Close
Enter your
text here

Review

Mary Mack of ACEDS: eDiscovery Trends

This is the third of the 2017 Legaltech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscovery Daily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY (aka Legalweek) this year to get their observations regarding trends at the show and generally within the eDiscovery industry.

Today’s thought leader is Mary Mack of ACEDS.  Mary is the Executive Director of the Association of Certified eDiscovery Specialists (ACEDS).  E-discovery luminary and recipient of the Masters Conference Educator of the Year 2016, Mary provides ACEDS and its membership more than a decade of strong credibility and sound leadership within the e-discovery community. Mary is the author of A Process of Illumination: The Practical Guide to Electronic Discovery, considered by many to be the first popular book on e-discovery. She is the co-editor of the Thomson Reuters West treatise, eDiscovery for Corporate Counsel.

What are your expectations of LTNY this year?

{Interviewed Mary the first morning when the conference had really just started}

My biggest expectation is that I’m going to see people and that I’m going to renew relationships.  For example, I just bumped into Hampton Coley, whom I worked with maybe seven years ago and haven’t seen since we worked together.  Legaltech is the place where that’s possible.  But, some of the people that I would normally expect to be here, like Tom O’Connor, aren’t here this year.

From an educational standpoint, unfortunately most of the action is off the floor and away from the sessions, but I was looking at some of those sessions and they’re stellar.  There are some great educational sessions lined up at the show this year.  So, if I am fortunate enough to have an appointment drop out, I’m going to jump into a session or two.

How many years have you been coming to LTNY and how do you think the show has evolved over that time?

I’ve been coming to the show over ten years.  I think there was a time, maybe 2006 or 2007, where it was like everybody and their brother became an eDiscovery company.  Even the copy people had a sign for eDiscovery at their booths.  Now, I think LTNY has evolved to where it’s about an 80% eDiscovery show with 20% around the edges and I think the part that’s around the edges is really interesting.  I’m always looking for things that are going to impact eDiscovery that aren’t quite eDiscovery yet and we saw some of that in years past with Information Governance and with privacy, and now we’re seeing it with cybersecurity.

That was the topic of the event that we had last night – the state of the industry as it relates to eDiscovery and cybersecurity.  I think this year won’t quite be the breakout year for cybersecurity, but it will be the “seed planting” year for cybersecurity, with a look at how cybersecurity informs eDiscovery and how eDiscovery informs cybersecurity.  Because it’s not enough just to keep people out of your network, you need to prosecute, you need evidence and you need that evidence to be authentic.

As for the event we had last night, it was really fantastic.  Jared Cosegilia of Tru Staffing Partners did a good job of organizing the presentation and even had us rehearsing the transitions and breaks.  We were able to put our survey data out for people who are really interested in both security and privacy in our community.  We had some surprising things in our survey, like the fact that over half of the people participating are more than ten years tenured in the industry.  But, what I heard afterward is that government agencies in particular are looking for the younger eDiscovery professionals and they’re having a hard time finding them.  Most eDiscovery professionals are considerably tenured, but the agencies are looking for people that can come in at an entry level salary expectation that’s much different than what we have now.

I think the reason for that is that there really are no schools, other than Bryan University perhaps, with a degree for eDiscovery.  We have courses at UC Irvine and we’re looking at other law schools to teach eDiscovery.  Some law schools have a full course on eDiscovery; in other schools, it’s just one credit now.  But, there’s not an educational feeding ground for the young talent where that young talent has to come in and “earn their stripes”.  The ones who do come in are maybe paralegals, maybe legal assistants or maybe they’re an existing person in a corporation and that’s how they get in.  They’re just not coming fresh out of school.

With that in mind, we’ve seen a recent trend toward an emphasis on technology competence for attorneys and we’re up to 26 states that have adopted some sort of technology competence requirement, with Florida being the first state that has required technology CLE for their attorneys.  What impact do you think those developments will have on attorneys becoming more educated about technology?

I think the technology CLE requirement in Florida is very exciting.  From what I understand, they expected it to be controversial and it wasn’t – it was actually embraced.  So, I think that with those requirements, attorneys will embrace the opportunities to learn more about eDiscovery and I think Florida will see a nice “bump” there in attorney knowledge, like California did when they addressed knowledge of eDiscovery specifically in their formal opinion.  I think it will permeate outside of the “bubble” because the evidence is primarily electronic these days.  Sure, sometimes you have your signed papers and handwritten notes, but most evidence is originating in the digital world and it needs to be admitted and produced in the digital world.  I think that once that attorneys understand the technology and it becomes demystified and the fear goes away, I think that we’ll see them adopt and even embrace it.

Last year, ACEDS presented a handful of webinars and conference sessions related to automation and Technology Assisted Review and, as you’ll recall, there was lively discussion about TAR during those presentations, and even more lively discussions about TAR after those presentations.  Where do you feel we are today with regard to the acceptance of Technology Assisted Review?

