Close
Enter your
text here

Collection

Fulbright’s Litigation Trends Survey Shows Increased Litigation, Mobile Device Collection – eDiscovery Trends

According to Fulbright’s 9th Annual Litigation Trends Survey released last month, companies in the United States and United Kingdom continue to deal with, and spend more on litigation.  From an eDiscovery standpoint, the survey showed an increase in requirements to preserve and collect data from employee mobile devices, a high reliance on self-preservation to fulfill preservation obligations and a decent percentage of organizations using technology assisted review.

Here are some interesting statistics from the report:

PARTICIPANTS

Here is a breakdown of the participants in the survey.

  • There were 392 total participants from the US and UK, 96% of which were either General Counsel (82%) or Head of Litigation (14%).
  • About half (49%) of the companies surveyed, were billion dollar companies with $1 billion or more in gross revenue.  36% of the total companies have revenues of $10 billion or more.

LITIGATION TRENDS

The report showed increases in both the number of cases being encountered by organizations, as well as the total expenditures for litigation.

Increasing Litigation Cases

  • This year, 92% of respondents anticipate either the same amount or more litigation, up from 89% last year.  26% of respondents expect litigation to increase, while 66% expect litigation to stay the same.  Among the larger companies, 33% of respondents expect more disputes, and 94% expect either the same number or an increase.
  • The number of respondents reporting that they had received a lawsuit rose this year to 86% estimating at least one matter, compared with 73% last year. Those estimating at least 21 lawsuits or more rose to 33% from 22% last year.
  • Companies facing at least one $20 million lawsuit rose to 31% this year, from 23% the previous year.

Increasing Litigation Costs

  • The percentage of companies spending $1 million or more on litigation has increased for the third year in a row to 54%, up from 51% in 2011 and 46% in 2010, primarily due to a sharp rise in $1 million+ cases in the UK (rising from 38% in 2010 up to 53% in 2012).
  • In the US, 53% of organizations spend $1 million or more on litigation and 17% spend $10 million or more.
  • 33% of larger companies spent $10 million on litigation, way up from 19% the year before (and 22% in 2010).

EDISCOVERY TRENDS

The report showed an increase in requirements to preserve and collect data from employee mobile devices, a high reliance on self-preservation to fulfill preservation obligations and a decent percentage of organizations using technology assisted review.

Mobile Device Preservation and Collection

  • 41% of companies had to preserve and/or collect data from an employee mobile device because of litigation or an investigation in 2012, up from 32% in 2011.
  • Similar increases were reported by respondents from larger companies (38% in 2011, up to 54% in 2012) and midsized companies (26% in 2011, up to 40% in 2012).  Only respondents from smaller companies reported a drop (from 26% to 14%).

Self-Preservation

  • 69% of companies rely on individuals preserving their own data (i.e., self-preservation) in any of their disputes or investigations.  Larger and mid-sized companies are more likely to utilize self-preservation (73% and 72% respectively) than smaller companies (52%).
  • 41% of companies use self-preservation in all of their matters, and 73% use it for half or more of all matters.
  • When not relying on self-preservation, 72% of respondents say they depend on the IT function to collect all data sources of pertinent custodians.
  • Reasons that respondents gave for not relying on self-preservation included: More cost effective and efficient not to rely on custodian 29%; Lack of compliance by custodians 24%; High profile matter 23%; High monetary or other exposure 22%; Need to conduct forensics 20%; Some or all custodians may have an incentive to improperly delete potentially relevant information; 18%; Case law does not support self-preservation 14% and High profile custodian 11%.

Technology Assisted Review

  • 35% of all respondents are using technology assisted review for at least some of their matters.  U.S. companies are more likely to employ technology-assisted review than their U.K. counterparts (40% versus 23%).
  • 43% of larger companies surveyed use technology assisted review, compared with 32% of mid-sized companies and 23% of the smaller companies.
  • Of those companies utilizing technology assisted review, 21% use it in all of their matters and 51% use it for half or more of their matters.

There are plenty more interesting stats and trends in the report, which is free(!).  To download your own copy of the report, click here.

