Close
Enter your
text here

Processing

eDiscovery Searching: Types of Exception Files

Friday, we talked about how to address the handling of exception files through agreement with opposing counsel (typically, via the meet and confer) to manage costs and avoid the potential for spoliation claims.  There are different types of exception files that might be encountered in a typical ESI collection and it’s important to know how those files can be recovered.

Types of Exception Files

It’s important to note that efforts to “fix” these files will often also change the files (and the metadata associated with them), so it’s important to establish with opposing counsel what measures to address the exceptions are acceptable.  Some files may not be recoverable and you need to agree up front how far to go to attempt to recover them.

  • Corrupted Files: Files can become corrupted for a variety of reasons, from application failures to system crashes to computer viruses.  I recently had a case where 40% of the collection was contained in 2 corrupt Outlook PST files – fortunately, we were able to repair those files and recover the messages.  If you have readily accessible backups of the files, try to restore them from backup.  If not, you will need to try using a repair utility.  Outlook comes with a utility called SCANPST.EXE that scans and repairs PST and OST files, and there are utilities (including freeware utilities) available via the web for most file types.  If all else fails, you can hire a data recovery expert, but that can get very expensive.
  • Password Protected Files: Most collections usually contain at least some password protected files.  Files can require a password to enable them to be edited, or even just to view them.  As the most popular publication format, PDF files are often password protected from editing, but they can still be viewed to support review (though some search engines may fail to index them).  If a file is password protected, you can try to obtain the password from the custodian providing the file – if the custodian is unavailable or unable to remember the password, you can try a password cracking application, which will run through a series of character combinations to attempt to find the password.  Be patient, it takes time, and doesn’t always succeed.
  • Unsupported File Types: In most collections, there are some unusual file types that aren’t supported by the review application, such as files for legacy or specialized applications (e.g., AutoCad for engineering drawings).  You may not even initially know what type of files they are; if not, you can find out based on file extension by looking the file extension up in FILExt.  If your review application can’t read the files, it also can’t index the files for searching or display them for review.  If those files may be responsive to discovery requests, review them with the native application to determine their relevancy.
  • No-Text Files: Files with no searchable text aren’t really exceptions – they have to be accounted for, but they won’t be retrieved in searches, so it’s important to make sure they don’t “slip through the cracks”.  It’s common to perform Optical Character Recognition (OCR) on TIFF files and image-only PDF files, because they are common document formats.  Other types of no-text files, such as pictures in JPEG or PNG format, are usually not OCRed, unless there is an expectation that they will have significant text.

It’s important for review applications to be able to identify exception files, so that you know they won’t be retrieved in searches without additional processing.  FirstPass™, powered by Venio FPR™, is one example of an application that will flag those files during processing and enable you to search for those exceptions, so you can determine how to handle them.

So, what do you think?  Have you encountered other types of exceptions?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Searching: Exceptions are the Rule
 

Virtually every collection of electronically stored information (ESI) has at least some files that cannot be effectively searched.  Corrupt files, password protected files and other types of exception files are frequent components of your ESI collection and it can become very expensive to make these files searchable or reviewable.  Being without an effective plan for addressing these files could lead to problems – even spoliation claims – in your case.

How to Address Exception Files

The best way to develop a plan for addressing these files that is reasonable and cost-effective is to come to agreement with opposing counsel on how to handle them.  The prime opportunity to obtain this agreement is during the meet and confer with opposing counsel.  The meet and confer gives you the opportunity to agree on how to address the following:

  • Efforts Required to Make Unusable Files Usable: Corrupted and password protected files may be fairly easily addressed in some cases, whereas in others, it takes extreme (i.e., costly) efforts to fix those files (if they can be fixed at all).  Up-front agreement with the opposition helps you determine how far to go in your recovery efforts to keep those recovery costs manageable.
  • Exception Reporting: Because there will usually be some files for which recovery is unsuccessful (or not attempted, if agreed upon with the opposition), you need to agree on how those files will be reported, so that they are accounted for in the production.  The information on exception reports will vary depending on agreed upon format between parties, but should typically include: file name and path, source custodian and reason for the exception (e.g., the file was corrupt).

If your case is in a jurisdiction where a meet and confer is not required (such as state cases where the state has no rules for eDiscovery), it is still best to reach out to opposing counsel to agree on the handling of exception files to control costs for addressing those files and avoid potential spoliation claims.