It’s clearly being more and more accepted.  The Supreme Court of Victoria just explicitly approved it in the Rules for Australia.  Judge Peck, once again, wrote an opinion and highlighted how it is a process – it’s not just about the Technology Assisted Review, it’s also about how you perform the Technology Assisted Review.  At the conferences that I attend, when you ask audiences for a show of hands of those who have used TAR, you used to get maybe one or two hands raised.  Now, about half to three quarters of the audience raises their hands to the question of whether they’ve used TAR before.  So, I think the acceptance is there and it will take a different kind of lawyer to manage the reviews.  It’s not going to be your typical contract review attorney, it’s going to be more of a subject matter expert attorney that gets involved.  For the contract review attorneys, it’s an opportunity (and also a challenge) to “up-level” themselves to stay competitive and marketable.

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

We’ve got a couple of big things happening: one that’s stealth and one that’s not stealth.  I’ll tell you first about the “not stealth” one: we received approval to provide pro bono scholarships for any organization working on Access to Justice.  Regardless whether it’s a corporate or law firm pro bono program, a law school clinic, an advocacy organization, the public defender’s victims’ rights organizations, any of these types of programs can sponsor a scholarship.  The only requirement that we have is that they perform eight hours of pro bono work in order to apply and then they can put whatever other requirements on it that they want.

Organizations who qualify can just pick somebody or hold a contest or whatever they want to do and we will enroll them in eDiscovery essentials, which is a $600 course that will give them an understanding of the functional landscape of eDiscovery, from soup to nuts, with a certificate to reflect completion of that course.  And, that will put them on the path to eDiscovery.  With what I was saying earlier about how government agencies can’t find those entry level people that they seek, part of the reason for that is that they can’t afford to get themselves educated.  So, this is a way for ACEDS to contribute to Access to Justice while also helping young people get that education.

The “stealth” item to mention is that we’re going to provide some cyber training.  We’re in beta and don’t have a press release or anything yet, but we’re working with Roy Zur, who gave a wonderful cybersecurity presentation at our national conference last year, on a project called “Cybint”.  He has put together an assessment and training program, with “bite size” training segments of around ten minutes each.  Once you take the assessment, you’ll know what training you need and you can focus on those specific ten minute training sessions to “up-level” your skills and start to bridge the gap between eDiscovery and cybersecurity.

Thanks, Mary, for participating in the interview!

Thank you, Doug, for your consistent and excellent reporting and blogging.

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.

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

2016 eDiscovery Case Law Year in Review, Part 3

As we noted yesterday and Monday, eDiscovery Daily published 74 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 62 unique cases!  Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to cooperation, disputes about discovery, eDiscovery cost reimbursement, form of production disputes, privilege disputes and (once again) the ubiquitous Apple v. Samsung case.  Today, let’s take a look back at cases related to social media discovery, technology assisted review and the first part of the cases relating to sanctions and spoliation.

We grouped those cases into common subject themes and will review them over the next few posts.  Perhaps you missed some of these?  Now is your chance to catch up!

But first, if you want to learn more about what every attorney should know about eDiscovery in 2017, click here.

SOCIAL MEDIA DISCOVERY

In addition to our usual cases where defendants want to discover social media data of the plaintiffs suing them, we have two heavyweight companies that wanted to mine for prospective jurors’ social media information (until the judge stepped in, that is).  Here are three cases related to discovery of social media data:

If Google and Oracle are Going to Mine for Jurors’ Social Media Info, They Have to Inform the Court: When the big guys sue each other, the cases last forever.  We’ve been covering developments in the Apple v. Samsung case since July 2012, and that case is still going on.  Another case that we’ve covered a long time ago (way back in November 2011) is Oracle Corp. v. Google Inc. and that case is still going on too.  In that case, with a trial approaching, the judge has told lawyers to disclose Internet and social media research about jurors to the court or agree not to conduct it.

Court Orders Plaintiff to Perform a “Download Your Info” From Facebook: In Rhone v. Schneider Nat’l Carriers, Inc., Missouri Magistrate Judge Noelle C. Collins ordered the plaintiff to disclose a complete list of her social media accounts to the defendant and also provide a “Download Your Info” report from her Facebook account from June 2, 2014 to the present within fourteen days and ordered the defendant to disclose to the plaintiff any and all posts, photos or other media from the report it intends to use in support of its defense.

Court Compels Plaintiff to Provide Social Media Account and Activity Data: In Waters v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Kansas Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale granted the defendant’s motion to compel the plaintiff to produce account information associated with his social media accounts as well as postings from the dates he missed work in conjunction with his injury claims against the defendant.  Judge Gale also granted most of the components of the plaintiff’s motion to compel against the defendant for various discovery requests.