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

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine 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.

eDiscovery Daily Is Thirty! (Months Old, That Is)

Thirty months ago yesterday, eDiscovery Daily was launched.  It’s hard to believe that it has been 2 1/2 years since our first three posts that debuted on our first day.  635 posts later, a lot has happened in the industry that we’ve covered.  And, yes we’re still crazy after all these years for committing to a daily post each business day, but we still haven’t missed a business day yet.  Twice a year, we like to take a look back at some of the important stories and topics during that time.  So, here are just a few of the posts over the last six months you may have missed.  Enjoy!

In addition, Jane Gennarelli has been publishing an excellent series to introduce new eDiscovery professionals to the litigation process and litigation terminology.  Here is the latest post, which includes links to the previous twenty one posts.

Thanks for noticing us!  We’ve nearly quadrupled our readership since the first six month period and almost septupled (that’s grown 7 times in size!) our subscriber base since those first six months!  We appreciate the interest you’ve shown in the topics and will do our best to continue to provide interesting and useful eDiscovery news and analysis.  And, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic!

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.

Outlook Emails Can Take Many Forms – eDiscovery Best Practices

Most discovery requests include a request for emails of parties involved in the case.  Email data is often the best resource for establishing a timeline of communications in the case and Microsoft® Outlook is the most common email program used in business today.  Outlook emails can be stored in several different forms, so it’s important to be able to account for each file format when collecting emails that may be responsive to the discovery request.

There are several different file types that contain Outlook emails, including:

EDB (Exchange Database): The server files for Microsoft Exchange, which is the server environment which manages Outlook emails in an organization.  In the EDB file, a user account is created for each person authorized at the company to use email (usually, but not always, employees). The EDB file stores all of the information related to email messages, calendar appointments, tasks, and contacts for all authorized email users at the company.  EDB files are the server-side collection of Outlook emails for an organization that uses Exchange, so they are a primary source of responsive emails for those organizations.  Not all organizations that use Outlook use Exchange, but larger organizations almost always do.

OST (Outlook Offline Storage Table): Outlook can be configured to keep a local copy of a user’s items on their computer in an Outlook data file that is named an offline Outlook Data File (OST). This allows the user to work offline when a connection to the Exchange computer may not be possible or wanted. The OST file is synchronized with the Exchange computer when a connection is available.  If the synchronization is not current for a particular user, their OST file could contain emails that are not on the EDB server file, so OST files may also need to be searched for responsive emails.

PST (Outlook Personal Storage Table): A PST file is another Outlook data file that stores a user’s messages and other items on their computer. It’s the most common file format for home users or small organizations that don’t use Exchange, but instead use an ISP to connect to the Internet (typically through POP3 and IMAP).  In addition, Exchange users may move or archive messages to a PST file (either manually or via auto-archiving) to move them out of the primary mailbox, typically to keep their mailbox size manageable.  PST files often contain emails not found in either the EDB or OST files (especially when Exchange is not used), so it’s important to search them for responsive emails as well.

MSG (Outlook MSG File): MSG is a file extension for a mail message file format used by Microsoft Outlook and Exchange.  Each MSG file is a self-contained unit for the message “family” (email and its attachments) and individual MSG files can be saved simply by dragging messages out of Outlook to a folder on the computer (which could then be stored on portable media, such as CDs or flash drives).  As these individual emails may no longer be contained in the other Outlook file types, it’s important to determine where they are located and search them for responsiveness.  MSG is also the most common format for native production of individual responsive Outlook emails.

Other Outlook file types that might contain responsive information are EML (Electronic Mail), which is the Outlook Express email format and PAB (Personal Address Book), which, as the name implies, stores the user’s contact information.

Of course, Outlook emails are not just stored within EDB files on the server or these other file types on the local workstation or portable media; they can also be stored within an email archiving system or synchronized to phones and other portable devices.  Regardless, it’s important to account for the different file types when collecting potentially responsive Outlook emails for discovery.

So, what do you think?  Are you searching all of these file types for responsive Outlook emails?  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.

Craig Ball of Craig D. Ball, P.C. – eDiscovery Trends, Part 3

This is the tenth (and final) of the 2013 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends?
  2. If last year’s “next big thing” was the emergence of predictive coding, what do you feel is this year’s “next big thing”?
  3. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Craig Ball.  A frequent court appointed special master in electronic evidence, Craig is a prolific contributor to continuing legal and professional education programs throughout the United States, having delivered over 1,000 presentations and papers.  Craig’s articles on forensic technology and electronic discovery frequently appear in the national media, and he writes a monthly column on computer forensics and eDiscovery for Law Technology News called Ball in your Court, as well as blogs on those topics at ballinyourcourt.com.

