eDiscoveryDaily

Janice Jaco and Brandye Fenn of LTC4: eDiscovery Trends

During the recent ILTACON conference (wrap-up post about the conference here), I had an opportunity to speak with several thought leaders that are involved with various educational initiatives in the eDiscovery industry, which spurred an idea to conduct a thought leader interview series of leaders within those organizations.  So, I will be publishing interviews with those thought leaders over the next few weeks.  Unlike the annual LegalTech New York (LTNY) interviews, I won’t be publishing a schedule for these (I’m actually still trying to line up a couple of those interviews post-show), but you will see them sprinkled in with regular blog posts over the next few weeks.

Today’s thought leaders are Janice Jaco and Brandye Fenn of the Legal Technology Core Competencies Certification Coalition (LTC4).  ACEDS’ 2015 eDiscovery Person of the Year, Janice, is the senior eDiscovery Project Manager for boutique litigation powerhouse Keesal, Young & Logan (KYL).  Janice’s professional volunteer work includes extensive involvement in authoring LTC4’s eDiscovery Core Competency, participation in ACEDS’ CEDS Exam Standard Setting Exercise, and updating ACEDS’ University online content.  Janice also plays an important role in shaping the “KYL Keeps You Learning” Framework, which has produced two ILTA Distinguished Peer Award winners and has led to KYL being the first firm in the world to pass the Procertas’ Legal Technology Assessment in 2015 as well as the first-ever recipient of ACEDS Law Firm e-Discovery Department of the Year award in 2016.

Brandye is the Litigation Support Manager at Ford Harrison LLP. With more than 28 years’ of law firm experience as a litigation paralegal, Brandye is responsible for managing eDiscovery projects for the firm’s 20+ offices, nationally. In 2011, she founded the FordHarrison Litigation Support Department and, through her extensive knowledge of eDiscovery best practices and industry standards, established and implemented new review and processing workflows and procedures. She is responsible for the oversight and management of the firm’s litigation technology and provides technical guidance to attorneys and clients on all phases of the EDRM and leads the firm’s e-discovery budgeting, forecasting, and technology initiatives. In 2015, she provided a cost benefit analysis in support of implementing an innovative cost-recovery model for recouping the firm’s litigation support services which gave clients better control over their eDiscovery project costs while allowing the firm to remain competitive with the latest technology.

Both Janice and Brandye were members of a team of litigation support professionals charged with developing the eDiscovery Core Competency (ECC) Learning Plan of LTC4. Over a 21-month period, the team collaborated and created scenario-based training modules to define the core competency standards for attorneys and legal professionals required to measure e-discovery competency.

For those readers who haven’t heard of it, what can you tell us about LTC4?

Janice: In 2010, a group of like-minded industry people got together and realized that they were creating content and training materials and learning guidelines independently.  They thought that it would be great if they pooled resources together to respond to client demand for proof of efficiency and competency and did that by pooling resources across the industry to create industry standard competencies that could be the basis for that proof, which would be the certification.  From that genesis, LTC4 was born.  Today, there are now ten learning plans, including the new Electronic Discovery Core Competency learning plan that has just been peer reviewed and released.

Firms are free to develop their own training programs around those learning plans.  Then, a trainer at a firm could submit documentation demonstrating that a certain user in the firm has completed the training program associated with a particular learning plan and receive a certification.

There are vendors who train to the program and provide the LTC4 certification.  I can tell you that we have been utilizing our certifications in responses to requests for proposal from clients and potential clients.  We feel that this “proof learning” is a great way to attract and retain clients, so, from a business perspective, we feel that the ROI is there.

Brandye: I think clients are also adopting it.  They are going to their outside counsel and saying if we’re doing this, we want you to show us that you can do this as well, and that you have a base level of knowledge.  Whether the law firms were required to do this by their clients or whether they felt like they needed to do this just on their own, either way it’s become a great marriage.

Janice: I think the law firm that’s proactive and can be on (if not the “bleeding edge”) the leading edge of these changes will be in the best position for continuing to thrive and maintaining its market position.  You don’t want to be that firm waiting for the client to tell you that you need to do it.

Brandye: Or be asked for it in an RFP where you have to say, “Well, that’s part of our plan for next year.”

You have mentioned the eDiscovery learning plan, what are the others?

