Close
Enter your
text here

Review

2013 eDiscovery Year in Review: eDiscovery Case Law, Part 3

As we noted on Thursday and Friday, eDiscoveryDaily published 78 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 62 unique cases!  Friday, we looked back at cases related to production format disputes, search disputes and technology assisted review.  Today, let’s take a look back at cases related to proportionality and the first half of the cases related to sanctions (yes, there were that many).

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!

PROPORTIONALITY / COOPERATION

There were certainly at least a handful of cases where proportionality of eDiscovery and cooperation between parties was at issue, including the most viewed post in the history of this blog.  Here are three such cases:

Is a Blended Document Review Rate of $466 Per Hour Excessive?  Remember when we raised the question as to whether it is time to ditch the per hour model for document review? One of the cases we highlighted for perceived overbilling was ruled upon last month. In the case In re Citigroup Inc. Securities Litigation, New York District Judge Sidney H. Stein rejected as unreasonable the plaintiffs’ lead counsel’s proffered blended rate of more than $400 for contract attorneys—more than the blended rate charged for associate attorneys—most of whom were tasked with routine document review work.

Court Rejects Defendants’ Claim of Undue Burden in ERISA Case.  In the case In re Coventry Healthcare, Inc.: ERISA Litigation, Maryland Magistrate Judge Jillyn K. Schulze rejected the defendants’ claim of undue burden where they failed to suggest alternatives to using the plaintiffs’ search terms and where they could enter a clawback order to eliminate the cost of reviewing the data for responsiveness and privilege.

Court Agrees with Defendant that Preserving 5 Terabytes of Data is Enough.  In United States ex rel. King v. Solvay, S.A., Texas District Judge Gray Miller granted the defendant’s request for a protective order where the plaintiffs only offered generalized, unsupported claims to support their request to extend and expand discovery.

SANCTIONS

Yes, once again, the topic with the largest number of case law decisions related to eDiscovery is those decisions related to sanctions.  Of the 62 cases we covered this past year, over 40% of them (26 total cases) related to sanctions, either due to spoliation issues or inadequate or untimely productions, many of which were granted, but some were denied.  Here are the first 13 cases:

Company Should Have Preserved Personal eMails, But No Sanctions (Yet).  In Puerto Rico Telephone Co. v. San Juan Cable LLC, Puerto Rico Magistrate Judge Bruce J. McGiverin found that “plaintiff has proffered sufficient evidence to establish that [the defendant] OneLink failed to preserve relevant emails within its control”, but denied the plaintiff’s request for sanctions at this time because of the “absence of bad faith” on the defendant’s part and the plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate prejudice.

The Ubiquitous Apple Samsung Case and “Patentgate”.  When something gets the “gate” suffix added to it, that’s not a good thing. It’s hard to believe that a case can get more intense than when a billion dollar verdict is awarded (later reduced to a measly $599 million, then increased back up to $930 million), but the Apple v. Samsung case seems to only be getting more intense, due to the disclosure of confidential agreements that Apple had with Nokia, Ericsson, Sharp and Philips – now widely referred to as “patentgate”.

Duty to Preserve Triggered When Litigation is “Imminent”, Not “Reasonably Foreseeable”.  In the case In re Pradaxa (Dabigatran Etexilate) Products Liability Litigation, Chief District Judge David R. Herndon ruled that at least in the Seventh Circuit, the duty to preserve is triggered not when litigation is “reasonably foreseeable” but when “a litigant knew or should have known that litigation was imminent.”

Leaving Your Hard Drives in a Rental House is Negligent, Court Rules.  In Net-Com Services, Inc. v. Eupen Cable USA, Inc., the plaintiff’s destruction of evidence was negligent where its principal failed to take steps to preserve evidence he had stored in a home he rented to nonaffiliated lessees.

Despite Missing and Scrambled Hard Drives, Court Denies Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions. In Anderson v. Sullivan, a Pennsylvania court found “that no sanctions are warranted” despite the disappearance of one hard drive, “scrambling” of another hard drive and failure to produce several e-mails because the evidence was not relevant to the underlying claims and because there was no showing the defendants intentionally destroyed evidence.

Court Awards Sanctions, But Declines to Order Defendants to Retain an eDiscovery Vendor – Yet.  In Logtale, Ltd. v. IKOR, Inc., California Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to discovery and awarded partial attorney’s fees as a result of defendants’ conduct. The judge did not grant the plaintiff’s request to order Defendants to retain an eDiscovery vendor to conduct a thorough and adequate search for responsive electronic documents, but did note that the court would do so “if there are continuing problems with their document productions”.

Imagine if the Zubulake Case Turned Out Like This.  You’ve got an employee suing her ex-employer for discrimination, hostile work environment and being forced to resign. During discovery, it was determined that a key email was deleted due to the employer’s routine auto-delete policy, so the plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions. Sound familiar? Yep. Was her motion granted? Nope.