Craig was very generous with his time again this year and our interview with Craig had so much good information in it, we couldn’t fit it all into a single post.  Wednesday was part 1 and yesterday was part 2.  Today is the third and last part.  A three-parter!

Note: I asked Craig the questions in a different order and, since the show had not started yet when I interviewed him, instead asked about the sessions in which he was speaking.

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

I’m really trying to make 2013 the year of distilling an extensive but idiosyncratic body of work that I’ve amassed through years of writing and bring it together into a more coherent curriculum.  I want to develop a no-cost casebook for law students and to structure my work so that it can be more useful for people in different places and phases of their eDiscovery education.  So, I’ll be working on that in the first six or eight months of 2013 as both an academic and a personal project.

I’m also trying to go back to roots and rethink some of the assumptions that I’ve made about what people understand.  It’s frustrating to find that lawyers talking about, say, load files when they don’t really know what a load file is, they’ve never looked at a load file.  They’ve left it to somebody else and, so, the resolution of difficulties has gone through so many hands and is plagued by so much miscommunication.   I’d like to put some things out there that will enable lawyers in a non-threatening and accessible way to gain comfort in having a dialog about the fundamentals of eDiscovery that you and I take for granted.  So, that we don’t have to have this reliance upon vendors for the simplest issues.  I don’t mean that vendors won’t do the work, but I don’t think we should have to bring a technical translator in for every phone call.

There should be a corpus of competence that every litigator brings to the party, enabling them to frame basic protocols and agreements that aren’t merely parroting something that they don’t understand, but enabling them to negotiate about issues in ways that the resolutions actually make sense.  Saying “I won’t give you 500 search terms, but I’ll give you 250” isn’t a rational resolution.  It’s arbitrary.

There are other kinds of cases that you can identify search terms “all the live long day” and they’re really never going to get you that much closer to the documents you want.  The best example in recent years was the Pippins v. KPMG case.  KPMG was arguing that they could use search terms against samples to identify forensically significant information about work day and work responsibility.  That didn’t make any sense to me at all.  The kinds of data they were looking for wasn’t going to be easily found by using keyword search.  It was going to require finding data of a certain character and bringing a certain kind of analysis to it, not an objective culling method like search terms.  Search terms have become like the expression “if you have a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail”.  We need to get away from that.

I think a little education made palatable will go a long way.  We need some good solid education and I’m trying to come up with something that people will borrow and build on.  I want it to be something that’s good enough that people will say “let’s just steal his stuff”.  That’s why I put it out there – it’s nice that they credit me and I appreciate it; but if what you really want to do is teach people, you don’t do it for the credit, you do it for the education.  That’s what I’m about, more this year than ever before.

Thanks, Craig, for participating in the interview!

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

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine 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.

Craig Ball of Craig D. Ball, P.C. – eDiscovery Trends, Part 2

This is the tenth (and final) of the 2013 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends?
  2. If last year’s “next big thing” was the emergence of predictive coding, what do you feel is this year’s “next big thing”?
  3. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Craig Ball.  A frequent court appointed special master in electronic evidence, Craig is a prolific contributor to continuing legal and professional education programs throughout the United States, having delivered over 1,000 presentations and papers.  Craig’s articles on forensic technology and electronic discovery frequently appear in the national media, and he writes a monthly column on computer forensics and eDiscovery for Law Technology News called Ball in your Court, as well as blogs on those topics at ballinyourcourt.com.

Craig was very generous with his time again this year and our interview with Craig had so much good information in it, we couldn’t fit it all into a single post.  Yesterday was part 1.  Today is part 2 and part 3 will be published in the blog on Friday.  A three-parter!

Note: I asked Craig the questions in a different order and, since the show had not started yet when I interviewed him, instead asked about the sessions in which he was speaking.

I noticed that you are speaking at a couple of sessions here.  What would you like to tell me about those sessions?

