Close
Enter your
text here

Outsourcing

Here are Some Questions You Might Not Think to Ask Your Technology Provider: eDiscovery Best Practices

I love Rob Robinson’s Complex Discovery site.  Whether it’s information on eDiscovery provider mergers and acquisitions, a software and services mashup of the eDiscovery market, or links to many other useful resources, his is a site I check out pretty much daily.  His latest post discusses some questions that you might not think to ask your technology provider, because they might be “uncomfortable”.

In Six Uncomfortable Questions to Ask Your Technology Provider Immediately, Rob discusses failure to fully investigate a potential technology provider’s risk in relation to conflicts of interest, financial integrity, and adherence to the law when vetting those providers before entering into agreements.  As Rob notes, failure to ask questions like this could be due to not knowing what to ask, or it could be because those conversations are simply “uncomfortable”.

With that in mind, Rob identifies “six uncomfortable questions that all sourcing organizations should consider asking their technology providers today”.  They are:

  1. Is any member of your organization involved in any activity that may result in competing loyalties that could cause your organization to benefit at our expense?
  2. Is your organization prevented from engaging with any specific organization(s) by a contractual agreement, temporary restraining order, or a legal judgment?
  3. Has your organization withdrawn any publicly released announcements or materials because of the inability to substantiate claims?
  4. Does your organization have any unpaid federal, state, local or foreign income and employment taxes (as required) for the most recent three years of your organization’s existence?
  5. Is your organization involved in any current litigation or under the threat of potential litigation?
  6. Does your organization have any unsatisfied judgments?

Let’s face it, the quality of the technology offered by the provider may be moot if that provider has legal or financial issues or conflicts of interest that may affect the quality of the technology or services it provides.

Additional questions I like to ask relate to how long an organization has been in business and what is the average tenure of the key employees or executive team.  It’s good to know that you’re not dealing with a “fly by night” company that may not last.  While tenure and experience aren’t a guarantee for success, it certainly helps.  Have you looked at the standings in the National Football League lately?  It’s no accident that all of the undefeated teams have had the same coaching staffs for the last five to fifteen years (except one, and that team has Peyton Manning).  Experience makes a difference.

Rob’s article hits on a topic that people don’t talk much about.  If the provider is solid, those questions don’t have to be “uncomfortable”.  Thanks, Rob!

So, what do you think?  What “uncomfortable” questions do you ask your technology provider(s)?  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.

If You Ever Have to Compare RFP Vendors, EDRM Has a New Calculator for You: eDiscovery Best Practices

Let’s face it, comparing bids from different eDiscovery vendors on an “apples to apples” basis can be difficult as each vendor seems to have its own unique pricing structure.  However, a new calculator from EDRM can help simplify the comparison process to identify the low cost provider.

The designer of the latest calculator is Casey Flaherty, former in-house counsel for Kia Motors America and founder of Procertas, a company offering training to corporate legal teams on improving efficiency and reducing costs.  This is the sixth budget calculator available from EDRM (we covered the previous five here, here, here, here and here).

Flaherty’s budget calculator is three sets of calculators in one. The Baseline Calculator sheet contains the client’s current pricing model. The Standard Calculator sheets compare vendors against each other and a baseline. The Proposed Calculator sheets – identified by a “(P)” in the sheet name – enable you to track additional savings vendors present that they believe they will be able to achieve. Each spreadsheet provides sample numbers to better understand how the workbook performs calculations, but Flaherty recommends that each user replace those with their own figures.

The current workbook provides several sample sheets, with the Standard Calculator and Proposed Calculator sheets named from #1 to #5 (add a “(P)” in the sheet name of the Proposed Calculator sheets and you get the idea.  Obviously, those sheets could be easily renamed to identify the vendors being considered in the RFP process and sheets can be easily added (and copied) or deleted as needed to reflect the total comparison.