On Monday, we will talk about the types of exception files and the options for addressing them.  Oh, the suspense!  Hang in there!

So, what do you think?  Have you been involved in any cases where the handling of exception files was disputed?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Thought Leader Q&A: Brad Jenkins of Trial Solutions
 

Tell me about your company and the products you represent. Trial Solutions is an electronic discovery software and services company in Houston, Texas that assists corporations and law firms in the collection, processing and review of electronic data. Trial Solutions developed OnDemand™, formerly known as ImageDepot™, an online e-discovery review application which is currently used by over fifty of the top 250 law firms including seven of the top ten.  Trial Solutions also offers FirstPass™, an early case assessment and first-pass review application.  Both applications are offered as a software-as-a-service (SaaS), where Trial Solutions licenses the applications to customers for use and provides access via the Internet. Trial Solutions provides litigation support services in over 90 metropolitan areas throughout the United States and Canada.

What do you see as emerging trends for eDiscovery SaaS solutions?  I believe that one emerging trend that you’ll see is simplified pricing.  Pricing for many eDiscovery SaaS solutions is too complex and difficult for clients to understand.  Many providers base pricing on a combination of collection size and number of users (among other factors) which is confusing and penalizes organizations for adding users into a case,  I believe that organizations will expect simpler pricing models from providers with the ability to add an unlimited number of users to each case.

Another trend I expect to see is provision of more self-service capabilities giving legal teams greater control over managing their own databases and cases.  Organizations need the ability to administer their own databases, add users and maintain their rights without having to rely on the hosting provider to provide these services.  A major self-service capability is the ability to load your own data on your schedule without having to pay load fees to the hosting provider.

Why do you think that more eDiscovery SaaS solutions don’t provide a free self loading capability?  I don’t know.  Many SaaS solutions outside of eDiscovery enable you to upload your own data to use and share via the Web.  Facebook and YouTube enable you to upload and share pictures and videos, Google Docs is designed for sharing and maintaining business documents, and even SalesForce.com allows you to upload contacts via a comma-separated values (CSV) file.  So, loading your own data is not a new concept for SaaS solutions.  OnDemand™ is about to roll out a new SelfLoader™ module to enable clients to load their own data, for free.  With SelfLoader, clients can load their own images, OCR text files, native files and metadata to an existing OnDemand database using an industry-standard load file (IPRO’s .lfp or Concordance’s .opt) format.

Are there any other trends that you see in the industry?  One clear trend is the rising popularity in first pass review/early case assessment (or, early data assessment, as some prefer) solutions like FirstPass as corporate data proliferates at an amazing pace.  According to International Data Corporation (IDC), the amount of digital information created, captured and replicated in the world as of 2006 was 161 exabytes or 161 billion gigabytes and that is expected to rise more than six-fold by 2010 (to 988 exabytes)!  That’s enough data for a stack of books from the sun to Pluto and back again!  With more data than ever to review, attorneys will have to turn to applications to enable them to quickly cull the data to a manageable level for review – it will simply be impossible to review the entire collection in a cost-efficient and timely manner.  It will also be important for there to be a seamless transition from first pass review for culling collections to attorney linear review for final determination of relevancy and privilege and Trial Solutions provides a fully integrated approach with FirstPass and OnDemand.

About Brad Jenkins
Brad Jenkins, President and CEO of Trial Solutions, has over 20 years of experience leading customer focused companies in the litigation support arena. Brad has authored many articles on litigation support issues, and has spoken before national audiences on document management practices and solutions.

Thought Leader Q&A: Chris Jurkiewicz of Venio Systems
 

Tell me about your company and the products you represent.  Venio Systems is an Electronic Discovery software solution provider specializing in early case assessment and first pass review.  Our product, Venio FPR™, allows forensic units, attorneys and litigation support teams to process, analyze, search, report, interact with and export responsive data for linear review or production.

What do you consider to be the reason for the enormous growth of early case assessment/first pass review tools in the industry?  I believe much of the growth we’ve seen in the past few years can be attributed to many factors, of which the primary one is the exponential growth of data within an organization.  The inexpensive cost of data storage available to an organization is making it easier for them to keep unnecessary data on their systems.  Companies who practice litigation and/or work with litigative data are seeking out quick and cost effective methods of funneling the necessary data from all the unnecessary data stored in these vast systems thereby making early case assessment/first pass review tools not only appealing but necessary.