TECHNOLOGY ASSISTED REVIEW

Quite an active year with regard to cases involving technology assisted review (TAR), with the first English case approving the use of TAR and the judge in the first ever TAR case refusing to order a party to use TAR among the cases.  Here are five cases related to TAR:

Predictive Coding is Officially Approved in First English Case: Last month, in Pyrrho Investments Ltd v MWB Property Ltd, citing the landmark DaSilva Moore case (among other authorities), Master Matthews approved the use of predictive coding, due to the “enormous” expense of manually searching through the three million electronic documents associated with the case.  This is the believed to be the first time an English court has approved the use of predictive coding.

Cooperation in Predictive Coding Exercise Fails to Avoid Disputed Production: In Dynamo Holdings v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Texas Tax Court Judge Ronald Buch ruled denied the respondent’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents Containing Certain Terms, finding that there is “no question that petitioners satisfied our Rules when they responded using predictive coding”.

Judge Peck Refuses to Order Defendant to Use Technology Assisted Review: In Hyles v. New York City, New York Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck, indicating that the key issue before the court in the discovery dispute between parties was whether (at the plaintiff’s request) the defendants can be forced to use technology assisted review, refused to force the defendant to do so, stating “The short answer is a decisive ‘NO.’”

English Court Rules that Respondents Can Use Predictive Coding in Contested Case: In Brown v BCA Trading, et. al., Mr. Registrar Jones ruled that, with “nothing, as yet, to suggest that predictive coding will not be able to identify the documents which would otherwise be identified through, for example, keyword search”, “predictive coding must be the way forward” in this dispute between parties as to whether the Respondents could use predictive coding to respond to eDisclosure requests.

Defendant Not Required to Use Predictive Coding by Court: In the case In re Viagra Products Liability Litigation, California Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim, noting that other courts had declined to force a party to use predictive coding, denied the plaintiff’s motion to force the defendant to use predictive coding instead of its preferred approach using search terms.

SPOLIATION / SANCTIONS

Of course, once again, the topic with the largest number of case law decisions related to eDiscovery are those related to sanctions and spoliation issues (24 out of 62 total cases for 38.7% of all cases covered).  Are there really more of these cases or do I just find them more interesting?  You decide.  Anyway, here are the first eight cases, including one where the sanction was reversed after the adoption of Rule 37(e):

Court Orders Sanctions Against Defendant for Spoliation of Emails and Other Documents: In Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, the Court, determining that the defendant had spoliated data, found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated sufficient facts to warrant striking the defendant’s affirmative defenses, but opted to order an adverse inference instruction and also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs in preparing the instant motion for sanctions.

Court Gives Plaintiff 21.5 Million Reasons for Not Spoliating Emails: In Hausman v. Holland America Line-U.S.A., et al., Washington District Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein vacated a $21.5 million verdict awarded to a man injured by a closing cruise-ship door in 2011 and ordered a new trial, after the plaintiff’s former assistant alleged that he deleted emails that could hurt his case.

Appeals Court Upholds Terminating Sanctions For Wipe of Cell Phone: In Woodell v. Bernstein, et. al., the California Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court, which imposed terminating sanctions against the plaintiff for spoliation of evidence and dismissed his lawsuit with prejudice after the plaintiff had wiped his cell phone, which was key to the case.

Changes in Federal Rules Result in Reversal of Adverse Inference Sanction: In Nuvasive, Inc. v. Madsen Med. Inc., California Chief District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz, considering new standards imposed under recently amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e), granted the plaintiff’s motion for an order vacating the Court’s previous order granting (in part) the defendants’ Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence.

Alteration of Domain in Produced Emails Leads to Sanctions for Plaintiffs: In CAT3, LLC v. Black Lineage, Inc., New York Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, ruling that emails produced by the plaintiffs were “intentionally altered”, ordered that the plaintiffs would be precluded from relying on their version of those emails to demonstrate their case and that the plaintiffs would bear the “costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred by the defendants in establishing the plaintiffs’ misconduct and in securing relief.”

Our Nation’s Largest City is Not Immune to eDiscovery Sanctions: In Stinson v. City of New York, New York District Judge Robert W. Sweet granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion seeking sanctions for spoliation of evidence against the defendants for failure to issue a litigation hold, opting for a permissive inference rather than a mandatory adverse inference sanction against the defendants.

Court Rules Plaintiff’s Duty to Preserve Did Not Extend to Employee’s Internet History: In Marten Transport, Ltd. V. Plattform Advertising, Inc., Kansas Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James denied the defendant’s Motion for Spoliation Sanctions, ruling that, although the plaintiff had a duty to preserve relevant ESI as of Fall 2013, that duty to preserve did not extend to the internet history of one of its employees until June 2015, and by then the internet history was lost.