Scheindlin Reverses Magistrate Judge Ruling, Orders Sanction for Spoliation of Data.  If you’re hoping to get away with failing to preserve data in eDiscovery, you might want to think again if your case appears in the docket for the Southern District of New York with Judge Shira Scheindlin presiding.

Permissive Adverse Inference Instruction Upheld on Appeal.  In Mali v. Federal Insurance Co., the Second Circuit explained the distinctions between two types of adverse inference instructions: a sanction for misconduct versus an explanatory instruction that details the jury’s fact-finding abilities. Because the lower court opted to give a permissive adverse inference instruction, which is not a punishment, the court did not err by not requiring the defendant to show that the plaintiffs acted with a culpable state of mind.

Default Judgment Sanction Upheld on Appeal.  In Stooksbury v. Ross, the Sixth Circuit upheld the entry of default judgment as a sanction against defendants that repeatedly failed to comply with discovery obligations, including producing a “document dump” of tens of thousands of pages of nonresponsive information that prejudiced the plaintiffs.

Spoliation Sanctions Can Apply to Audio Files Too.  In Hart v. Dillon Cos., Colorado Magistrate Judge David L. West granted the plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence for failing to preserve a tape recorded interview with the plaintiff and set a hearing and oral argument as to what sanctions should be imposed for October.

Printed Copies of Documents Not Enough, Spoliation Sanctions Upheld for Discarding Computer.  On May 30, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department upheld a spoliation sanction against a plaintiff that failed to preserve electronic files and discarded his computer containing those files.

Appellate Court Denies Sanctions for Routine Deletion of Text Messages.  In PTSI, Inc. v. Haley, the appellate court denied a motion for spoliation sanctions where the defendants routinely deleted text messages and other data to “clean up” their personal electronic devices: the volume of messages and limited amount of phone storage made it difficult to retain all data and still use the phone for messaging.

Tune in tomorrow for the remaining thirteen sanctions cases in 2013!

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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

2013 eDiscovery Year in Review: eDiscovery Case Law, Part 2

As we noted yesterday, eDiscoveryDaily published 78 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 62 unique cases!  Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to admissibility and eDiscovery cost reimbursement.  Today, let’s take a look back at cases related to production format disputes, search disputes and technology assisted review.

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!

PRODUCTION FORMAT DISPUTES

Disputes regarding the form of production appear to be on the rise.  Typically, judges are instructing to provide searchable productions with metadata, but at least one judge ruled that “without Bates stamping and .tiff format, the plaintiff’s production was not reasonably usable”.  Go figure.  Here are the six cases involving production format disputes:

Court Declines to Impose Default Judgment, But Orders Searchable Production and Extends Deadlines. In Kwan Software Engineering, Inc. v. the defendant Technologies, LLC, California District Judge Susan Illston denied the plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions against the defendant for late, non-searchable productions, but did order the defendant to produce documents in a searchable format with metadata and extended the pretrial schedule so that the plaintiff would not be prejudiced by the late productions.

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Request for Native Production, Allows PDFs Instead. In Westdale Recap Props. v. Np/I&G Wakefield Commons, North Carolina Magistrate Judge James E. Gates upheld the plaintiff’s motion to compel the defendants to conduct supplemental searches and production, but denied the plaintiff’s motion with regard to requiring the defendant to produce ESI in native format, instead finding that “production in the form of searchable PDF’s is sufficient”.

Judge Sides with Both Parties in Form of Production Dispute. The opinion in Kwasniewski v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC suggests that producing parties can satisfy their obligation to produce documents in an organized manner by offering a table of contents, rendering text searchable, indicating which data responds to which request, and including certain metadata, such as Bates numbers.

Defendant Compelled by Court to Produce Metadata. In AtHome Care, Inc. v. The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, Idaho District Judge B. Lynn Winmill granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel documents, ordering the defendant to identify and produce metadata for the documents in this case.

Court Rules Production Must be TIFFs with Bates Numbers. In Branhaven, LLC v. Beeftek, Inc., Maryland Magistrate Judge Susan K. Gauvey sanctioned plaintiff’s attorneys for wrongfully certifying the completeness of their eDiscovery production and also ruled that defendants “demonstrated that without Bates stamping and .tiff format”, the plaintiff’s production “was not reasonably usable and therefore was insufficient under Rule 34”.

Waste Management Wants to Throw Away the Metadata. In the case In Re: Waste Management of Texas, Inc., a Texas appeals court refused to grant Waste Management’s petition for writ of mandamus to direct the trial court to withdraw its order to produce native, electronic format with all metadata.

SEARCH DISPUTES

Disputes regarding search terms, with regard to which terms to perform and also whether search terms should be disclosed, were also on the rise this year.  Believe it or not, one plaintiff referred to Boolean searching as “unprecedented”.  Here are the five cases we covered regarding search term disputes:

Court Orders Plaintiff to Perform Some Requested Searches Despite the Plaintiff’s Claim that they’re “Unprecedented”. In Swanson v. ALZA Corp., California Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s request to compel the plaintiff to apply its search terms to his ESI, ordering some of the search terms to be performed, despite the plaintiff’s assertion that the “the application of Boolean searches was unprecedented”.