Are there other areas where first pass review tools can be useful during eDiscovery?  Clients have found creative ways in using first pass review/ECA technology; recently a client utilized it to analyze a recent production received by opposing counsel. They were able to determine that the email information produced was not complete.  They were then able to force the opposing counsel to fill in the missing email gaps.

There have been several key cases related to search defensibility in the past couple of years.  How will those decisions affect organizations’ approach to ESI searching?  More organizations will have to adopt a defensible process for searching and use tools that support that process.  Venio’s software has many key features focused on search defensibility including: Search List Analysis, Wild Card Variation searching, Search Audit Reporting and Fuzzy Searching.  All searches run in Venio FPR™ are audited by user, date and time, terms, scope, and frequency.  By using these tools, clients have been able to find additional responsive files that would be otherwise missed and easily document their search approach and refinement.

How do you think the explosion of data and technology will affect the review process in the future?  I believe that technology will continue to evolve and provide innovative tools to allow for more efficient reviews of ESI.  In the past few years the industry has already seen several new technologies released such as near deduping, concept searching and clustering which have significantly improved the speed of the review.  Legal teams will have to continue to make greater utilization of these technologies to provide efficient and cost-effective review as their clients will demand it.

About Chris Jurkiewicz
Chris graduated in 2000 with a Bachelor of Science in Computer Information Systems at Marymount University in Arlington, Virginia.  He began working for On-Site Sourcing while still an intern at Marymount and became the youngest Director on On-Site’s management team within three years as the Director of their Electronic Data Discovery Division.  In 2009, Chris co-founded Venio Systems to fill a void in Early Case Assessment (ECA) technology with Venio FPR™ to provide law firms, corporations and government entities the ability to gain a comprehensive picture of their data set at the front-end; thereby, saving precious time and money on the back-end..  Chris is an industry recognized expert in the field of eDiscovery, having spoken on several eDiscovery panels and served as an eDiscovery expert witness.

Reporting from the EDRM Mid-Year Meeting
 

Launched in May 2005, the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) Project was created to address the lack of standards and guidelines in the electronic discovery market.  Now, in its sixth year of operation, EDRM has become the gold standard for…well…standards in eDiscovery.  Most references to the eDiscovery industry these days refer to the EDRM model as a representation of the eDiscovery life cycle.

At the first meeting in May 2005, there were 35 attendees, according to Tom Gelbmann of Gelbmann & Associates, co-founder of EDRM along with George Socha of Socha Consulting LLC.  Check out the preliminary first draft of the EDRM diagram – it has evolved a bit!  Most participants were eDiscovery providers and, according to Gelbmann, they asked “Do you really expect us all to work together?”  The answer was “yes”, and the question hasn’t been asked again.  Today, there are over 300 members from 81 participating organizations including eDiscovery providers, law firms and corporations (as well as some individual participants).

This week, the EDRM Mid-Year meeting is taking place in St. Paul, MN.  Twice a year, in May and October, eDiscovery professionals who are EDRM members meet to continue the process of working together on various standards projects.  EDRM has eight currently active projects, as follows:

  • Data Set: provides industry-standard, reference data sets of electronically stored information (ESI) and software files that can be used to test various aspects of eDiscovery software and services,
  • Evergreen: ensures that EDRM remains current, practical and relevant and educates about how to make effective use of the Model,
  • Information Management Reference Model (IMRM): provides a common, practical, flexible framework to help organizations develop and implement effective and actionable information management programs,
  • Jobs: develops a framework for evaluating pre-discovery and discovery personnel needs or issues,
  • Metrics: provides an effective means of measuring the time, money and volumes associated with eDiscovery activities,
  • Model Code of Conduct: evaluates and defines acceptable boundaries of ethical business practices within the eDiscovery service industry,
  • Search: provides a framework for defining and managing various aspects of Search as applied to eDiscovery workflow,
  • XML: provides a standard format for e-discovery data exchange between parties and systems, reducing the time and risk involved with data exchange.

This is my fourth year participating in the EDRM Metrics project and it has been exciting to see several accomplishments made by the group, including creation of a code schema for measuring activities across the EDRM phases, glossary definitions of those codes and tools to track early data assessment, collection and review activities.  Today, we made significant progress in developing survey questions designed to gather and provide typical metrics experienced by eDiscovery legal teams in today’s environment.