Defendants Claim of Lightning Strike and Power Surge Doesn’t Save Them from Sanctions: In InternMatch, Inc. v. Nxtbigthing, LLC, et. al., California District Judge Jon S. Tigar, finding that the defendants “consciously disregarded their obligations to preserve relevant evidence” when they discarded various electronic devices after experiencing an alleged power surge without checking to see if they could recover any files from them, granting an adverse inference instruction sanction and plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees.

Tomorrow, we will cover the remaining cases related to sanctions and spoliation.  Stay tuned!

Want to take a look at cases we covered the previous five years?  Here they are:

So, what do you think?  Did you miss any of these?  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 Use Predictive Coding by Court: eDiscovery Case Law

Regardless how the election turned out last night, eDiscovery case law marches on…

In the case In re Viagra Products Liability Litigation, 16-02691 (N.D. Cali., Oct. 14, 2016), California Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim, noting that other courts had declined to force a party to use predictive coding, denied the plaintiff’s motion to force the defendant to use predictive coding instead of its preferred approach using search terms.

Case Background

In this multi-district litigation (MDL) against drug company Pfizer regarding its highly popular drug Viagra and alleged correlations to incidences of melanoma, the plaintiffs urged the Court to order the defendant to use predictive coding with the plaintiffs’ input to identify the locations of relevant information and the responsive ESI from those locations. The plaintiffs argued that TAR and/or predictive coding is a more sophisticated tool than the traditional search term or search query approach, that using that suggested approach would save time and money for both sides and indicated that they wanted representatives from both parties to participate in process of creating and working with the search process in this iterative process.

The defendant offered stiff opposition to the plaintiff’s request (sorry, I couldn’t resist) proposing instead that it use search terms to identify potentially relevant documents. The defendant described its preferred methodology as an iterative process – though not the same iterative process as TAR and/or predictive coding – where the defendant tests search terms and validates them using rigorous sampling of potentially responsive documents, verifying that the search terms yield high rates of response. In the defendant’s proposed process, the parties would exchange lists of proposed search terms and the defendant would agree to run any search terms that appeared on both parties’ lists.

The defendant pointed out that the plaintiffs did not cite to any case law in support of their proposal to require the defendant, over its objection, to use TAR and/or predictive coding. At the hearing on the matter, the plaintiffs conceded that no court has ordered a party to engage in TAR and/or predictive coding over the objection of the party.

Judge’s Ruling

Adding to the plaintiff’s concession, Judge Kim noted that “[t]he few courts that have considered this issue have all declined to compel predictive coding”.  Judge Kim cited Hyles v. New York City, stating:

“As the court reasoned in Hyles, the responding party is the one best situated to decide how to search for and produce ESI responsive to discovery requests.  The responding party ‘can use the search method of its choice. If [the propounding party] later demonstrates deficiencies in the . . . production, the [responding party] may have to re-do its search. But that is not a basis for Court intervention at this stage of the case…[I]t is not up to the Court, or the requesting party . . ., to force the . . . responding party to use TAR when it prefers to use keyword searching. While [the propounding party] may well be correct that production using keywords may not be as complete as it would be if TAR were used . . ., the standard is not perfection, or using the ‘best’ tool . . ., but whether the search results are reasonable and proportional.”

In denying the plaintiffs’ motion, Judge Kim concluded: “The Court finds Hyles well-reasoned. Even if predictive coding were a more efficient and better method, which Pfizer disputes, it is not clear on what basis the Court could compel Pfizer to use a particular form of ESI, especially in the absence of any evidence that Pfizer’s preferred method would produce, or has produced, insufficient discovery responses.”

So, what do you think?  Should a court ever require a party to use a particular method to search for and produce ESI?  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.

How to Avoid Getting “Burned” by Redactions: eDiscovery Best Practices

Having addressed this issue with a client recently, it seems appropriate to revisit this topic…

On the surface, it may seem easy enough to redact a document during eDiscovery review to obscure confidential or privileged information.  All you need to do is draw a black box over the affected text, right?  Not necessarily.  There’s a lot more to consider in order to ensure that you don’t inadvertently produce information that was intended to be redacted.  Here are a few things to consider to avoid getting “burned by redaction failures.

Failure to “Burn” the Redaction into the Image

If the redaction isn’t “burned” into the image so that it cannot be removed, the redacted data can still be viewed.  Especially when your images are Adobe Acrobat PDF files, the most common mistake is to redact by obscuring the text by drawing a black box over the text or images you want redacted.  A simple “cut and paste” can remove the black box, revealing the redacted text.  Acrobat provides a redaction tool (for those editing the PDF there) to properly apply a redaction – it’s best to save the file to a new name after the redaction has been applied.