Without Meet and Confer Approval of its “Triangulating” Approach to Discovery, Defendant Ordered to Supplement Production. In Banas v. Volcano Corp., California District Judge William H. Orrick determined that a defendant’s approach to discovery in which identifying the relevant documents by “triangulating” the defendant’s employees wasn’t discussed with the plaintiff beforehand in a meet and confer. Despite the fact that the court did “not find that defendant’s production technique was unreasonable”, the defendant was ordered to supplement its responses since the approach wasn’t discussed and it left out multiple deponents.

Use of Model Order Doesn’t Avoid Discovery Disputes. In MediaTek, Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., when the parties could not agree on search terms, California Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley ordered one party to run test searches before lodging objections and required both parties to meet and confer before approaching the court with further discovery disputes.

If Production is Small, Does that Mean ESI is Being Withheld? In American Home Assurance Co. v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., Nebraska District Judge Lyle E. Strom ruled (among other things) that the defendants must disclose the sources it has searched (or intends to search) for electronically stored information (ESI) to the plaintiffs and, for each source, identify the search terms used.

Court Forces Defendant to Come to Terms with Plaintiff Search Request. In Robert Bosch LLC v. Snap-On, Inc., Michigan District Judge Robert H. Cleland granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel with regard to specific search terms requested for the defendant to perform. The judge denied the plaintiff’s request for sanctions to award attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in bringing its motion to compel.

TECHNOLOGY ASSISTED REVIEW

With technology assisted review having been approved in several cases in 2012, we started to see some results of that process last year and conclusion of the plaintiff’s efforts to recuse Judge Peck in DaSilva Moore.  We also saw the approval of a multi-modal approach in one case and asked the question whether 31,000 missed relevant documents is an acceptable outcome in another.  Here are six cases related to technology assisted review from 2013:

Plaintiffs’ Supreme Effort to Recuse Judge Peck in Da Silva Moore Denied. As we discussed back in July, attorneys representing lead plaintiff Monique Da Silva Moore and five other employees filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the US Supreme Court arguing that New York Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck, who approved an eDiscovery protocol agreed to by the parties that included predictive coding technology, should have recused himself given his previous public statements expressing strong support of predictive coding. On October 7, that petition was denied by the Supreme Court.

Judge Says “Dude, Where’s Your CAR?” Ralph Losey describes a unique case in his e-Discovery Team ® blog (Poor Plaintiff’s Counsel, Can’t Even Find a CAR, Much Less Drive One). In Northstar Marine, Inc. v. Huffman, the defendant’s motion to enforce the parties’ document production agreement was granted after Alabama Magistrate Judge William E. Cassady rejected the plaintiff’s excuse that “it is having difficulty locating an inexpensive provider of electronic search technology to assist with discovery”.

Is it OK for an eDiscovery Vendor to Work on Both Sides of a Case?  Back in June, we covered a case where the plaintiffs’ motion to compel the defendant to meet and confer to establish an agreed protocol for implementing the use of predictive coding software was dismissed (without prejudice) after the defendants stated that they were prepared to meet and confer with the plaintiffs and their non-disqualified ESI consultants regarding the defendants’ predictive coding process. The sticking point may be the ESI consultant in dispute.

Never Mind! Plaintiffs Not Required to Use Predictive Coding After All. Remember EORHB v. HOA Holdings, where, in a surprise ruling, both parties were instructed to use predictive coding by the judge? Well, the judge has changed his mind.

Plaintiffs’ Objections to Defendant’s Use of Keyword Search before Predictive Coding Rejected. In the case In Re: Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation (MDL 2391), the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in a Multi District Litigation objected to the defendant’s use of keyword searching prior to performing predictive coding and requested that the defendant go back to its original set of 19.5 million documents and repeat the predictive coding without performing keyword searching. Indiana District Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr. denied the request.

Is 31,000 Missed Relevant Documents an Acceptable Outcome?  It might be, if the alternative is 62,000 missed relevant documents. In January, we reported on the first case for technology assisted review to be completed, Global Aerospace Inc., et al, v. Landow Aviation, L.P. dba Dulles Jet Center, et al, in which predictive coding was approved last April by Virginia State Circuit Court Judge James H. Chamblin. Now, as reported by the ABA Journal (by way of the Wall Street Journal Law Blog), we have an idea of the results from the predictive coding exercise.

Tune in Monday for more key cases of 2013!

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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Split Decision between Plaintiff and Defendant Regarding Search Terms – eDiscovery Case Law
 

In Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Giannoulias, No. 12 C 1665, 2013 U.S. Dist. (N.D. III Oct. 23, 2013), Illinois District Judge John F. Grady resolved several motions regarding discovery proceedings in a $114 million lawsuit. Two of the motions concerned search terms for documents and electronically stored information (ESI), in which the plaintiff opposed the defendants’ request for six additional terms to be included in retrieving discovery documents. The court ruled that four additional search terms would be added, while two would be excluded.