Each sheet contains sections for Collection, Processing, Review and Production, with Assumptions, Pricing and Alternative Pricing sub-sections for each:

  • Collection: includes assumption options for tracking collection at the custodian, share drive, event, days, travel hours and/or GB basis;
  • Processing: includes assumption parameters for tracking initial ingested volume, filter rates for pre-process and ECA, tech/PM hours and tracking hosting for near-line data;
  • Review: is the most comprehensive section and tracks metrics for everything from reviewer and user licenses (not all providers charge those, so shop around) to consultation hours to support for tracking Technology Assisted Review (TAR) and even machine translation and bilingual review(!);
  • Production: includes tracking docs and GBs produced and provides options for tracking both native and TIFF productions.

The workbook is completely customizable, so if you’re good with Excel, you can add or remove categories as needed.  The workbook is not locked, so calculation cells are editable (either by design or accidentally) – again, if you’re good with Excel, you can lock down individual sheets or the entire workbook to lock down editing of calculation cells.  A terrific resource if you need to compare quotes from eDiscovery vendors for your project!

To download this calculator (or any or all of the previous five EDRM calculators), click here.

So, what do you think?  How do you handle evaluating bids from multiple eDiscovery vendors?   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.

Legal Salaries on the Rise? That’s the Half of It: eDiscovery Trends

Robert Half, that is.

Robert Half’s 2016 Legal Salary Guide features salary ranges for more than 100 positions in the legal field and provides some other interesting statistics, as well.  According to the Guide, average starting salaries for lawyers at law firms are expected to increase 3.5 percent in 2016.  And, salaries for experienced litigation support and eDiscovery directors and managers are expected to rise even more than that.

The salary figures in the 2016 edition are based on a number of sources, most notably the thousands of full-time, temporary and project placements Robert Half’s staffing and recruiting professionals make each year. Here are some breakdowns:

  • Lawyers: Starting salaries for lawyers with 10-plus years’ experience are expected to increase 0 to 4.7 percent from 2015 (depending on the size of the firm). A lawyer with 10-plus years’ experience at a large firm (75+ lawyers) is expected to hit an average range of $194,250 to $279,500 annually.  First-year associates’ salaries are expected to increase 2.2 to 2.7 percent increase over 2015 projections.  Corporate in house counsel are expected to see average compensation gains of 2.2 to 3.7 percent over 2015 levels, with the more experienced in house counsel trending toward the top end of that range (average range of $185,250 to $259,750 annually).
  • Paralegals/Legal Assistants: Starting salaries for paralegals/legal assistants are expected to increase 0 to 4.0 percent from 2015. Senior legal assistants with 7+ years of experience are expected to make as much as $96,750 annually at large law firms.
  • Litigation Support/eDiscovery: Starting salaries for litigation support/eDiscovery directors and managers are expected to increase from 4 to 5.7 percent annually from 2015. The top end of the salary range for litigation support/eDiscovery directors with 10+ years of experience is $130,500.  Document coders also see an increase – 3.6 percent over 2015.

The guide also provides salary expectations for office managers, legal secretaries, legal specialists and contract and compliance administration positions for both law firms and corporate legal.  Not surprisingly, they’re all up.

Other notable statistics:

  • Lawyers’ top responses to the question “Aside from compensation or bonus, which of the following provides the best incentive for legal professionals to remain with a law firm/ company?” were as follows: Challenging work or variety of assignments (39 percent), Professional development opportunities (26 percent), Flexible work arrangements (20 percent).
  • 71 percent of lawyers said blended or hybrid paralegal/legal secretary positions are more common today than they were two years ago.
  • The top two practice areas that are expected to generate the greatest number of legal jobs in the next two years in the US are: Litigation (33 percent) and General Business/Commercial Law (26 percent).