Janice: They are: Legal Documents, Managing Documents and E-mails, Collaborating with Others: E-Mailing and Sharing Documents, Time and Billing, Road Warriors, Data, Reports and Exhibits, Security, Working with Clients (CRM), Presentations and eDiscovery/eDisclosure.  You can find out more about the learning plans at http://www.ltc4.org/learning-plans/.

Since we’re an eDiscovery blog, our readers would be specifically interested in the eDiscovery plan.  What can you tell me about that plan that was just released?

Brandye: I was part of the group that developed the plan and it took us 21 months.  It was such a blur of fun and camaraderie (laughs) and multiple phone calls and Google docs.  What we did was try to approach it from a standpoint of things you need to know, things you should know and things you must know.  Then we flipped it and determined, for each of those things, who needs to know it and why.

When I started this process, I did not know anything about LTC4.  Bonnie Beuth (Chair of LTC4) called, explained what the project was about and asked if I’d like to help.  I agreed to help and talk to others about it and, the next thing you know, I was locked in and responsible for deliverables.  The process was so collegial, with everybody addressing the problems from a unique standpoint.  We even had someone from the UK, Andrew Haslam, to provide an international perspective.  And, it was one of the most enlightening experiences.

Janice: It was for me too.

Brandye: I learned so much.  You’re “stuck in a bubble” in your own world of your processes, your workflow, your people and what they know and don’t know.  Working with people in the group you get a lot of different perspectives on how they do things, which can be quite a bit different from how you do them.  It’s really fantastic to get those different perspectives and it really made a true believer out of me.

We took it in steps, eDiscovery steps, and tried to keep it grouped to the EDRM workflow – loosely – and also real-world scenarios.  Such as, what happens when you receive data and what happens when you need to produce a group of documents?  So, we took real world problems and worked to identify solutions to those problems.  We worked to identify what an attorney should do, what a paralegal should do, what a lit support person should do – and took it to its natural conclusion in each of those sections.

Janice: In my experience, there is sometimes a disconnect between what attorneys think they need to know to be competent and what lit support managers like Brandye and I think they need to know to be competent.

Brandye: Or even what the courts think they need to know to be competent.  I’ve heard Judge Peck say dozens of times to attorneys this is what you need to know and they sometimes still don’t recognize it.

Janice: For example, they sometimes need reminders to pursue FRCP Rule 502(d) orders in federal court cases where significant email volumes are expected to be produced.  The task is not necessarily one that presents as part of the standard litigation workflow.

Brandye: Or they’re still doing “drive by” meet and confers.

Janice: So, I googled to try to find something similar and the only thing that I found that was remotely close to the ECC Learning Plan was the EDRM Talent Matrix, which talks about tasks in eDiscovery and the different talent typically best suited to performing these tasks.  For example, the lawyer isn’t usually the person pushing the buttons to get a production out.  In the course of working with lawyers and our clients), I try to explain why I think an approach, tool or process is the best fit for the current case or scenario.  Over the years I have had team members question why I think my recommendation is the best one and even whether they need to know that.  A learning plan like this one is a way to validate your recommended people, process and technology so lawyers can competently supervise my work and even clients could validate the workflow and recommendations.  Governing bodies like the American Bar Association or the California State Bar are being clear that you don’t have to be able to do all ediscovery tasks yourself, but you’re going to have to be able to effectively supervise someone like me to ensure that I’m doing the right thing for the clients in the most efficient, just and speedy way.

So, for the first time ever, we had a group of like-minded thought leaders collectively building something that we all could agree at the end was a collection of basic skills needed to execute these ediscovery scenarios.  There’s nothing like that in the industry.

Brandye: You can talk about rules and work processes, but putting them in context of scenarios and what to do in those scenarios is key.  It helps people match their situation to what they’re supposed to do, so they can say “I’ve been in this situation before and I know exactly what they’re talking about and I know exactly what to do.”

Janice: It enables people to say “I’ve had this scenario before, but I’ve never had these nine steps to address it in this way before like I do now.”  I think trainers everywhere are going to be so relieved to see something that backs up what they’ve been saying to lawyers for years.  Sometimes, like it is with kids when they listen to a teacher in school after they’ve been told the same thing over and over again by their parents–you don’t necessarily listen to the ones closest to you.  You need a credible outside source to reinforce what internal people have been saying.  Attorneys sometimes just need to hear it from someone else before they believe it.  And, that’s what the lesson plans provide.

How does one become a member of LTC4?