If you’re using a review application to manage the review, the application should ensure a “burned in” redaction for anything exported or printed, regardless of whether it lets you look at the redacted data within the application itself.  For example, CloudNine provides a tool to enable the reviewer to draw a gray box over the text to be redacted so that text can still be viewed within the application.  However, if the file is exported or printed, that box gets “burned” in as a black box to completely obscure the redacted text.

Failing to Update Corresponding Text Files to Remove Redacted Text

Even if the image is handled properly, you can still disclose redacted text if you don’t make sure that the corresponding text file, whether extracted from the native file or generated via Optical Character Recognition (OCR), isn’t updated to remove the redacted text.  If you don’t update the corresponding text files, you’re allowing redacted text to slip through the production “back door”.  This happens more often than you might think.

Producing Un-Redacted Native Files

If you’re producing native files, you’ve hopefully discussed with opposing counsel how to handle native files that require redaction.  Typically, the approach is to convert those to an image format and redact the image.  Sometimes the parties agree to “redact” the native files themselves and produce those.  If so, as is the case with Adobe PDF files, there’s a right way and wrong way to redact native files.  Changing the text to white or the background to match the text color is not the same as redacting the text.  All you have to do is to revert back to the original formatting or simply highlight the affected area to see the redacted text.  Instead, you’ll want to agree on a procedure where the text is deleted or replaced with an equal amount of meaningless content (e.g., all “X”s) to preserve text flow and pagination (make sure track changes is off before redacting).  You may even want to agree to copy the entire content of a redacted document to a new file (to remove residual document composition information that might remain).

Failing to Redact Metadata

You may redact content on the document that you produce separately as metadata, via a load or data file.  Failing to check the produced metadata for redacted documents could enable redacted data to slip through.  So, don’t forget to check and remove any sensitive data here, as well.

Quality Control (QC) Check before Producing

Generally, when producing documents with redactions, you should have a checklist that ensures that image redactions are “burned” in, that redacted native files (if produced natively) are properly redacted, and that corresponding text files and metadata have been checked to ensure that redacted data has been removed from those as well.  Otherwise, you could be “burned” by inadvertent production of redacted materials.

P.S., to see what I “redacted” up above, highlight it with your cursor.  :o)

So, what do you think?  How do you handle redactions within your productions?  Do you have a process to QC check redactions before producing?  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.

Considering All of the Considered TAR Responses: eDiscovery Trends

Our webinar panel discussion conducted by ACEDS a couple of weeks ago has generated some interesting discussion and debate over the past week or so about the content of the webinar, what it should have covered and what it was intended to cover.

The webinar panel discussion, titled How Automation is Revolutionizing eDiscovery was sponsored by CloudNine and presented on August 10 (here is a link to last week’s blog post with an embedded video of the webinar).  Our panel discussion provided an overview of eDiscovery automation technologies and we took a hard look at the technology and definition of TAR and potential limitations associated with both.  Mary Mack, Executive Director of ACEDS moderated the discussion and I was one of the panelists, along with Bill Dimm, CEO of Hot Neuron and Bill Speros, Evidence Consulting Attorney with Speros & Associates, LLC.

On the next day, ACEDS published A Considered Response from Gordon Cormack, which was a letter from Gordon Cormack, Professor with the School of Computer Science at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada who is an expert in the area of technology-assisted review in litigation and has co-authored several influential works with Maura Grossman, a fellow researcher at the University of Waterloo (and, before that, an attorney with Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz).  Cormack and Grossman authored the 2011 Richmond Journal of Law and Technology (JOLT) study (that I inaccurately referred to in the webinar as a “white paper” – sorry about that) titled Technology-Assisted Review in E-Discovery Can Be More Effective and More Efficient Than Exhaustive Manual Review, which was discussed to some extent during the webinar that both Cormack and Grossman attended.

In his letter, Dr. Cormack expressed several concerns about the content of the webinar, including their belief “that the webinar presented the false impression that we, and the courts, are resting on our laurels and that no legitimate empirical work has been done with respect to TAR.”  He provided links to several other works that have been authored by Cormack and Grossman that were not discussed during the webinar and also noted his opinion that the webinar lacked “any constructive suggestion as to how to proceed” (among other concerns he noted).

Then, last week, ACEDS also published responses from two of the presenters, Bill Speros (Reconsidering Dr. Cormack’s Considered Response) and Bill Dimm (ACEDS Commentary: Bill Dimm Responds to Gordon Cormack) where both “Bills” (Speros and Dimm) provided responses to the concerns that Dr. Cormack raised in his letter the previous week.