The survey guide also provides an adjustment for various US cities across the country (obviously, salaries are much higher in New York (140 percent of the reported numbers for the different positions) than in Duluth, MN (79.6 percent).  For example, the top end of the salary range for litigation support/eDiscovery directors with 10+ years of experience in Houston (107.5 percent for my hometown) is actually $140,287 (just sayin’).  So, you can adjust the numbers based on local variances.  The guide even has a Canada section, eh?

The FREE 36 page PDF guide is available here.  Check it out.  Maybe you need a raise?

So, what do you think?  Do the numbers 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.

Court Orders Plaintiff to Re-Review 95% of its Production Classified as “Highly Confidential”: eDiscovery Case Law

In Procaps S.A. v. Patheon Inc., 12-24356-CIV-GOODMAN, 2014 U.S. Dist. (S.D. Fla. July 20, 2015), after the plaintiff designated 95% of its forensically-produced documents (141,525 of 148,636) as “highly confidential”, Florida District Judge Jonathan Goodman ordered the plaintiff to re-review and re-designate those documents within ten days, and also assessed a $25,000 fees award against the plaintiff’s outside counsel to compensate the defendant for its efforts in reviewing the documents.

Case Background

In this case, the parties entered into a stipulated confidentiality agreement whereby they designated confidential documents as either “Confidential Information” or “Highly Confidential Information”, with the parties agreeing that only counsel could view the “Highly Confidential Information”. The parties agreed to use the “Highly Confidential Information” category only for “information that truly requires highly sensitive protection.”

The defendant challenged both the plaintiff’s method of marking highly confidential documents and the number of documents marked.  The plaintiff marked each highly confidential document with the “highly confidential” legend but did so in a way which prevented the defendant from doing a computer search for the term “highly confidential.”  The defendant alleged that its inability to perform these searches significantly prejudiced its defense of the case.

Also, 148,636 documents were produced by the plaintiff in the forensic analysis, and the plaintiff designated 141,525 of them as “highly confidential” (95.2%).   The defendant also determined that 90.9% of the plaintiffs’ entire production (141,696 of 155,759 documents) was branded by the plaintiff as “highly confidential.”  The defendant’s statistical sample review of the branded “highly confidential” documents identified documents generated by the defendant itself, as well as SPAM emails – documents that would clearly not be “highly confidential”.  As a result, the defendant filed a motion for re-designation of highly confidential documents on July 13, 2015 and also sought fee reimbursement of $34,385.69.  The plaintiff ultimately acknowledged the “apparent over-designation of documents as Highly Confidential”, noting that it was performed by a third party vendor.

Judge’s Ruling

In a previous ruling in this case, Judge Goodman began his opinion by quoting both eighteenth century English writer Samuel Johnson and the recently departed B.B. King; in this ruling, he began by quoting song lyrics from a song by Christine McVie.  Judge Goodman, characterizing the plaintiff’s designations as “indiscriminate”, rejected the plaintiff’s proposed alternatives for the defendant or the special master to identify the documents to be re-reviewed, stating that “Procaps’ indiscriminate designation of documents as highly confidential should not lead to the “result of improperly shifting the cost of review of confidentiality” to Patheon.”

Instead, noting that “Procaps cannot avoid its discovery obligations by shifting blame to the third party it hired for the project” and observing that “Procaps’ attorneys presumably performed the final review, and one or more of its attorneys realized, or should have realized, that a 95% highly confidential, AEO (attorney’s eyes only) designation rate is problematic and questionable (or “absurd”) on its face”, Judge Goodman ordered the plaintiff to re-review and re-designate those documents within ten days.  He also awarded the defendant $25,000 of the $34,385.69 fees requested.

So, what do you think?  Was the court correct in ordering the plaintiff to re-review the documents in such a short period of time?  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.

Apple’s Motion to Seal eDiscovery Vendor Invoice Line Items Granted by Court: eDiscovery Case Law

In GPNE Corp. v. Apple, Inc., 12-CV-02885-LHK (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2015), California District Judge Lucy H. Koh granted the defendant’s motion to file under seal specific line items from third-party e-discovery vendor invoices that were submitted in support of its bill of costs.