{Interviewed the evening before the show}  I am on a Technology Assisted Review panel with Maura Grossman and Ralph Losey that should be as close to a barrel of laughs as one can have talking about technology assisted review.  It is based on a poker theme – which was actually Matt Nelson’s (of Symantec) idea.  I think it is a nice analogy, because a good poker player is a master or mistress of probabilities, whether intuitively or overtly performing mental arithmetic that are essentially statistical and probability calculations.  Such calculations are key to quality assurance and quality control in modern review.

We have to be cautious not to require the standards for electronic assessments to be dramatically higher than the standards applied to human assessments.  It is one thing with a new technology to demand more of it to build trust.  That’s a pragmatic imperative.  It is another thing to demand so exalted a level of scrutiny that you essentially void all advantages of the new technology, including the cost savings and efficiencies it brings.  You know the old story about the two hikers that encounter the angry grizzly bear?  They freeze, and then one guy pulls out running shoes and starts changing into them.  His friend says “What are you doing? You can’t outrun a grizzly bear!” The other guy says “I know.  I only have to outrun you”.  That is how I look at technology assisted review.  It does not have to be vastly superior to human review; it only has to outrun human review.  It just has to be as good or better while being faster and cheaper.

We cannot let the vague uneasiness about the technology cause it to implode.  If we have to essentially examine everything in the discard pile, so that we not only pay for the new technology but also back it up with the old.  That’s not going to work.  It will take a few pioneers who get the “arrows in the back” early on—people who spend more to build trust around the technology that is missing at this juncture.  Eventually, people are going to say “I’ve looked at the discard pile for the last three cases and this stuff works.  I don’t need to look at all of that any more.

Even the best predictive coding systems are not going to be anywhere near 100% accurate.  They start from human judgment where we’re not even sure what “100% accurate” is, in the context of responsiveness and relevance.  There’s no “gold standard”.  Two different qualified people can look at the same document and give a different assessment and approximately 40% of the time, they do.  And, the way we decide who’s right is that we bring in a third person.  We indulge the idea that the third person is the “topic authority” and what they say goes.  We define their judgment as right; but, even their judgments are human.  To err being human, they’re going to make misjudgments based on assumptions, fatigue, inattention, whatever.

So, getting back to the topic at hand, I do think that the focus on quality assurance is going to prompt a larger and long overdue discussion about the efficacy of human review.  We’ve kept human review in this mystical world of work product for a very long time.  Honestly, the rationale for work product doesn’t naturally extend over to decisions about responsiveness and relevance.  Even though, most of my colleagues would disagree with me out of hand.  They don’t want anybody messing with privilege or work product.  It’s like religion or gun control—you can’t even start a rational debate.

Things are still so partisan and bitter.  The notions of cooperation, collaboration, transparency, translucency, communication – they’re not embedded yet.  People come to these processes with animosity so deeply seated that you’re not really starting on a level playing field with an assessment of what’s best for our system of justice.  Justice is someone else’s problem.  The players just want to win.  That will be tough to change.

We “dinosaurs” will die off, and we won’t have to wait for the glaciers to advance.  I think we will have some meteoric events that will change the speed at which the dinosaurs die.  Technology assisted review is one.  We’ve seen a meteoric rise in the discussion of the topic, the interest in the topic, and I think it will have a meteoric effect in terms of more rapidly extinguishing very bad and very expensive practices that don’t carry with them any more superior assurance of quality.

More from Craig tomorrow!

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

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine 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.

 

Craig Ball of Craig D. Ball, P.C. – eDiscovery Trends, Part 1

This is the tenth (and final) of the 2013 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends?
  2. If last year’s “next big thing” was the emergence of predictive coding, what do you feel is this year’s “next big thing”?
  3. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Craig Ball.  A frequent court appointed special master in electronic evidence, Craig is a prolific contributor to continuing legal and professional education programs throughout the United States, having delivered over 1,000 presentations and papers.  Craig’s articles on forensic technology and electronic discovery frequently appear in the national media, and he writes a monthly column on computer forensics and eDiscovery for Law Technology News called Ball in your Court, as well as blogs on those topics at ballinyourcourt.com.

Craig was very generous with his time again this year and our interview with Craig had so much good information in it, we couldn’t fit it all into a single post.  So, today is part 1.  Parts 2 and 3 will be published in the blog on Thursday and Friday.  A three-parter!