Janice: You can go to the LTC4 site here for more information on how to join and access the online application.  It’s easy for any law firm to join.  There is a membership fee which is based on size of firm.  There are also rates and plans for law schools, non-profit organizations and vendors.  And, you get access to all of the learning plans when you join.

Brandye: And, it’s not just about the learning plans, it’s a truly collaborative organization.  You also get support from LTC4 and from the members within the organization.  If you’re working in an area, for example, labor employment law, you can reach out to that community for assistance.

Janice: For example, security is one of the learning plans and mobile security is an important topic.  There are members who have that expertise who support you and help you create documentation through the certification, which you can then use to market yourself to clients and the prove you have the skills in cybersecurity.

Thanks, Janice and Brandye, for participating in the interview!

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

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

The Readers Have Spoken, in New York: eDiscovery Trends

Last week, the New York Law Journal (NYLJ) published its seventh annual Reader Rankings, where the New York legal community cast their votes for your favorite vendors.  Over 8,000 people cast votes for their favorite vendors in 100+ categories!  That’s a lot of people and a lot of categories.

In their article publishing the results, NYLJ stated that “we only allowed legitimate end users (attorneys, paralegals, legal assistants etc.) to vote. We took great pains to ensure the voting was fair and that no vendors were ‘stuffing the ballot box.’ Any votes cast by non-legal professionals (or anyone who we could not validate was a legitimate end user) were disqualified.”

The 76(!) page Reader Rankings document is available here.  As you can imagine, with 100+ categories, they cover vendors for all types of legal needs.  As we’re an eDiscovery blog, it makes sense to be a bit more focused, so the categories that relate to electronic discovery and information governance start on page 44.  Here are the reader rankings for those categories:

Best End to End eDiscovery Solution Provider

  1. DTI
  2. Huron Legal
  3. RVM

Best eDiscovery Processing

  1. DTI
  2. CloudNine
  3. Complete Discovery Source (CDS)

Best eDiscovery Managed Service Provider

  1. DTI
  2. Thomson Reuters eDiscovery Point
  3. CloudNine

Best Predictive Coding Solution

  1. DTI
  2. CloudNine
  3. Relativity Assisted Review

Best eDiscovery Mobile App

  1. Relativity Binders
  2. FTI Technology
  3. KPMG LLP

Best Legal Hold Solution

  1. DTI
  2. Recommind
  3. Relativity Legal Hold

Best Managed Document Review Services

  1. Pangea3 (Thomson Reuters Legal Managed Services)
  2. KPMG (tie)
  3. QuisLex (tie)
  4. Inspired Review

Best Online Review Platform

  1. Relativity
  2. DTI
  3. Thomson Reuters eDiscovery Point

Best Information Governance Solution

  1. RVM
  2. DTI
  3. RSD

There, we just saved you having to look through 76 pages to find the eDiscovery and information governance results.  You’re welcome… :o)

CloudNine thanks the readers of the New York Law Journal for recognizing us as a Top eDiscovery Processing Provider, a Top eDiscovery Managed Service Provider and a Top Predictive Coding Solution!

Thanks to everybody who braved the pouring rain and stopped by for “Drinks with Doug” in San Antonio at ARMA yesterday!  A great time certainly appeared to be had by all, despite the fact that a few were soaked from the rain.  Great food and drinks and even better conversation!

So, what do you think?  Do you have a preferred provider in any of these categories?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Drinks with Me, On Me!: eDiscovery Trends

The ARMA Live! Conference & Expo for Records Management and Information Governance professionals is coming to San Antonio this Sunday for three days and CloudNine will be there.  If you plan to attend the show or are in the San Antonio area, come have drinks with me on Sunday – I’m buying!*

*Well, technically, my boss is buying, but we won’t quibble…

We’re having a “Drinks with Doug” outing on Sunday, September 25 from 4:30pm to 6:30pm at Guadalajara Grill, 301 South Alamo, San Antonio, TX 78205.  The address is easy to remember because we all remember the Alamo, right?  :o)

Anyway, it’s across the River Walk, just a short distance away from the conference in the Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center.  Just ask for the “Drinks with Doug” gathering when you get there.

“Drinks with Doug” is a sporadic gathering of information technology, business, and eDiscovery professionals in various cities who casually meet and discuss all things information and technology over a few drinks with me.

If you’re attending ARMA and have an ARMA badge, that’s all you need!  Stop by and have a drink with us!