This discovery dispute arose in a lawsuit filed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) as a receiver for Broadway Bank, which alleges that several former officers and directors of the now-closed bank had “negligently approved” 20 commercial real estate loans, resulting in losses to the FDIC of $114 million. During the first phase of discovery, the defendants had served 242 requests for production, and in response the plaintiff produced 500,000 pages of documents that pertained to the loans in question.

The dispute occurred during the second phase of discovery concerning the ESI, which in this case consists of mostly emails. The plaintiff and defendant had cooperatively generated a list of around 250 unique search terms, which the plaintiff applied to the ESI and produced approximately 150,000 hits. The defendant then requested that six further search terms be included. Combined, the six terms produced around 16,800 additional hits.

The plaintiff disagreed with the addition of the search terms and both parties failed to reach an agreement regarding what, specifically, should be done with the data resulting from the finalized ESI search terms. A proposal from the defendants requested that the plaintiff be required to review the filtered ESI to determine which materials were responsive to the defendants’ request, and also that the plaintiff organize and label the production of filtered results.

However, the plaintiff contended that the proposed ESI Protocol would be “unduly burdensome,” and instead proposed to provide a database in Relativity to contain all documents generated by the finalized search terms. The defendants would then be allowed to search and review the database, identify the documents of interest, and subject the chosen documents to a review by the plaintiff for privilege before being furnished with any non-privileged documents.

Judge Grady’s ruling split the additional six search terms in question, allowing four specific and relevant terms to be added to the discovery, and disallowing two general terms: “capitalized” and “capitalization.” This decision was based on the nature of the plaintiff’s business, and the view that “the connection between the terms ‘capitalized’ and ‘capitalization’ and the complaint’s core negligence allegations is tenuous, and the likelihood of entirely irrelevant hits appears high.”

With regards to responsiveness review and organization of document production, the court ruled that while the plaintiff must filter the discovery documents according to the agreed-upon search terms by conducting “a diligent search, which involves developing a reasonably comprehensive search strategy,” the plaintiff is not obligated to “examine every scrap of paper in its potentially voluminous files” to comply with discovery obligations. Further, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff toward organizing and categorizing relevant ESI according to the numerous discovery requests by the defendants, agreeing that such a process would “impose a substantial burden” on the plaintiff.

So, what do you think?  Is the plaintiff meeting discovery obligations without a full responsiveness review? Should all of the requested search terms have been added? 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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Six eDiscovery Predictions for 2014, Part One – eDiscovery Trends

It’s that time of year, where people make predictions for the coming year for all sorts of things, including electronic discovery trends for the coming year.  Though I have to say, I’ve seen fewer predictions this year than in past years.  Nonetheless, I feel compelled to offer some of my own predictions.  If they turn out right, you heard it here first!

Prediction 1: Predictive coding technologies will become more integrated into the discovery process, for more than just review.

Two or three years ago, predictive coding (a.k.a., technology assisted review or computer assisted review) was a promising technology that had yet to be officially accepted in the courts.  Then, in 2012, cases such as Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, Global Aerospace Inc., et al, v. Landow Aviation, L.P. dba Dulles Jet Center, et al and In re Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation, predictive coding was approved (and there was at least two other cases where it was contemplated).  So, it’s beginning to be used, though most attorneys still don’t fully understand how it works or understand that it’s not a “turn-key” software solution, it includes a managed process that uses the software.

It’s not going out on a limb to say that this year predictive coding technologies will be more widely used; however, I think those technologies will branch out beyond review to other phases of the eDiscovery life cycle, including Information Governance.  Predictive coding is not new technology, it’s basically artificial intelligence applied to the review process, so it’s logical that same technology can be applied to other areas of the discovery life cycle as well.

Prediction 2: The proposed amendments will be adopted, but it will be a struggle.

Changes to Federal Rules for eDiscovery have been drafted and have been approved for public comment.  However, several people have raised concerns about some of the new rules.  Judge Shira Scheindlin has criticized proposed Rule 37(e), intended to create a uniform national standard regarding the level of culpability required to justify severe sanctions for spoliation, for creating “perverse incentives” and encouraging “sloppy behavior.”

U.S. Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del.), who chairs the Subcommittee on Bankruptcy and the Courts, predicted that some proposed restrictions – such as reducing the number of depositions, interrogatories and requests for admission for each case – “would do nothing about the high-stakes, highly complex or highly contentious cases in which discovery costs are a problem.”  Senator Coons and Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., also expressed concerns that those limits would likely restrict plaintiffs in smaller cases in which discovery costs are not a problem.

Needless to say, not everybody is a fan of all of the new proposed rules, especially Rule 37(e).  But, the proposed rules have gotten this far and there are a number of lobbyists pushing for adoption.  So, I think they’ll be adopted, but not without some controversy and struggle.