I feel that both Speros and Dimm made several good points in both clarifying the intended scope of the webinar and also in what we feel the webinar accomplished.  Dimm noted that “our goal was to deliver a large amount of information that is useful to a broad e-discovery audience within the confines of a 60-minute webinar” (of which about 40 minutes were devoted to TAR) and that we covered the JOLT report as extensively as we did (instead of other Cormack/Grossman works) “because it is the study that judicial opinions rely upon, and we’re not aware of any subsequent study comparing the quality (not merely the cost) of TAR results to those of human review.”

Speros identified several constructive suggestions that we felt the webinar provided, including “Clarifying the (general lack of) judicial acceptance of TAR”, “Differentiating alternative TAR techniques and technologies” and “Developing independent and valid TAR assessments”.  Speros also noted that “rather than attacking Dr. Cormack and his work, the webinar’s content spoke to the quality of the court’s interpretations [of the JOLT report] in a manner entirely consistent with thoughtful and professional analysis” – a position with which I agree wholeheartedly.

So, what is my response to Dr. Cormack’s letter?

As the other presenter in the webinar, I don’t have much to add to the responses provided by Speros and Dimm, except that they essentially reflect my own thoughts about the intent and accomplishments of the webinar.  Our goal was to challenge several industry-accepted assumptions about TAR and to take a look at the current state of acceptance of TAR, both judicially and within organizations contemplating the use of TAR.  And, I feel we accomplished that.

Nonetheless, I have tremendous respect, not just for my co-presenters, but also for Gordon Cormack and Maura Grossman and the numerous contributions that they have made to the industry through their research and various works (including the 2011 JOLT report).  I consider this to be a healthy discussion and debate among industry thought leaders and look forward to hopefully seeing that healthy discussion and debate continue.  I encourage you to view the webinar and read the commentaries by Cormack, Speros and Dimm and draw your own conclusions.

So, what do you think?  Do you have an opinion on the webinar or on the topic of TAR in general?  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.

There’s a New TAR Case Law Primer Published by The Sedona Conference: eDiscovery Best Practices

One of the major topics discussed during last month’s panel discussion at The Masters Conference and also last week during our ACEDS webinar was the debate over the current state of judiciary acceptance of technology assisted review (TAR).  Whether intentional or not, to help with that debate The Sedona Conference® has just published the Public Comment Version of a new TAR Case Law Primer.

This was a project of The Sedona Conference Working Group on Electronic Document Retention and Production (WG1).  As noted in the Preface of the Primer, it is “the product of more than a year of development and dialogue within WG1. It was originally conceived as a chapter of a larger Commentary on the use of TAR in civil litigation, but the rapid development of the case law, the volume of court decisions, and the importance of those decisions in shaping legal practice in real time required that an exposition of the case law be made available on a faster timetable than WG1’s usual dialogue and consensus-building process allowed. For that reason, the Primer strives to present the case law in as neutral a fashion as possible. It avoids making any recommendations regarding particular TAR methodologies, nor does it propose any principles, guidelines, or best practices for TAR application, independent of those suggested by the courts themselves.”

The 33 page PDF file covers several topics related to Technology Assisted Review, including:

  • Da Silva Moore: Obviously as the first case to authorize the use of TAR, Judge Andrew Peck’s Da Silva Moore ruling merits its own section as a logical starting point, with the advantages of TAR and the emphasis on process (including advice to “follow the Sedona Cooperation Proclamation model”);
  • Other Courts’ Encouragement of the Use of TAR and Additional Cases Reflecting the Parties’ Use of TAR: The Primer touches on other cases where the use of TAR was either encouraged or used;
  • Disputed Issues Regarding TAR: This is the significant portion of the Primer, touching on issues ranging from efforts by requesting parties (and by courts) to compel the use of TAR, two contradictory decisions about whether it’s OK to switch to TAR in the middle of discovery, cases that address the appropriateness of using search terms to cull the document population before applying TAR, issues associated with disclosure of seed/training/validation sets and advance court approval of the use of TAR (such as the Dynamo Holdings case, which recently had another significant opinion about the results of the TAR process, despite cooperation between the parties).

The Primer also provides a review of evolving views of TAR and the state of international adoption, with discussion of both the Pyrrho Investments and Brown v BCA Trading cases.  The final section is an Index of Cases (at least those covered in the Primer).

The Conclusion section (just before the Index of Cases) offers this conclusion:

“While the case law reflects a broad consensus that TAR is an acceptable search and review methodology, certain issues regarding the details of its use remain unresolved. The general principles set forth in the cases discussed in this Primer should provide useful guidance to courts and parties seeking to use TAR to achieve the goals of Federal Rule 1 (the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of legal proceedings) and Rule 26(b)(1) (proportionality). The Bench and Bar should continue to actively monitor research and case law developments in this area.”

You can download the Primer here.  The Sedona Conference encourages Working Group Series members and others to spread the word and share this link so they can get comments in before the public comment period closes on October 15, 2016 (consider the word spread!). Questions and comments regarding the Primer may be sent to comments@sedonaconference.org.