The defendant had sought to file the portions under seal because they stated that the invoices contained “sensitive and confidential information regarding the costs Apple incurred in defending against the patent infringement claims”, stating that they “reveal sensitive and confidential information regarding Apple’s financial relationship with its e-discovery vendor” and the information “could be used by Apple competitors to its disadvantage, as disclosure of the redacted information will reveal confidential pricing strategy and Apple’s financial relationship with its e-discovery vendor.”

Judge Koh started by observing that “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents’…Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, ‘a strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.’”  But, she also noted that “Records attached to nondispositive motions are not subject to the strong presumption of access…Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions ‘are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,’ parties moving to seal must meet the lower ‘good cause’ standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure…The ‘good cause’ standard requires a ‘particularized showing’ that ‘specific prejudice or harm will result’ if the information is disclosed.”

Judge Koh also stated that “Pursuant to Rule 26(c), a trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of court documents for, inter alia, the protection of “a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information.”  Referring to the defendant’s motion as “nondispositive”, Judge Koh applied “the ‘good cause’ standard to Defendant’s request” and found that “Defendant has made a ‘particularized showing’ that ‘specific prejudice or harm will result’ if certain confidential terms of Defendant’s financial relationship with its e-discovery vendor are made public.”  Therefore, Judge Koh granted the defendant’s motion to seal as to the proposed redactions in the exhibit.

So, what do you think?  Should eDiscovery vendor pricing be considered confidential?  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.

Pitfalls Associated with Self-Collection of Data by Custodians: eDiscovery Best Practices

In a prior article, we covered the Burd v. Ford Motor Co. case where the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for a deposition of a Rule 30(b)(6) witness on the defendant’s search and collection methodology involving self-collection of responsive documents by custodians based on search instructions provided by counsel.  In light of that case and a recent client experience of mine, I thought it would be appropriate to revisit this topic that we addressed a couple of years ago.

I’ve worked with a number of attorneys who have turned over the collection of potentially responsive files to the individual custodians of those files, or to someone in the organization responsible for collecting those files (typically, an IT person).  Self-collection by custodians, unless managed closely, can be a wildly inconsistent process (at best).  In some cases, those attorneys have instructed those individuals to perform various searches to turn “self-collection” into “self-culling”.  Self-culling can cause at least two issues:

  1. You have to go back to the custodians and repeat the process if additional search terms are identified.
  2. Potentially responsive image-only files will be missed with self-culling.

It’s not uncommon for additional searches to be required over the course of a case, even when search terms are agreed to by the parties up front (search terms are frequently renegotiated), so the self-culling process has to be repeated when new or modified terms are identified.

It’s also common to have a number of image-only files within any collection, especially if the custodians frequently scan executed documents or use fax software to receive documents from other parties.  In some cases, image-only PDF or TIFF files can often make up as much as 20% of the collection.  When custodians are asked to perform “self-culling” by performing their own searches of their data, these files will typically be missed.

For these reasons, I usually advise against self-culling by custodians in litigation.  I also typically don’t recommend that the organization’s internal IT department perform self-culling either, unless they have the capability to process that data to identify image-only files and perform Optical Character Recognition (OCR) on them to capture text.  If your IT department doesn’t have the capabilities and experience to do so (which includes a well-documented process and chain of custody), it’s generally best to collect all potentially responsive files from the custodians and turn them over to a qualified eDiscovery provider to perform the culling.  Most qualified eDiscovery providers, including (shameless plug warning!) CloudNine™, perform OCR as needed to include image-only files in the resulting potentially responsive document set before culling.  With the full data set available, there is also no need to go back to the custodians to perform additional searches to collect additional data (unless, of course, the case requires supplemental productions).