Note: I asked Craig the questions in a different order and, since the show had not started yet when I interviewed him, instead asked about the sessions in which he was speaking.

If last year’s “next big thing” was the emergence of predictive coding, what do you feel is this year’s “next big thing”?

I think this is the first year where I do not have a ready answer to that question.  It’s  like the wonderful movie Groundhog Day.  I am on the educational planning board for the show, and as hard as we try to find and present fresh ideas, technology assisted review is once again the dominant topic.

This year, we will see a change of the marketing language repositioning the (forgive the jargon) “value proposition” for the tools being sold continuing to move more towards the concept of information governance.  If knowledge management had a “hook up” here at LTNY with eDiscovery, their offspring would be information governance.  Information governance represents a way to spread the cost of eDiscovery infrastructure among different budgets.  It’s not a made up value proposition.  Security and regulatory people do have a need, and many departments can ultimately benefit from more granular and regimented management of their unstructured and legacy information stores.

I remain something of a skeptic about what has come to be called “defensible deletion.”  Most in-house IT people do not understand that, even after you purchase a single instance de-duplication solution, you’re still going to have as much of 40% “bloat” in your collection of data between local stores, embedded and encoded attachments, etc.  So, there are marked efficiencies we can achieve by implementing sensible de-duplication and indexing mechanisms that are effective, ongoing and systemic. Consider enterprise indexing models that basically let your organization and its information face an indexing mechanism in much the same way as the internet faces Google.   Almost all of us interact with the internet through Google, and often get the information we are seeking from the Google index or synopsis of the data without actually proceeding to the indexed site.  The index itself becomes the resource, and the document indexed a distinct (and often secondary) source.  We must ask ourselves: “if a document is indexed, does it ever leave our collection?”

I also think eDiscovery education is changing and I am cautiously optimistic.  But, people are getting just enough better information about eDiscovery to be dangerous.  And, they are still hurting themselves by expecting there to be some simple “I don’t really need to know it” rule of thumb that will get them through.  And, that’s an enormous problem.  You can’t cross examine from a script.  Advocates need to understand the answers they get and know how to frame the follow up and the kill.  My cautious optimism respecting education is function of my devoting so much more of my time to education at the law school and professional levels as well as for judicial organizations.  I am seeing a lot more students interested in the material at a deeper level, and my law class that just concluded in December impressed me greatly.   The level of enthusiasm the students brought to the topic and the quality and caliber of their questions were as good as any I get from my colleagues in the day to day practice of eDiscovery.  Not just from lawyers, but also from people like you who are deeply immersed in this topic.

That is not so much a credit to my teaching (although I hope it might be).  The greatest advantage that students have is that they have haven’t yet acquired bad habits and don’t come with preconceived notions about what eDiscovery is supposed to be.  Conversely, many lawyers literally do not want to hear about certain topics–they “glaze” and immediately start looking for a way to say “this cannot be important, I cannot have to know this”.  Law students don’t waste their energy that way. If the professor says “you need to know this”, then they make it their mission to learn.  Yesterday, I had a conversation with a student where she said “I really wish we could have learned more about search strategies and more ways to apply sophisticated tools hands on”.  That’s exactly what I wish lawyers would say.

I wish lawyers were clamoring to better understand things like search or de-duplication or the advantages of one form of production over another.  Sometimes, I feel like I am alone in my assessment that these are crucial issues. If I am the only one thinking that settling on forms of productions early and embracing native forms of production is crucial to quality, what is wrong with me?

I am still surprised at how many people TIFF most of their collection or production.

They have no clue how really bad that is, not just in terms in cost but also in terms of efficiency.  I am hoping the dialogue about TAR will bring us closer to a serious discussion about quality in eDiscovery.  We never had much of a dialogue about the quality of human review or the quality of paper production.  Either we didn’t have the need, or, more likely we were so immersed in what we were doing we did not have the language to even begin the conversation.

I wrote in a blog post recently about an experiment discussed in my college Introductory Psychology course where this cool experiment involved raising kittens such that they could only see for a few hours a day in an environment composed entirely horizontals or verticals.  Apparently, if you are raised from birth only seeing verticals, you do not learn to see horizontals, and vice-versa.  So, if I raise a kitten among the horizontals and take a black rod and put it in front of them, they see it when it is horizontal.  But, if I orient it vertically, it disappears in their brain.  That is kind of how we are with lawyers and eDiscovery.