So, what do you think? What do you consider to be the state of judicial acceptance of TAR?  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.

Here is Where You Can Catch Last Week’s ACEDS Webinar: eDiscovery Trends

Our webinar panel discussion conducted by ACEDS last week was highly attended, well reviewed and generated some interesting discussion (more on that soon).  Were you unable to attend last week’s webinar?  Good news, we have it for you here, on demand, whenever you want to check it out.

The webinar panel discussion, titled How Automation is Revolutionizing eDiscovery was sponsored by CloudNine.  Our panel discussion provided an overview of eDiscovery automation technologies and we took a hard look at the technology and definition of TAR and potential limitations associated with both.  Mary Mack, Executive Director of ACEDS moderated the discussion and I was one of the panelists, along with Bill Dimm, CEO of Hot Neuron and Bill Speros, Evidence Consulting Attorney with Speros & Associates, LLC.

Thanks to our friends at ACEDS for presenting the webinar and to Bill Dimm and Bill Speros for participating in an interesting and thought-provoking discussion.  Hope you enjoy the presentation!

So, what do you think?  Do you think automation is revolutionizing eDiscovery?  As always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Happy Anniversary to my wife (and the love of my life), Paige!  I’m very lucky to be married to such a wonderful woman!

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 – How Automation is Revolutionizing eDiscovery!: eDiscovery Trends

Today is your chance to catch a terrific discussion about automation in eDiscovery and, particularly an in-depth discussion about technology assisted review (TAR) and whether it lives up to the current hype!

Today, ACEDS will be conducting a webinar panel discussion, titled How Automation is Revolutionizing eDiscovery, sponsored by CloudNine.  Our panel discussion will provide an overview of the eDiscovery automation technologies and we will really take a hard look at the technology and definition of TAR and the limitations associated with both.  This time, Mary Mack, Executive Director of ACEDS will be moderating and I will be one of the panelists, along with Bill Dimm, CEO of Hot Neuron and Bill Speros, Evidence Consulting Attorney with Speros & Associates, LLC.

The webinar will be conducted at 1:00 pm ET (which is 12:00 pm CT, 11:00 am MT and 10:00 am PT).  Oh, and 5:00 pm GMT (Greenwich Mean Time).  If you’re in any other time zone, you’ll have to figure it out for yourself.  Click on the link here to register.

If you’re interested in learning about various ways in which automation is being used in eDiscovery and getting a chance to look at the current state of TAR, possible warts and all, I encourage you to sign up and attend.  It should be an enjoyable and educational hour.  Thanks to our friends at ACEDS for presenting today’s webinar!

So, what do you think?  Do you think automation is revolutionizing eDiscovery?  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.

English Court Rules that Respondents Can Use Predictive Coding in Contested Case: eDiscovery Case Law

In Brown v BCA Trading, et. al. [2016] EWHC 1464 (Ch), Mr. Registrar Jones ruled that, with “nothing, as yet, to suggest that predictive coding will not be able to identify the documents which would otherwise be identified through, for example, keyword search”, “predictive coding must be the way forward” in this dispute between parties as to whether the Respondents could use predictive coding to respond to eDisclosure requests.

The May 17 order began by noting that “the question whether or not electronic disclosure by the Respondents should be provided, as they ask, using predictive coding or via a more traditional keyword approach instead” was “contested”.  With the “majority of the documents that may be relevant for the purposes of trial…in the hands of the First Respondent”, the order noted that fact is “relevant to take into account when considering the Respondents’ assertion, presented from their own view and on advice received professionally, that they think predictive coding will be the most reasonable and proportionate method of disclosure.”  The cost for predictive coding was estimated “in the region of £132,000” whereas the costs for a key word search approach was estimated to be “at least £250,000” and could “even reach £338,000 on a worst case scenario” (emphasis added).  In the order, it was acknowledged that the cost “is relevant and persuasive only to the extent that predictive coding will be effective and achieve the disclosure required.”

With that in mind, Mr. Registrar Jones stated the following: “I reach the conclusion based on cost that predictive coding must be the way forward. There is nothing, as yet, to suggest that predictive coding will not be able to identify the documents which would otherwise be identified through, for example, keyword search and, more importantly, with the full cost of employees/agents having to carry out extensive investigations as to whether documents should be disclosed or not. It appears from the information received from the Respondents that predictive coding will be considerably cheaper than key word disclosure.”

The order also referenced the ten factors set out by Master Matthews in the Pyrrho Investments case (the first case in England to approve predictive coding) to help determine that predictive coding was appropriate for that case, with essentially all factors applying to this case as well, except for factor 10 (the parties have agreed on the use of the software, and also how to use it).