Most organizations that have their custodians perform self-collection of files for eDiscovery probably don’t expect that they will have to explain that process to the court.  Ford sure didn’t.  If your organization plans to have its custodians self-collect, you’d better be prepared to explain that process, which includes discussing your approach for handling image-only files.

So, what do you think?  Do you self-collect data for discovery purposes?  If so, how do you account for image-only files?  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.

Should Contract Review Attorneys Receive Overtime Pay?: eDiscovery Trends

Whether they should or not, maybe they can – if they’re found NOT to be practicing law, according to a ruling from the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

According to a story in The Posse List (Contract attorney lawsuit against Skadden Arps can proceed, appeals court says; case could enable temporary lawyers hired for routine document review to earn extra wages), the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded the matter for further proceedings, ruling that a lawsuit demanding overtime pay from law firm Skadden, Arps and legal staffing agency Tower Legal Solutions can proceed.

The plaintiff, David Lola, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed the case as a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action against Skadden, Arps and Tower Legal Staffing.  He alleged that, beginning in April 2012, he worked for the defendants for fifteen months in North Carolina, working 45 to 55 hours per week and was paid $25 per hour. He conducted document review for Skadden in connection with a multi-district litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Lola is an attorney licensed to practice law in California, but he is not admitted to practice law in either North Carolina or the Northern District of Ohio.

According to the ruling issued by the appellate court, “Lola alleged that his work was closely supervised by the Defendants, and his entire responsibility . . . consisted of (a) looking at documents to see what search terms, if any, appeared in the documents, (b) marking those documents into the categories predetermined by Defendants, and (c) at times drawing black boxes to redact portions of certain documents based on specific protocols that Defendants provided.’  Lola also alleged that Defendants provided him with the documents he reviewed, the search terms he was to use in connection with those documents, and the procedures he was to follow if the search terms appeared.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Lola was exempt from FLSA’s overtime rules because he was a licensed attorney engaged in the practice of law. The district court granted the motion, finding (1) state, not federal, standards applied in determining whether an attorney was practicing law under FLSA; (2) North Carolina had the greatest interest in the outcome of the litigation, thus North Carolina’s law should apply; and (3) Lola was engaged in the practice of law as defined by North Carolina law, and was therefore an exempt employee under FLSA.”

While the appellate court agreed with the first two points, it disagreed with the third.  In vacating the judgment of the district court and remanding the matter for further proceedings, the appellate court stated in its ruling:

“The gravamen of Lola’s complaint is that he performed document review under such tight constraints that he exercised no legal judgment whatsoever—he alleges that he used criteria developed by others to simply sort documents into different categories. Accepting those allegations as true, as we must on a motion to dismiss, we find that Lola adequately alleged in his complaint that he failed to exercise any legal judgment in performing his duties for Defendants. A fair reading of the complaint in the light most favorable to Lola is that he provided services that a machine could have provided.”

A link to the appeals court ruling, also available in the article in The Posse List, can be found here.

So, what do you think?  Are document reviewers practicing law?  If not, should they be entitled to overtime pay?  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.

This Firm Marked Up Reviewer Billings Over 500 Percent and that’s Not the Worst Part: eDiscovery Trends

Remember when we asked the question whether a blended document review rate of $466 per hour is excessive? Many of you weighed in on that one and that post is still our most viewed of all time. Marking up the billing rate for reviewers over 500 percent may or may not also be unacceptable, depending on who you talk to. But, everyone agrees that billing more hours than you actually worked is a bad thing.

According to a new article by Gina Passarella in The Legal Intelligencer (Are Contract Attorney Markups Of Any Concern to Clients?), a former Drinker Biddle & Reath contract attorney received a two-year suspension last week for overbilling a client on document review. The attorney worked for the firm from 2011 through 2012, where he was paid $40 an hour and charged out to a client at $245 an hour.

If you’re whipping out your calculator, I’ll save you the trouble – that’s a 513 percent markup (rounded up).