Prediction 3: The eDiscovery industry will continue to consolidate and many remaining providers will need to continue to reinvent themselves.

Every year, I see several predictions that more eDiscovery vendors will fail and/or there will be more consolidation in the industry.  And, every year there is consolidation.  Here’s the latest updated list of mergers, acquisitions and investments since 2001, courtesy of Rob Robinson.  But, every year there also new players in the market, so the number of providers never seems to change dramatically.  Last year, by my count, there were 225 exhibitors at Legal Tech New York (LTNY), with many, if not most of them in the eDiscovery space.  This year, the partial list stands at 212.  Not a tremendous drop off, if any.

Nonetheless, there will be more pressure on eDiscovery providers than ever before to provide services at reasonable prices, yet turn a profit.  I’ve seen bold predictions, like this one from Albert Barsocchini at NightOwl Discovery in which he predicted the possible end of eDiscovery processing fees.  I’m not sure that I agree that they’re going away entirely, but I do see further commoditization of several eDiscovery services.  The providers that offer truly unique software offerings and/or expert services to complement any commodity-based services that they offer will be the ones best equipped to meet market demands, profitably.

On Monday, I predict I’ll have three more predictions to cover.  Hey, at least that’s one prediction that should come true!

So, what do you think?  Do you have any eDiscovery predictions for 2014?  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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Cost Calculator for Document Review – eDiscovery Best Practices

A couple of weeks ago, we discussed budget calculators available from the Metrics section of the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) web site and, two days later, began a review of the budget calculators, beginning with the E-Discovery Cost Estimator for Processing and Review workbook provided by Julie Brown at Vorys law firm.  Today, we will continue our review of the calculators with a look at the Doc Review Cost Calculator.

As described on the site, this budget calculator focuses on review, which is universally considered to be the most expensive phase of the eDiscovery process (by far). From assumptions entered by users, it calculates per-document and per-hour (a) low and high price estimates, (b) low and high costs on a per page basis, and (c) low and high costs on a per document basis.

To use it, enter assumptions in the white and yellow cells in columns B, C, and D. Calculations are shown in columns D through T.

Assumptions that you can provide include: pages per document, low and high page counts in the collection, low and high time to complete the review project (in weeks) and reviewer hours per week, proposed rates for review (hourly and per document), low and high pages per hour rates for review (from which documents per hour rates are computed), proposed rates for review management (hourly and per document) and percentage of the collection to QC.

From the entered assumptions, the model will provide calculations to illustrate the low and high cost estimates for the low and high page count estimates, for both a per-document and a per-hour review billing structure.  It will also estimate a range of the number of reviewers needed to complete the project within the time frames specified, to help you plan on staffing necessary to meet proposed deadlines.  The detailed calculations are stored in a hidden sheet called “Calculations” – you can unhide it if you want to see how the review calculation “sausage” is made.

This model uses an “old school” assessment of a document collection based on page counts, so to use it with native file collections (where page counts aren’t known), you have to set the pages per document to 1 – your review rate then becomes documents (files) per hour.

Suggestions for improvement:

  • Some of the enterable assumption cells are in yellow and some in white (the same color as the computed cells), it would be easier and clearer to identify the assumptions fields if they were all yellow to differentiate them from the computed cells;
  • Protect the sheet and lock down the computed cells (at least in the main sheet) to avoid accidental overwriting of calculations (with the ability to unprotect the sheet if a formula requires tweaking);
  • Tie a line or bar graph to the numbers to represent the differences graphically;
  • Provide some notes to explain some of the cells (especially the assumption cells) in more detail.

Nonetheless, this workbook would certainly be useful for estimating review costs and number of reviewers needed to complete a large scale review, not only at the start, but also to provide updated estimates as review commences, so you can adjust cost estimates and staffing needs as you go.  You can download this calculator individually or a zip file containing all four calculators here.  In a few days, we will continue our review of the current EDRM budget calculators in more detail with the ESI Cost Budget calculator from Browning Marean of DLA Piper law firm.

So, what do you think?  How do you estimate eDiscovery costs?   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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Is a Blended Document Review Rate of $466 Per Hour Excessive? – eDiscovery Replay

Even those of us at eDiscovery Daily have to take an occasional vacation (see above); however, instead of “going dark” for the week, we thought we would use the week to do something interesting.  Up to this week, we have had 815 posts over 3+ years of the blog.  Some have been quite popular, so we thought we would “replay” the top four all-time posts this week in terms of page views since the blog began (in case you missed them).  Casey Kasem would be proud!  Published less than two months ago in September, this post quickly vaulted to the top as the most viewed post of all time with over 1,400 lifetime views!  I guess the nerve of the plaintiff’s lead counsel struck a nerve with our readers!  Enjoy!

______________________________

Remember when we raised the question as to whether it is time to ditch the per hour model for document review?  One of the cases we highlighted for perceived overbilling was ruled upon last month.