If you’re not attending ARMA, but will be in the San Antonio area on Sunday, you’re also welcome to attend.  However, you’ll need to email me at daustin@cloudnine.com and you will need to receive a confirmation response from me to be added “to the list”.  To improve your chances, please send the email from your work email address, not from a “gmail” or other personal account.

Hope to see you there!

So, what do you think?  Are you attending ARMA 2016?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Hashing Out the Idea of a Standard Hash Algorithm for Vendors: eDiscovery Best Practices

In a blog post earlier this month, Craig Ball discussed the question (which was posed at the recent ILTACON conference by Beth Patterson, Chief Legal & Technology Services Officer for Allens) of why eDiscovery service providers can’t (or don’t) standardize hash values so as to support identification and deduplication across products and collections.  Good question.  Let’s take a look.

In his post from his excellent Ball in Your Court blog (Cross-Matter & -Vendor Message ID), Craig noted that standardization would enable you to use work from one matter in another and flag emails already identified as privileged in one case so that they don’t slip through.  Wouldn’t that be great?

According to Craig, unfortunately, the panelists’ response to the question appeared to be to characterize it as “a big technical challenge.”

Craig then took a look at the issue, beginning by recapping some “hash facts” to establish a baseline for understanding considerations for computing hash values.  He then differentiated loose documents (easy, because as long as they are properly preserved, they should generate the same hash value consistently) from emails.  Emails are more difficult to construct consistent hash values for because the hash value of an email depends on when it is exported as well as other factors.  So, the same email exported at different times or from different email clients will have a different hash value – even though we see them as the same, the computer doesn’t.  Make sense?

Craig also took a look at some approaches for generating standardized hash values for emails and also took a look at MD5 vs. SHA-1 methods of hashing and debunked the idea that MD5 hash values aren’t unique enough to be “defensible”.  There are 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,000 unique MD5 hash values.  Unique enough for you?

I asked Bill David, Chief Technical Officer at CloudNine and architect of the platform, about the use of MD5 for generating hash values.

“Of these (and other) HASH routines, we ultimately chose MD5 for a couple of reasons”, Bill said. “First, for all practical purposes, MD5 Hash is sufficient for identifying duplicate files in a given population. Second, it’s faster than the alternatives. And third, it is widely available. You can find the MD5 Hash routine in all major computer languages as well as in most relational database. This allows us to utilize and generate HASH values from a client’s browser all the way down the line to the rational databases used in a review platform.”

As for the idea of eDiscovery vendors agreeing to use the same routine to generate the same hash value, Bill seemed to think it was very doable and advocated a concatenation approach:

“As is commonly known, emails throw us a monkey wrench. Every email has some hidden data that is unique to that file. And as a result, we have to pick certain sections of a given email to construct a “string” of data, which we can then “HASH” to generate a unique value. But the slightest change in the format of the data affects the resulting unique hash. Something as simple as a single extra space will result in a completely different hash value.”

“What we have to do is to take the different parts of an email, combine them altogether and hash the result. At CloudNine, we pull these parts of an email and separate them with a single space.

  • SentDate (in the ISO format)
  • From
  • To
  • CC
  • BCC
  • Subject
  • Attachments (file names separated by semi-colons)
  • MsgText (text version)”

Bill, while noting that these are his initial thoughts after reading Craig’s article and might be subject to some revision, suggested a way to “code” it, in this case using C# (C Sharp) programming language:

“The combination of these fields give us a unique finger print of an email. As an extra step in trying to normalize data it’s wise to ‘trim’ up these fields (remove any leading or trailing spaces). So in code it would look like this:”

hashString = String.Format(“{0} {1} {2} {3} {4} {5} {6} {7}”,

     args.file.SentDate.ToString(“yyyy’-‘MM’-‘dd’T’HH’:’mm’:’ss”),   //ISO Format example 2009-06-15T13:45:30

     args.file.From.Trim(),

     args.file.To.Trim(),

     args.file.CC.Trim(),

     args.file.BCC.Trim(),

     args.file.Subject.Trim(),

     args.file.Attachments.Trim(),

     args.file.MsgText.Trim());

“We now have a string to hash. The last step is to hash the string. Many MD5 hash routines will contain ‘dashes’. In one more step to normalize the results let’s remove those dashes and force all of the characters to lower case.”

hash = clsHash.GetHash(hashString, clsHash.HashType.MD5).Replace(“-“, “”).ToLower();

“Based on my initial thoughts, that’s how you could standardize a hash value to use for deduping.”