But, that’s not why he was suspended. It turns out that the attorney logged more time into the firm’s time accounting system than he was logged into the firm’s eDiscovery system and had overbilled for the 12 months he was at the firm. Drinker Biddle terminated the attorney within days of discovering the discrepancy.

But, according to Passarella’s article, “the legal community’s reaction focused not so much on the behavior as on the lawyer’s billing rate… Some have described a 513 percent markup as ‘stratospheric’ while others have said a firm’s internal profitability is none of the client’s business as long as the client feels it is getting the perceived value from the business transaction.”

Drinker Biddle chairman Andrew C. Kassner defended the markup, citing overhead costs and said that the firm works hard to ensure value for the client and provided a lower-cost option to the client by using a contract lawyer rather than an associate.

Unlike Mark Antony (the Roman emperor, not the singer), I don’t come to bury Drinker Biddle in this article, many law firms mark review up considerably. And, as Passarella notes, “Drinker Biddle was certainly an early adopter of the value proposition espoused by the Association of Corporate Counsel and others, becoming one of the first law firms to create a chief value officer position in 2010 and forming an associate training program post-recession that didn’t charge clients for the first four months of a first-year’s time.”

However, Passarella’s article does quote three individuals who questioned the current billing model: 1) a former general counsel who, while he was in-house, “decoupled” the use of contract attorneys from outside counsel, 2) a former BigLaw attorney who became disenchanted with the large-firm business model and created his own firm which focuses on providing better value to clients, and 3) an Altman Weil consultant who questioned the $245 value for document review, noting that “if it were really important they wouldn’t be using a $40-an-hour lawyer”. Perhaps we should revisit the discussion as to whether it’s time to ditch the per hour model for document review?

As for the overbilling, Kassner said the firm paid back the client all that it was charged for the overbilled time as well as for any time the attorney charged on the matter.

So, what do you think? Is it time to ditch the per hour model for document review? Or, is marking up reviewer billing two to three times (or more) an acceptable practice? 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.

What Time Is It? That is an Important Question When it Comes to Your Document Collection: eDiscovery Best Practices

It may not be game time (hoo!), but the question of what time it really is has a significant effect on how eDiscovery is handled.

Our clients that process their electronically stored information (ESI) with CloudNine’s Discovery Client processing application (shameless plug warning!) generally find the wizard based application for processing and loading data to our review platform easy to use (as of this week, you can now process your data for loading in your own preferred review platform). But, for those few clients who have questions, we get one question WAY more than any other:

Why is the application asking me in which time zone would I like for my dates to be displayed?

Most ESI is stored in UTC (Coordinated Universal Time), which is the primary time standard by which the world regulates clocks and time. That’s not the same as Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), which is actually a time zone, not a time standard like UTC. The user’s operating system uses regional settings on the user’s system to convert the UTC time to the user’s local time zone. In many litigation cases, one of the issues that should be decided up front is the time zone to apply to the produced files. Why is it a big deal? Consider this example:

A multinational corporation has offices from coast to coast and potentially responsive emails are routinely sent between people in New York and Los Angeles offices. If an email is sent from one custodian in the Los Angeles office at 10 PM on June 30, 2013 and is received by another custodian in the New York office at 1 AM on July 1, 2013, and the relevant date range is from July 1, 2013 thru December 31, 2014, then the choice of time zones will determine whether or not that email falls within the relevant date range. Because the time zone is based on the workstation setting, the two employees could actually even be in the same office when the email is sent (if someone is traveling).

As noted in the recently released EDRM Data Processing Standards Guide (which we covered here), if the processing time zone for the case is not standardized across the entire collection, then the email metadata for custodians in the different time zones will be different – because the time (and, possibly, the date, as indicated in the example above) would be different. As a result, two copies of the same email (one in the New York custodian’s email collection and one in the Los Angeles custodian’s email collection), would fail to be de-duplicated. Not to mention that the different time zones would create a convoluted chronology or, as in the example above, a convoluted relevant date range.