There are just some topics that you and I and our colleagues see the importance of, but lawyers have been literally raised without the ability to see why those things matter.  They see what has long been presented to them in, say, Summation or Concordance, as an assemblage of lousy load files and error ridden OCR and colorless images stripped of embedded commentary.  They see this information so frequently and so exclusively that they think that’s the document and, since they only have paper document frames of reference (which aren’t really that much better than TIFFs), they think this must be what electronic evidence looks like.  They can’t see the invisible plane they’ve been bred to overlook.

You can look at a stone axe and appreciate the merits of a bronze axe – if all that you’re comparing it to are prehistoric tools, a bronze axe looks pretty good.  But, today we have chainsaws. I want lawyers demanding chainsaws to deal with electronic information and to throw away those incredibly expensive stone axes; but, unfortunately, they make more money using stone axes.  But, not for long.  I am seeing the “house of cards” start to shake and the house of cards I am talking about is the $100 to $300 (or more) per gigabyte pricing for eDiscovery.  I think that model is not only going to be short lived, but will soon be seen as negligence in the lawyers who go that route and as exploitive gouging by service providers, like selling a bottle of water for $10 after Hurricane Sandy.  There is a point at which price gouging will be called out.  We can’t get there fast enough.

More from Craig tomorrow!

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

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine 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.

 

Alon Israely, Esq., CISSP of BIA – eDiscovery Trends

This is the sixth of the 2013 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends?
  2. If last year’s “next big thing” was the emergence of predictive coding, what do you feel is this year’s “next big thing”?
  3. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Alon Israely.  Alon is a Manager of Strategic Partnerships at Business Intelligence Associates (BIA) and currently leads the Strategic Partner Program at BIA.  Alon has over seventeen years of experience in a variety of advanced computing-related technologies and has consulted with law firms and their clients on a variety of technology issues, including expert witness services related to computer forensics, digital evidence management and data security.  Alon is an attorney and Certified Information Security Specialist (CISSP).

What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends?

{Interviewed on the second afternoon}  Looking at the show and walking around the exhibit hall, I feel like the show is less chaotic than in the past.  It seems like there are less vendors, though I don’t know that for a fact.  However, the vendors that are here appear to have accomplished quite a bit over the last twelve months to better clarify their messaging, as well as to better fine tune their offerings and the way they present those offerings.  It’s actually more enjoyable for me to walk through the exhibit hall this year – last year felt so chaotic and it was really difficult to differentiate the offerings.  That has been a problem in the legal technology business – no one really knows what the different vendors really do and they all seem to do the same thing.  Because of better messaging, I think this is the first year I started to truly feel that I can differentiate vendor offerings, probably because some of the vendors that entered the industry in the past few years have reached a maturity level.

So, it’s not that I am not seeing new technologies, methods or ways of doing things in eDiscovery; instead, I am seeing better ways of doing things.  As well as vendors simply getting better at their own pitch and messaging.  And, by that, I mean everything involved in the messaging – the booth, the sales reps in the booth, the product being offered, everything.

If last year’s “next big thing” was the emergence of predictive coding, what do you feel is this year’s “next big thing”?

I think this year’s “next big thing” follows the same theme as last year’s “next big thing”, only you’re going to see more mature Technology Assisted Review (TAR) solutions and more mature predictive coding.  It won’t be just that people provide a predictive coding solution; they will also provide a work flow around the solution and a UI around the solution, as well as a method, a process, testing and even certification.  So, what will happen is that the trend will still be technology assisted review and predictive coding and analytics, just that it won’t be so “bleeding edge”.  The key is presentation of data such that it helps attorneys get through the data in a smarter way – not necessarily just culling, but understanding the data that you have and how to get through it faster and more accurately.  I think that the delivery of those approaches through solution providers, software providers and even service providers seems to be more mature and more focused.  Now, there is an actual tangible “thing” that I can touch that shows it is not just a bullet point – “Hey, we do predictive coding!” – instead, there is actually a method in which it is deployed to you, and to your case or your matter.