Sounds like standardization on a method for generating hash values could be relatively straightforward – if you can get all the vendors to agree.

So, what do you think?  Would you benefit from a standardized method for computing hash values across all eDiscovery platforms?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Norton Rose Fulbright’s New Annual Survey Shows More Cross-Border Discovery & Alternative Fee Arrangements: eDiscovery Trends

According to Norton Rose Fulbright’s Litigation Trends Annual Survey for 2016 released last week, eDiscovery is “increasingly painful and costly to manage, particularly considering the growth of cross-border discovery”.  Interestingly, however, more respondents are now using alternative fee arrangements (AFAs) and in a higher proportion of the litigation work they carry out, with a whopping 97% satisfied with the work conducted under an AFA.

Here are some other interesting statistics from the report:

RESPONDENT PROFILE

Here is a profile of the respondents in the survey.

  • There were 606 total corporate counsel participants (way down from 803 a year ago), 79% of which were either General Counsel (47%), Deputy GC (21%) or Head of Litigation (11%).  44% of respondents were from the US, down from 52% a year ago.
  • Over half (57%) of the companies surveyed, were billion dollar companies with $1 billion or more in gross revenue, with all but 11% having revenues of at least $100 million.
  • The respondents were quite evenly distributed among industries, with Financial Institutions (24%), Technology and Innovation (22%) and Energy (17%) the top three industries participating.

LITIGATION TRENDS

The report provided some interesting findings with regard to the number and distribution of cases as well as corporate litigation budgets.

Litigation Case Counts and Distribution

  • 47% of all respondents indicated that more than 5 lawsuits/proceedings were commenced against them last year, up from 42% last year.  As was the case in 2015, 13% of all respondents indicated that more than 50 lawsuits/proceedings were commenced against them last year.  Only 19% of respondents indicated that they had no disputes, down from 25% a year ago.
  • Respondents were given a list of categories of pending litigation their companies faced over the past 12 months, and asked to select the top three. Contracts (40%) and Labor/Employment (39%) matters once again received the most selections from respondents, with Regulatory/Investigations a distant third at 19%.  Contracts (42%), Labor/Employment (35%) and Regulatory/Investigations (35%) were also the types of legal disputes that most concerned companies.
  • 24% of all respondents expected the number of legal disputes for their company to increase over the next 12 months, down 1% from a year ago.

EDISCOVERY TRENDS

The report showed rises in respondents using technology assisted review and also in respondents conducting cross-border discovery.  Also a clear majority of respondents still rely on self-preservation to fulfill preservation obligations for at least some cases.

Cross-Border Discovery

  • 41% of respondents have conducted cross-border discovery within the last 12 months, a jump of six percent over last year.  The number of respondents that conduct cross-border discovery in at least half of their cases doubled to 14%.

Technology Assisted Review

  • 60% of all respondents are using technology assisted review for at least some of their matters, up 3% from a year ago.  66% of respondents use it in the US, as opposed to only 46% in the UK (despite the first cases approving predictive coding in England).
  • 79% of larger companies surveyed use technology assisted review, up from 43% two years ago.
  • Of those companies utilizing technology assisted review, 29% use it in half or more of their matters.

Mobile Device Preservation and Collection

  • 49% of overall respondents had to preserve and/or collect data from a mobile device, a drop of 4% from last year.  19% of all respondents reported having to preserve and/or collect data from a mobile device in at least half of their matters.

Self-Preservation

  • Overall, 73% of respondents rely on individuals preserving their own data (i.e., self-preservation) in at least some of their cases, with 59% relying on self-preservation in at least half of their cases (both numbers down only 1% from a year ago).

There are plenty more interesting stats and trends in the report, which is free(!) once again.  To access this year’s report, click here.

So, what do you think?  Do any of those trends surprise you?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Pick Six! eDiscovery Daily is Six Years Old!

Believe it or not, it has been six years ago today since we launched the eDiscovery Daily blog!

When we launched five years ago on September 20, 2010, we told you to not get “wild” with wildcards (and did it again last week) and we published our first case law post about a case where the spoliator of data was actually threatened with jail time.  We’ve now actually published exactly 500 posts about case law, involving more than 330 distinct cases!

Not only that, today is another milestone – we have now published 1,500 lifetime posts!  And, every post is still available on the site for your reference, which has made eDiscovery Daily into quite a knowledgebase!  We’re quite proud of that.