So, what do you think?  Has EDRM impacted how you manage eDiscovery?  If so, how?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Announcing eDiscovery Thought Leader Q&A Series!
 

eDiscovery Daily is excited to announce a new blog series of Q&A interviews with various eDiscovery thought leaders.  Over the next three weeks, we will publish interviews conducted with six individuals with unique and informative perspectives on various eDiscovery topics.  Mark your calendars for these industry experts!

Christine Musil is Director of Marketing for Informative Graphics Corporation, a viewing, annotation and content management software company based in Arizona.  Christine will be discussing issues associated with native redaction and redaction of Adobe PDF files.  Her interview will be published this Thursday, October 14.

Jim McGann is Vice President of Information Discovery for Index Engines. Jim has extensive experience with the eDiscovery and Information Management.  Jim will be discussing issues associated with tape backup and retrieval.  His interview will be published this Friday, October 15.

Alon Israely is a Senior Advisor in BIA’s Advisory Services group and currently oversees BIA’s product development for its core technology products.  Alon will be discussing best practices associated with “left side of the EDRM model” processes such as preservation and collection.  His interview will be published next Thursday, October 21.

Chris Jurkiewicz is Co-Founder of Venio Systems, which provides Venio FPR™ allowing legal teams to analyze data, provide an early case assessment and a first pass review of any size data set.  Chris will be discussing current trends associated with early case assessment and first pass review tools.  His interview will be published next Friday, October 22.

Kirke Snyder is Owner of Legal Information Consultants, a consulting firm specializing in eDiscovery Process Audits to help organizations lower the risk and cost of e-discovery.  Kirke will be discussing best practices associated with records and information management.  His interview will be published on Monday, October 25.

Brad Jenkins is President and CEO for Trial Solutions, which is an electronic discovery software and services company that assists litigators in the collection, processing and review of electronic information.  Brad will be discussing trends associated with SaaS eDiscovery solutions.  His interview will be published on Tuesday, October 26.

We thank all of our guests for participating!

So, what do you think?  Is there someone you would like to see interviewed for the blog?  Are you an industry expert with some information to share from your “soapbox”?  If so, please share any comments or contact me at daustin@trialsolutions.net.  We’re looking to assemble our next group of interviews now!

eDiscovery Best Practices: Cost of Data Storage is Declining – Or Is It?

Recently, I was gathering information on the cost of data storage and ran across this ad from the early 1980s for a 10 MB disk drive – for $3,398! That’s MB (megabytes), not GB (gigabytes) or TB (terabytes). What a deal!

Even in 2000, storage costs were around $20 per GB, so an 8 GB drive would cost about $160.

Today, 1 TB is available for $100 or less. HP has a 2 TB external drive available at Best Buy for $140 (prices subject to change of course). That’s 7 cents per GB. Network storage drives are more expensive, but still available for around $100 per TB.

At these prices, it’s natural for online, accessible data in corporations to rise exponentially. It’s great to have more and more data readily available to you, until you are hit with litigation or regulatory requests. Then, you potentially have to go through all that data for discovery to determine what to preserve, collect, process, analyze, review and produce.

Here is what each additional GB can cost to review (based on typical industry averages):

  • 1 GB = 20,000 documents (can vary widely, depending on file formats)
  • Review attorneys typically average 60 documents reviewed per hour (for simple relevancy determinations)
  • That equals an average of 333 review hours per GB (20,000 / 60)
  • If you’re using contract reviewers at $50 per hour – each extra GB just cost you $16,650 to review (333×50)

That’s expensive storage! And, that doesn’t even take into consideration the costs to identify, preserve, collect, and process each additional GB.

Managing Storage Costs Effectively

One way to manage those costs is to limit the data retained in the first place through an effective records management program that calls for regular destruction of data not subject to a litigation hold. If you’re eliminating expired data on a regular basis, there is less data to go through the EDRM discovery “funnel” to production.

Sophisticated collection tools or first pass review tools (like FirstPass™, powered by Venio FPR™) can also help cull data for attorney review to reduce those costs, which is the most expensive component of eDiscovery.

So, what do you think? Do you track GB metrics for your eDiscovery cases? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.