiscovery is still very much an emerging market, not even close to being a mature market.  As fast as providers disappear, through attrition or acquisition, new providers enter the market to take their place.

Which of those trends are evident here at LTNY, which are not being talked about enough, and/or what are your general observations about LTNY this year?

{Interviewed on the second afternoon of LTNY}  Maybe this is overly optimistic, but part of what I’m seeing in leading up to the conference, on various web sites and at the conference itself, is that a series of incremental changes taking place over a long period are finally leading to some radical differences.  One of those differences is that we finally are reaching a point where a number of providers can make the claim to being “end-to-end providers” with some legitimacy.  For as long as we’ve had the EDRM model, we’ve had providers that have professed to cover the full EDRM landscape, by which they generally have meant Identification through Production.  A growing number of providers not only cover that portion of the EDRM spectrum but have some ability to address Information Management, Presentation, or both   By and large, those providers are getting there by building their software and services based on experience and learning over the past 8 to 10 to 12 years, introducing new offerings at the show that reflect that learned experience.

A couple of days ago, I only half-jokingly issued “the Dyson challenge” (as in the Dyson vacuum cleaner).  Every year, come January, our living room carpet is strewn with pine tree needles and none of the vacuum cleaners that we have ever had have done a good job of picking up those needles.  The Dyson vacuum cleaner claims it cyclones capture more dirt than anything, but I was convinced that could not include those needles.  Nonetheless I tried, and to my surprise it worked like a charm!  I want to see the providers offering products able to perform at that high level, not just meeting but exceeding expectations.

I also see a feeling of excitement and optimism that wasn’t apparent at last year’s show.

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

As I mentioned, we have launched the Apersee web site, designed to allow consumers to find providers and products that fit their specific needs.  The site is in beta and the link is live.  It’s in beta because we’re still working on features to make it as useful as possible to customers and providers.  We’re hoping it’s a question of weeks, not months, before those features are implemented.  Once we go fully live, we will go two months with the system “wide open” – where every consumer can see all the provider and product information that any provider has put in the system.  After that, consumers will be able to see full provider and product profiles for providers who have purchased blocks of views.  Even if a provider does not purchase views, all selection criteria it enters are searchable, but search results will display only the provider’s name and website name.  Providers will be able to get stats on queries and how many times their information is viewed, but not detailed information as to which customers are connecting and performing the queries.

As for EDRM, we continue to make progress with an array of projects and a growing number of collaborative efforts, such as the work the Data Set group has down with TREC Legal and the work the Metrics group has done with the LEDES Committee. We not only want to see membership continue to grow, but we also want to continue to push for more active participation to continue to make progress in the various working groups.  We’ve just met at the show here regarding the EDRM Testing pilot project to address testing standards.  There are very few guidelines for testing of electronic discovery software and services, so the Testing project will become a full EDRM project as of the EDRM annual meeting this May to begin to address the need for those guidelines.

Thanks, George, 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!