Back in 2010, our goal was to be a daily resource for eDiscovery news and analysis and we’ve continued to do so for six years now.

As always, we have you to thank for all of that success!  Thanks for making the eDiscovery Daily blog a regular resource for your eDiscovery news and analysis!  We really appreciate the support!

As many of you know by now, we like to take a look back every six months at some of the important stories and topics during that time.  So, here are some posts over the last six months you may have missed.  Enjoy!

You would be amazed what happens on the Internet every minute of every day.

Can you steal 11.5 million electronic documents from a law firm without being detected?  Apparently, you can.

Nearly two-thirds of all data breaches were due to password issues.

BakerHostetler recently “hired” a new “attorney”, but that “attorney” doesn’t carry a briefcase.

If you have a rush eDiscovery project to get done, where do you turn for help?  The cloud, of course.

This seems obvious, but, if you’re running for office, don’t forget to close your porn tabs before taking a screenshot and posting it to your social media account.

If you’re a former IT administrator at a company and you deleted files before you left, you could go to jail.

The EU-US Privacy Shield was formally adopted.  Will it hold up better than the old “Safe Harbor”?  We’ll see.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that sentencing judges may (with some restrictions) take into account algorithms that score offenders based on their risk of committing future crimes.

Parties can cooperate in a predictive coding process, yet still disagree on the outcome of what’s produced.  Here’s proof.

Bad faith deletion of emails can cost you $3 million.

Believe it or not, Judge Peck refused to order a defendant to use Technology Assisted Review in this case.

Speaking of TAR, here’s another case in England which approved it, despite objections from the receiving party.  And, there is a bit of debate among TAR experts.

Have you ever seen an interview conducted online over a couple of days?  Here’s one that was.

Did you know that EDRM has a new owner?

Here’s the latest information on eDiscovery Business Confidence within the industry.  And, here’s a link to the webinar where we discussed it.

According to Gartner, Machine Learning is at the Peak of Inflated Expectations.  Their words, not mine.  Also according to Gartner, cloud eDiscovery solutions are gaining momentum in the marketplace.

I thought my example of 269 unique words that can be retrieved with a wildcard of min* to search for mining-related terms was a lot.  This example from a case we covered last week for a search for “apps” related terms has even more!

This is just a sampling of topics that we’ve covered.  Hope you enjoyed them!

Thanks for the interest you’ve shown in the topics!  We will do our best to continue to provide interesting and useful eDiscovery news and analysis.  And, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic!  We’re already at 1,500!  Can we break Pete Rose’s record?  I’ll bet we can!  :o)

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

If You Missed the eDiscovery Business Confidence Webinar, You Can Catch it Here: eDiscovery Trends

Last week, ACEDS hosted a webinar (sponsored by CloudNine) with expert commentary on the results of the Complex Discovery Summer 2016 eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey, which was conducted last month with the results published on Rob Robinson’s terrific Complex Discovery site.  If you missed the webinar, you can catch a video of it now.

This time, there were 168 total respondents to the survey, which is more than double the number of respondents as the Spring survey.  In fact, there twelve were more respondents than the first two surveys combined.  Obviously, sponsorship from ACEDS and promotion from EDRM, strong>LTPI, Masters Conference, and Women in eDiscovery helped increase the number of respondents dramatically.  The end result is perhaps the most meaningful eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey results yet.

The lively one hour presentation and discussion was led by ACEDS Executive Director Mary Mack, with expert commentary from panelists George Socha, Co-Founder of EDRM and Managing Director of Thought Leadership at BDO, Eric P. Mandel, Managing Member at Indicium Law PLC and Member of the Board for LTPI, Zach Warren, Editor in Chief of Legaltech News and me.  All of the panelists had interesting comments and observations and we also received several good questions and suggestions from the audience for future surveys.  In three months, we’ll do it again!

The webinar video is available via our new Online Stream page here.

So, what do you think?  What’s your state of confidence in the business of eDiscovery?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Overrule Plaintiff’s Objections to Discovery Requests

Defendant Not Required to Produce All Documents Responsive to Search Terms: eDiscovery Case Law

Remember earlier this week, when we once again discussed the perils of not checking your wildcard terms before agreeing to them?  This case law summary is a prime example of that.  Perhaps more narrowed search terms would have reduced the review required.  Frankly, I’m surprised more documents weren’t retrieved.