So, what do you think?  Do you think parties should always have the right to use predictive coding to support their production efforts absence strong evidence that it is not as effective as other means?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

For more reading about this case, check out Chris Dale’s post here and Adam Kuhn’s post here.

Don’t forget that tomorrow at 1:00pm ET, ACEDS will be conducting a webinar panel discussion, titled How Automation is Revolutionizing eDiscovery, sponsored by CloudNine.  Our panel discussion will provide an overview of the eDiscovery automation technologies and we will really take a hard look at the technology and definition of TAR and the limitations associated with both.  This time, Mary Mack, Executive Director of ACEDS will be moderating and I will be one of the panelists, along with Bill Dimm, CEO of Hot Neuron and Bill Speros, Evidence Consulting Attorney with Speros & Associates, LLC.  Click on the link here to register.

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

Judge Peck Refuses to Order Defendant to Use Technology Assisted Review: eDiscovery Case Law

We’re beginning to see more disputes between parties regarding the use of technology assisted review (TAR) in discovery.  Usually in these disputes, one party wants to use TAR and the other party objects.  In this case, the dispute was a bit different…

In Hyles v. New York City, No. 10 Civ. 3119 (AT)(AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2016), New York Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck, indicating that the key issue before the court in the discovery dispute between parties was whether (at the plaintiff’s request) the defendants can be forced to use technology assisted review, refused to force the defendant to do so, stating “The short answer is a decisive ‘NO.’”

Case Background

In this discrimination case by a former employee of the defendant, after several delays in discovery, the parties had several discovery disputes.  They filed a joint letter with the court, seeking rulings as to the proper scope of ESI discovery (mostly issues as to custodians and date range) and search methodology – whether to use keywords (which the defendants wanted to do) or TAR (which the plaintiff wanted the defendant to do).

With regard to date range, the parties agreed to a start date for discovery of September 1, 2005 but disagreed on the end date.  In the discovery conference held on July 27, 2016, Judge Peck ruled on a date in between what the plaintiff and defendants – April 30, 2010, without prejudice to the plaintiff seeking documents or ESI from a later period, if justified, on a more targeted inquiry basis.  As to custodians, the City agreed to search the files of nine custodians, but not six additional custodians that the plaintiff requested.  The Court ruled that discovery should be staged, by starting with the agreed upon nine custodians. After reviewing the production from the nine custodians, if the plaintiff could demonstrate that other custodians had relevant, unique and proportional ESI, the Court would consider targeted searches from those custodians.

After the parties had initial discussions about the City using keywords, the plaintiff’s counsel consulted an ediscovery vendor and proposed that the defendants should use TAR as a “more cost-effective and efficient method of obtaining ESI from Defendants.”  The defendants declined, both because of cost and concerns that the parties, based on their history of scope negotiations, would not be able to collaborate to develop the seed set for a TAR process.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Peck noted that “Hyles absolutely is correct that in general, TAR is cheaper, more efficient and superior to keyword searching” and referenced his “seminal” DaSilva Moore decision and also his 2015 Rio Tinto decision where he wrote that “the case law has developed to the point that it is now black letter law that where the producing party wants to utilize TAR for document review, courts will permit it.”  Judge Peck also noted that “Hyles’ counsel is correct that parties should cooperate in discovery”, but stated that “[c]ooperation principles, however, do not give the requesting party, or the Court, the power to force cooperation or to force the responding party to use TAR.”

Judge Peck, while acknowledging that he is “a judicial advocate for the use of TAR in appropriate cases”, also noted that he is also “a firm believer in the Sedona Principles, particularly Principle 6, which clearly provides that:

Responding parties are best situated to evaluate the procedures, methodologies, and technologies appropriate for preserving and producing their own electronically stored information.”

Judge Peck went on to state: “Under Sedona Principle 6, the City as the responding party is best situated to decide how to search for and produce ESI responsive to Hyles’ document requests. Hyles’ counsel candidly admitted at the conference that they have no authority to support their request to force the City to use TAR. The City can use the search method of its choice. If Hyles later demonstrates deficiencies in the City’s production, the City may have to re-do its search.  But that is not a basis for Court intervention at this stage of the case.”  As a result, Judge Peck denied the plaintiff’s application to force the defendants to use TAR.

So, what do you think?  Are you surprised by that ruling?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Don’t forget that next Wednesday at 1:00pm ET, ACEDS will be conducting a webinar panel discussion, titled How Automation is Revolutionizing eDiscovery, sponsored by CloudNine.  Our panel discussion will provide an overview of the eDiscovery automation technologies and we will really take a hard look at the technology and definition of TAR and the limitations associated with both.  This time, Mary Mack, Executive Director of ACEDS will be moderating and I will be one of the panelists, along with Bill Dimm, CEO of Hot Neuron and Bill Speros, Evidence Consulting Attorney with Speros & Associates, LLC.  Click on the link here to register.

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.