In the case In re Citigroup Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 09 MD 2070 (SHS), 07 Civ. 9901 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2013), New York District Judge Sidney H. Stein rejected as unreasonable the plaintiffs’ lead counsel’s proffered blended rate of more than $400 for contract attorneys—more than the blended rate charged for associate attorneys—most of whom were tasked with routine document review work.

In this securities fraud matter, a class of plaintiffs claimed Citigroup understated the risks of assets backed by subprime mortgages. After the parties settled the matter for $590 million, Judge Stein had to evaluate whether the settlement was “fair, reasonable, and adequate and what a reasonable fee for plaintiffs’ attorneys should be.” The court issued a preliminary approval of the settlement and certified the class. In his opinion, Judge Stein considered the plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of the settlement and allocation and the plaintiffs’ lead counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs of $97.5 million. After approving the settlement and allocation, Judge Stein decided that the plaintiffs’ counsel was entitled to a fee award and reimbursement of expenses but in an amount less than the lead counsel proposed.

One shareholder objected to the lead counsel’s billing practices, claiming the contract attorneys’ rates were exorbitant.

Judge Stein carefully scrutinized the contract attorneys’ proposed hourly rates “not only because those rates are overstated, but also because the total proposed lodestar for contract attorneys dwarfs that of the firm associates, counsel, and partners: $28.6 million for contract attorneys compared to a combined $17 million for all other attorneys.” The proposed blended hourly rate was $402 for firm associates and $632 for firm partners. However, the firm asked for contract attorney hourly rates as high as $550 with a blended rate of $466. The plaintiff explained that these “contract attorneys performed the work of, and have the qualifications of, law firm associates and so should be billed at rates commensurate with the rates of associates of similar experience levels.” In response, the complaining shareholder suggested that a more appropriate rate for contract attorneys would be significantly lower: “no reasonable paying client would accept a rate above $100 per hour.” (emphasis added)

Judge Stein rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the contract attorneys should be billed at rates comparable to firm attorneys, citing authority that “clients generally pay less for the work of contract attorneys than for that of firm associates”:

“There is little excuse in this day and age for delegating document review (particularly primary review or first pass review) to anyone other than extremely low-cost, low-overhead temporary employees (read, contract attorneys)—and there is absolutely no excuse for paying those temporary, low-overhead employees $40 or $50 an hour and then marking up their pay ten times for billing purposes.”

Furthermore, “[o]nly a very few of the scores of contract attorneys here participated in depositions or supervised others’ work, while the vast majority spent their time reviewing documents.” Accordingly, the court decided the appropriate rate would be $200, taking into account the attorneys’ qualifications, work performed, and market rates.

For this and other reasons, the court found the lead counsel’s proposed lodestar “significantly overstated” and made a number of reductions. The reductions included the following amounts:

  • $7.5 million for document review by contract attorneys that happened after the parties agreed to settle; 20 of the contract attorneys were hired on or about the day of the settlement.
  • $12 million for reducing the blended hourly rate of contract attorneys from $466 to $200 for 45,300 hours, particularly where the bills reflected that these attorneys performed document review—not higher-level work—all day.
  • 10% off the “remaining balance to account for waste and inefficiency which, the Court concludes, a reasonable hypothetical client would not accept.”

As a result, the court awarded a reduced amount of $70.8 million in attorneys’ fees, or 12% of the $590 million common fund.

So, what do you think?  Was the requested amount excessive?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).  For eDiscovery news and best practices, check out the Applied Discovery Blog here.

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

Does Size Matter? – eDiscovery Replay

Even those of us at eDiscovery Daily have to take an occasional vacation (see above); however, instead of “going dark” for the week, we thought we would use the week to do something interesting.  Up to this week, we have had 815 posts over 3+ years of the blog.  Some have been quite popular, so we thought we would “replay” the top four all-time posts this week in terms of page views since the blog began (in case you missed them).  Casey Kasem would be proud!  Apparently, my catchy title worked as, with over 1,150 lifetime views, here is the third most viewed post all time, originally published in March 2011.  Enjoy!

______________________________

I admit it, with a title like “Does Size Matter?”, I’m looking for a few extra page views.  😉

I frequently get asked how big does an ESI collection need to be to benefit from eDiscovery technology.  In a recent case with one of my clients, the client had a fairly small collection – only about 4 GB.  But, when a judge ruled that they had to start conducting depositions in a week, they needed to review that data in a weekend.  Without the ability to cull the data and using OnDemand® to manage the linear review, they would not have been able to make that deadline.  So, they clearly benefited from the use of eDiscovery technology in that case.

But, if you’re not facing a tight deadline, how large does your collection need to be for the use of eDiscovery technology to provide benefits?