In Bancpass, Inc. v. Highway Toll Administration, LLC, No. A-14-CV-1062-SS (W.D. Tex. July 26, 2016), Texas Magistrate Judge Andrew W. Austin (no relation) denied the plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Discovery Agreements with regard to the plaintiff’s request for the defendant to produce all non-privileged documents responsive to search terms agreed to over email.

Case Background

In this defamation case between two competing highway toll mechanism companies, the parties, negotiating over email, agreed to produce ESI responsive to the following search terms:

  • Smartphone /50 toll!
  • Smartphone /50 threat
  • Smartphone /10 app!
  • Phone! /10 app!
  • Double /10 bill
  • Geotoll

Slash followed by a number means within that number of words (e.g., /50 = within 50 words).  The ! after a term indicates a wildcard term.

*My own commentary: See terms 3 and 4 above?  They call for the phone related terms within 10 words of any word that begins with “app” (because they’re looking for phone applications or apps, got it?).  As you can see here, there are 306 words in the English language that begin with “app”.  Apparently, it appears that the parties (one of whom may someday be an appellant) appreciated the thought that appending a wildcard after “app” would be an appropriate application of the wildcard in that approach.  OK, a bit extreme, but you get the point – don’t get wild with wildcards!  A simple “(application! OR app OR apps)” would have saved a lot of false hits.

Anyway, the plaintiff stated that it believed the parties agreed that “all non-privileged documents responsive to the additional search terms will be produced,” which it understood to mean that every non-privileged document the search turned up would be produced, regardless of whether it had anything to do with the parties’ dispute and the plaintiff did so in its production.  Conversely, the defendant produced only those documents that it determined were relevant to the case and withheld the rest, which the plaintiff argued was a violation of the agreement.  In response, the defendant stated that it ran the searches as requested, but that the search terms turned up over 20,000 non-privileged but also non-responsive documents. After de-duplicating the search results against previous production and identifying clearly irrelevant documents, the defendant independently reviewed the remaining 3,489 documents for responsiveness and privilege, ultimately producing 34 documents captured by the agreed search terms that were both responsive to the plaintiff’s discovery requests and were non-privileged.

Judge’s Ruling

Ruling on this issue, Judge Austin stated:

“If the Court were to construe the parties’ email correspondence on this topic to constitute a contract, it is likely that HTA’s actions would amount to a breach. The Court’s reading of the e-mail chain is that the parties agreed to produce all of the results of the searches save privileged documents. But the parties’ e-mail exchange is not a contract. Rather, it was a means to simplify and limit the scope of production responsive to BancPass’s requests for production 6, 11, 29, 38, 39, and 45. Having reviewed the attached affidavits detailing HTA’s search and review process there is no reason to believe that HTA has withheld documents it was obligated to produce. Nor is it clear that additional searches with the identified search terms would produce more documents responsive to BancPass’s requests for production. Accordingly, as to the search terms, BancPass’s motion is denied.”

So, what do you think?  Should the defendant have been required to produce all of the responsive, non-privileged documents per the email discussion?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Don’t Miss Today’s Webinar to Hear Expert’s Views on eDiscovery Business Confidence!: eDiscovery Trends

Last week, we covered results from the ACEDS and Complex Discovery Summer 2016 eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey, which was conducted last month with the results published on Rob Robinson’s terrific Complex Discovery site.  Today, you can attend a webinar to hear experts comment on the results of the survey and their thoughts about the state of eDiscovery business in general!

This time, there were 168 total respondents to the survey, which is more than double the number of respondents as the Spring survey.  In fact, there twelve were more respondents than the first two surveys combined.  Obviously, sponsorship from ACEDS and promotion from EDRM, strong>LTPI, Masters Conference, and Women in eDiscovery helped increase the number of respondents dramatically.  The end result is perhaps the most meaningful eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey results yet.

At 1:00 pm ET today (12:00 pm CT, 11:00 am MT, 10:00 am PT), ACEDS will be hosting the webinar (sponsored by CloudNine) regarding the survey.  During this one hour presentation and discussion led by ACEDS Executive Director Mary Mack, expert panelists will share and discuss the results of this quarterly survey. The discussion will feature eDiscovery leaders including:

  • George Socha, Co-Founder of EDRM and Managing Director of Thought Leadership at BDO;
  • Eric P. Mandel, Managing Member at Indicium Law PLC and Member of the Board for LTPI;
  • Zach Warren, Editor in Chief of Legaltech News

And me, of course.  We will not only take a look at this survey in general, we will also break down the results within different response groups (e.g., providers, law firms, corporations, etc.) and compare the results of this survey to those of past surveys to discuss changes in trends.