As a result, most eDiscovery processing software (including ours) expects you to use a standard time zone for all files in the case. That can be the predominant time zone where the producing party is located – for example, an organization has offices throughout the country, but its headquarters is (along with most of the producing custodians) based in Houston, TX – so you might choose Central Standard Time as the time zone for the case. Or if the producing party is fairly evenly spread out across multiple time zones, you can choose to standardize to UTC.

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

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. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Upholds Review of Taxable Costs by Clerk, Awards over $57,000: eDiscovery Case Law

In Comprehensive Addiction Treatment Center, Inc. v. Leslea, No. 11-cv-03417-CMA-MJW (D. Colo. Feb. 13, 2015), Colorado District Judge Christine M. Arguello denied the plaintiffs’ motion to review Clerk’s Taxing of Costs Under F.R.C.P. 54(D)(1), upholding the award by the Clerk of the Court of $57,873.61 in taxable costs.

Case Background

On January 31, 2013, the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on qualified immunity and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was granted by the court. After prevailing on summary judgment, the defendants filed a Proposed Bill of Costs seeking costs totaling $58,037.01. At a telephonic hearing, the District Court Clerk awarded $57,873.61 of the requested taxable costs. On March 5, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an instant Motion seeking a review of the Clerk’s determination concerning the taxed amount of $55,649.98 for the defendants to contract with a private consulting company, Cyopsis, to retrieve and convert ESI into a retrievable format to produce information that was requested by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs contended that the Court should reduce the taxing of costs entered by the Clerk from $57,873.61 to $2,387.03 because retrieving, restoring and converting data does not constitute “copying” under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4). The defendants disagreed, arguing that “[p]roduction costs in collecting, scanning, reviewing, and preparing documents are necessary expenditures that are made for the purpose of advancing the discovery phase of the case and as such, are taxable.”

Judge’s Opinion

Judge Arguello stated that “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 provides that ‘[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs—other than attorney’s fees—should be allowed to the prevailing party.’” She also pointed out that “courts have recognized that 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) includes e-discovery related costs”, citing three cases.

As for this case, Judge Arguello observed that “[b]ecause of the complexities and time-intensive efforts anticipated in responding to Plaintiffs’ requests for documents, the parties entered into three consecutive tolling agreements” and also that “Defendants wrote to Plaintiffs’ counsel three times describing the difficulties and complexities encountered in retrieving and restoring the ESI”. “At no time during this period did Plaintiffs initiate discussion aimed at limiting the scope of their request for information or take other measures to limit the costs of the endeavor”, she noted, indicating that based on the ESI production, “Plaintiffs filed a new Complaint including several allegations not included in the version filed in 2010”.

As a result, Judge Arguello found that the defendants’ costs related to the ESI are expenses enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4). She found that “The ESI expenses were not merely for the convenience of the parties nor were they materials produced solely for discovery as Plaintiffs filed a new Complaint that included information gleaned from the ESI. Thus, the ESI expenses were reasonably necessary for use in the case. Indeed, Plaintiffs were aware of the monumental effort to retrieve and convert the data into a retrievable format in response to their Interrogatories and Requests for Production. The costs incurred by Defendants, the prevailing party, in responding to Plaintiffs’ requests are expenses that are shifted to Plaintiffs, the losing party. Indeed, Plaintiffs own litigation choices and aggressive course of discovery necessarily resulted in ‘heightened’ defense costs.”

Therefore, Judge Arguello denied the plaintiffs’ motion and upheld the award by the Clerk of the Court of $57,873.61 in taxable costs.

It’s not exactly a pot o’ gold, but it’s nothing to sneeze at either. 🙂 Happy St. Patrick’s Day!

So, what do you think? Is recovery of eDiscovery costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) too open to interpretation? 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. eDiscoveryDaily 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. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.