I recently conducted a webinar regarding the benefits of First Pass Review – aka Early Case Assessment, or a more accurate term (as George Socha points out regularly), Early Data Assessment.  One of the topics discussed in that webinar was the cost of review for each gigabyte (GB).  Extrapolated from an analysis conducted by Anne Kershaw a few years ago (and published in the Gartner report E-Discovery: Project Planning and Budgeting 2008-2011), here is a breakdown:

Estimated Cost to Review All Documents in a GB:

  • Pages per GB:                      75,000
  • Pages per Document:        4
  • Documents Per GB:            18,750
  • Review Rate:                        50 documents per hour
  • Total Review Hours:            375
  • Reviewer Billing Rate:        $50 per hour

Total Cost to Review Each GB:      $18,750

Notes: The number of pages per GB can vary widely.  Page per GB estimates tend to range from 50,000 to 100,000 pages per GB, so 75,000 pages (18,750 documents) seems an appropriate average.  50 documents reviewed per hour is considered to be a fast review rate and $50 per hour is considered to be a bargain price.  eDiscovery Daily provided an earlier estimate of $16,650 per GB based on assumptions of 20,000 documents per GB and 60 documents reviewed per hour – the assumptions may change somewhat, but, either way, the cost for attorney review of each GB could be expected to range from at least $16,000 to $18,000, possibly more.

Advanced culling and searching can enable you to cull out 70-80% of most collections as clearly non-responsive without having to conduct attorney review on those files.  If you have merely a 2 GB collection and assume the lowest review cost above of $16,000 per GB, the use of advanced culling and searching to cull out 70% of the collection can save $22,400 in attorney review costs.  Is that worth it?

So, what do you think?  Do you use eDiscovery technology for only the really large cases or ALL cases?   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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

The Number of Pages in Each Gigabyte Can Vary Widely – eDiscovery Replay

Even those of us at eDiscovery Daily have to take an occasional vacation (see above); however, instead of “going dark” for the week, we thought we would use the week to do something interesting.  Up to this week, we have had 815 posts over 3+ years of the blog.  Some have been quite popular, so we thought we would “replay” the top four all-time posts this week in terms of page views since the blog began (in case you missed them).  Casey Kasem would be proud!  With nearly 1,000 lifetime views, here is the fourth most viewed post all time, originally published in July 2012.  Enjoy!

_________________________

A while back, we talked about how the average number of pages in each gigabyte is approximately 50,000 to 75,000 pages and that each gigabyte effectively culled out can save $18,750 in review costs.  But, did you know just how widely the number of pages per gigabyte can vary?

The “how many pages” question comes up a lot and I’ve seen a variety of answers.  Michael Recker of Applied Discovery posted an article to their blog last week titled Just How Big Is a Gigabyte?, which provides some perspective based on the types of files contained within the gigabyte, as follows:

“For example, e-mail files typically average 100,099 pages per gigabyte, while Microsoft Word files typically average 64,782 pages per gigabyte. Text files, on average, consist of a whopping 677,963 pages per gigabyte. At the opposite end of the spectrum, the average gigabyte of images contains 15,477 pages; the average gigabyte of PowerPoint slides typically includes 17,552 pages.”

Of course, each GB of data is rarely just one type of file.  Many emails include attachments, which can be in any of a number of different file formats.  Collections of files from hard drives may include Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Adobe PDF and other file formats.  So, estimating page counts with any degree of precision is somewhat difficult.

In fact, the same exact content ported into different applications can be a different size in each file, due to the overhead required by each application.  To illustrate this, I decided to conduct a little (admittedly unscientific) study using yesterday’s one page blog post about the Apple/Samsung litigation.  I decided to put the content from that page into several different file formats to illustrate how much the size can vary, even when the content is essentially the same.  Here are the results:

  • Text File Format (TXT): Created by performing a “Save As” on the web page for the blog post to text – 10 KB;
  • HyperText Markup Language (HTML): Created by performing a “Save As” on the web page for the blog post to HTML – 36 KB, over 3.5 times larger than the text file;
  • Microsoft Excel 2010 Format (XLSX): Created by copying the contents of the blog post and pasting it into a blank Excel workbook – 128 KB, nearly 13 times larger than the text file;
  • Microsoft Word 2010 Format (DOCX): Created by copying the contents of the blog post and pasting it into a blank Word document – 162 KB, over 16 times larger than the text file;
  • Adobe PDF Format (PDF): Created by printing the blog post to PDF file using the CutePDF printer driver – 211 KB, over 21 times larger than the text file;
  • Microsoft Outlook 2010 Message Format (MSG): Created by copying the contents of the blog post and pasting it into a blank Outlook message, then sending that message to myself, then saving the message out to my hard drive – 221 KB, over 22 times larger than the text file.

The Outlook example was probably the least representative of a typical email – most emails don’t have several embedded graphics in them (with the exception of signature logos) – and most are typically much shorter than yesterday’s blog post (which also included the side text on the page as I copied that too).  Still, the example hopefully illustrates that a “page”, even with the same exact content, will be different sizes in different applications.  As a result, to estimate the number of pages in a collection with any degree of accuracy, it’s not only important to understand the size of the data collection, but also the makeup of the collection as well.