Click on the link here to register for the webinar.  Hope to see you there!

So, what do you think?  What’s your state of confidence in the business of eDiscovery?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Overrule Plaintiff’s Objections to Discovery Requests

Defendant Receives Terminating Sanctions and More for “Persistent Contemptuous Behavior”: eDiscovery Case Law

In Teledyne Technologies Inc. v. Shekar, No. 15-1392 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 22, 2016), Illinois District Judge Ronald A. Guzmàn, finding that the defendant “has failed to purge himself of contempt for the repeated refusal to comply with this Court’s orders”, entered judgment against the defendant, dismissed his counterclaims, and directed him to pay the plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred as a result of having to pursue relief for the defendant’s “persistent contemptuous behavior”.

Case Background

In this case against a former employee seeking injunctive relief relating to the return of the plaintiff’s property and confidential information following the defendant’s termination, the Court issued a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) in February 2015, finding that the plaintiff “established a substantial likelihood of success with respect to its claims that Shekar, without authorization and in violation of his contractual obligations, misappropriated confidential information and trade secrets from Teledyne; intentionally deleted Teledyne computer files; engaged in deceptive trade practices; interfered with its business relationships; and converted its property, all of which threatened to cause irreparable harm to Teledyne.”  The TRO was replaced with a preliminary injunction (“PI”) in March 2015; a week later, the plaintiff filed a Motion for Rule to Show Cause why the defendant should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the TRO and PI, which was granted.

After an evidentiary hearing, the Court found the defendant in contempt, and ordered that he purge the contempt by:

  1. produce his home computer and any other devices or electronic storage media accessible to him;
  2. produce at a minimum the three external hard drives connected to the plaintiff-issued laptop on or after his termination date, and either produce or account for the whereabouts of the other eight hard drives or other devices which have connected to the laptop since July 13, 2013;
  3. truthfully and completely answer all interrogatories served upon him in this matter under oath;
  4. turn over, without keeping any copies, all plaintiff’s information including emails and the November 2014 backup files;
  5. explain the nature of the February 3, 2015 data transfer between the plaintiff’s servers and his work laptop, and turn over any such data still accessible to him; and
  6. truthfully divulge the passcode required to access the plaintiff-issued iPhone he previously produced.

The defendant then “engaged in a series of evasions and misrepresentations seeking to vacate or modify the order that he purge himself of contempt”, which included “offensive personal attacks” on the plaintiff’s counsel and even on his own attorneys. The Court eventually ordered the defendant to turn himself in to be detained and committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, but was then contacted by multiple attorneys that the defendant attempted to engage, who notified the court that he had threatened suicide. Even after the court stayed the incarceration order, the defendant still failed to comply with the order to turn over his electronic devices and data, producing a laptop without its original hard drive, an iPhone with only four calls in the call log and a hard drive that had been wiped.

Judge’s Ruling

With the defendant’s history of “manipulations”, Judge Guzmàn stated and ruled, as follows:

“Shekar is clearly in willful contempt. He has been ordered time and again to comply with the Court’s orders and has never manifested the slightest intention to do so. Worse still, he has attempted to deceive the Court at every step of the way. Both before being found in contempt and afterwards, he has displayed a total lack of respect for the truth or the integrity of the legal process. When the Court threatened fines and attorney’s fees, Shekar remained unwavering in his contemptuous behavior. When the Court threatened compulsory imprisonment, Shekar took advantage of the Court’s concern for his well-being — all the while continuing his contemptuous refusal to comply. The Court has paid a high price in the expenditure of time and resources in dealing with Shekar’s persistent misconduct as has the plaintiff. The record is clear that ordinary sanctions have been and will continue to be unavailing, and Shekar leaves the Court with no choice but to impose harsh sanctions, which are not only appropriate, but required.

For the reasons stated above, the Court enters judgment against Shekar on all of Teledyne’s claims, dismisses his counterclaims, and, in addition to the usual bill of costs, assesses Shekar Teledyne’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs stemming from its arduous efforts in demonstrating Shekar’s contempt.”

So, what do you think?  Were the extreme sanctions deserved?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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