So, what do you think?  Was this example useful or highly flawed?  Or both?  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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Are You Scared Yet? – eDiscovery Horrors!

Today is Halloween.  Every year at this time, because (after all) we’re an eDiscovery blog, we try to “scare” you with tales of eDiscovery horrors.  So, I have one question: Are you scared yet?

Did you know that there has been over 3.4 sextillion bytes created in the Digital Universe since the beginning of the year, and data in the world will grow nearly three times as much from 2012 to 2017?  How do you handle your own growing universe of data?

What about this?

The proposed blended hourly rate was $402 for firm associates and $632 for firm partners. However, the firm asked for contract attorney hourly rates as high as $550 with a blended rate of $466.

How about this?

You’ve got an employee suing her ex-employer for discrimination, hostile work environment and being forced to resign. During discovery, it was determined that a key email was deleted due to the employer’s routine auto-delete policy, so the plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions. Sound familiar? Yep. Was her motion granted? Nope.

Or maybe this?

After identifying custodians relevant to the case and collecting files from each, you’ve collected roughly 100 gigabytes (GB) of Microsoft Outlook email PST files and loose electronic files from the custodians. You identify a vendor to process the files to load into a review tool, so that you can perform review and produce the files to opposing counsel. After processing, the vendor sends you a bill – and they’ve charged you to process over 200 GB!!

Scary, huh?  If the possibility of exponential data growth, vendors holding data hostage and billable review rates of $466 per hour keep you awake at night, then the folks at eDiscovery Daily will do our best to provide useful information and best practices to enable you to relax and sleep soundly, even on Halloween!

Then again, if the expense, difficulty and risk of processing and loading up to 100 GB of data into an eDiscovery review application that you’ve never used before terrifies you, maybe you should check this out.

Of course, if you seriously want to get into the spirit of Halloween, click here.  This will really terrify you!

What do you think?  Is there a particular eDiscovery issue that scares you?  Please share your comments and let us know if you’d like more information on a particular topic.

Happy Halloween!

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

Plaintiffs’ Supreme Effort to Recuse Judge Peck in Da Silva Moore Denied – eDiscovery Case Law

As we discussed back in July, attorneys representing lead plaintiff Monique Da Silva Moore and five other employees filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the US Supreme Court arguing that New York Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck, who approved an eDiscovery protocol agreed to by the parties that included predictive coding technology, should have recused himself given his previous public statements expressing strong support of predictive coding.  Earlier this month, on October 7, that petition was denied by the Supreme Court.

Da Silva Moore and her co-plaintiffs had argued in the petition that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was too deferential to Peck when denying the plaintiff’s petition to recuse him, asking the Supreme Court to order the Second Circuit to use the less deferential “de novo” standard.

The plaintiffs have now been denied in their recusal efforts in four courts.  Here is the link to the Supreme Court docket item, referencing denial of the petition.

This battle over predictive coding and Judge Peck’s participation has continued for over 18 months.  For those who may have not been following the case or may be new to the blog, here’s a recap.

Last year, back in February, Judge Peck issued an opinion making this case likely the first case to accept the use of computer-assisted review of electronically stored information (“ESI”) for this case.  However, on March 13, District Court Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted the plaintiffs’ request to submit additional briefing on their February 22 objections to the ruling.  In that briefing (filed on March 26), the plaintiffs claimed that the protocol approved for predictive coding “risks failing to capture a staggering 65% of the relevant documents in this case” and questioned Judge Peck’s relationship with defense counsel and with the selected vendor for the case, Recommind.

Then, on April 5, 2012, Judge Peck issued an order in response to Plaintiffs’ letter requesting his recusal, directing plaintiffs to indicate whether they would file a formal motion for recusal or ask the Court to consider the letter as the motion.  On April 13, (Friday the 13th, that is), the plaintiffs did just that, by formally requesting the recusal of Judge Peck (the defendants issued a response in opposition on April 30).  But, on April 25, Judge Carter issued an opinion and order in the case, upholding Judge Peck’s opinion approving computer-assisted review.

Not done, the plaintiffs filed an objection on May 9 to Judge Peck’s rejection of their request to stay discovery pending the resolution of outstanding motions and objections (including the recusal motion, which has yet to be ruled on.  Then, on May 14, Judge Peck issued a stay, stopping defendant MSLGroup’s production of electronically stored information.  On June 15, in a 56 page opinion and order, Judge Peck denied the plaintiffs’ motion for recusal.  Judge Carter ruled on the plaintiff’s recusal request on November 7 of last year, denying the request and stating that “Judge Peck’s decision accepting computer-assisted review … was not influenced by bias, nor did it create any appearance of bias”.

The plaintiffs then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Second Circuit of the US Court of Appeals, which was denied this past April, leading to their petition for a writ of certiorari with the US Supreme Court, which has now also been denied.

So, what do you think?  Will we finally move on to the merits of the case?  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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.