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

BIA is really redefining eDiscovery with respect to how the corporate customer looks at it.  How does the corporation look at eDiscovery?  They look at it as part of information security and information management and we find that IT departments are very much more involved in the decision making process.  Having information security roots, BIA is leveraging our preservation technology and bringing in an eDiscovery tool kit and platform that a company can use that will get them where they need to be with respect to compliance, defensibility and efficiency.  We also have the only license model for eDiscovery in the business with respect to the kind of corporate license model, the per seat model that we offer.  We are saying “look, we have been doing this for 10 years and we know exactly what we are doing”.  We use cutting edge technology and while other cloud providers have claimed that they are leveraging utility computing, we are not only saying that, we are actually doing it.  If you don’t believe us, check it out and bring your best technology people and they will see we are telling the truth on that.  We are leveraging our technology for what happens from the corporate perspective.

We are not a review tool and you cannot produce documents out of our software, but that is why clients have software products like OnDemand®; with it, they can do all the different types of review they want and batch it out and use 100 reviewers or 10 reviewers or whatever.  BIA supports the corporations who care about legal hold and preservation and collections and insuring that they are not sending millions of gigs over for costly review.  We support from the corporate perspective, whether you want to call it on the left side of the EDRM model or not, what the GC needs.  GCs want to make sure that they have not deleted some piece of data that will be needed in court.  Notifying clients of that requirement, taking a “snap shot” of that data, locking it down, collecting that data and then insuring that our clients are following the right work flow is basically what we bring to the table.  We have also automated about 80% of the manual tasks with TotalDiscovery, which makes the GC happy and brings that protection to the organization at the right price.  Between TotalDiscovery and a review application like OnDemand, you don’t need anything else.  You don’t need twenty applications for a full solution – two applications are all you need.

Thanks, Alon, for participating in the interview!

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

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine 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.

10 Tips for LegalTech Vendors – eDiscovery Best Practices

We’ve mentioned Ralph Losey from Jackson Lewis several times on this blog, including last year’s thought leader interview at LegalTech New York and our interview with him again this year, which will be published on March 1.  We’re discussing another interesting article from Losey, but this time it’s Adam Losey.  His article 10 Tips for LegalTech Vendors, that appeared in Law Technology News has some interesting tips that all vendors (especially those exhibiting at trade shows) should bear in mind.  Here are his tips, along with some of my comments:

  1. Hand over the mouse. As Losey notes, “If you get time in front of potential clients to demonstrate a product, give them the mouse. Let attendees try your tools, with you serving as their guide.”  That sounds great in theory.  It has been my experience, however, that most attendees that stop by and request a demo are reluctant to “drive” right there at the show (believe me, I’ve offered).  Giving them the ability to “test drive” the product for free in their offices after the show tends to get a better response, in my experience.
  2. Add value. Losey advocates more “than just delivering high-quality work product and hyper-responsive client service”.  There are plenty of ways to do this.  For example, helping a client out by directing them to the right vendor that provides a service that you don’t can be just as helpful as the services that you provide for them.
  3. Be humble and keep innovating.  Especially in the ever-changing eDiscovery industry, it’s important to continue to adapt.  That doesn’t just mean offering the latest “buzzword” technology, it also means providing a mechanism for clients to request features and enhancements and addressing those within rollout updates.
  4. Don’t bad-mouth the competition.  Needless to say, you should never do that.  If a client or prospect asks you to compare your solution to another, it’s always best to point out what your solution does well, or what it offers that is unique, not what (you think) the competition does poorly.
  5. Share. In essence, Losey reiterates that here: “Show me why you are the best, not why everyone else is the worst.”  This enables eDiscovery practitioners to draw their own conclusions and share their knowledge with colleagues, which carries more weight than if it came from the vendor, who has a vested interest.
  6. Stop pushing unnecessary services.  Doing so may net a little more business in the short run, but can cost long-term business when the client becomes more educated and realizes that those costs are unnecessary and dumps you.  It’s better to be flexible enough to provide just the services the client needs – they will appreciate it and want to do business with you again.
  7. Leave the legal work to the lawyers.  The vendor’s responsibility is to provide the attorney information regarding the handling of ESI necessary to make an informed decision, not to make that decision for the attorney.
  8. Reach out to new lawyers.  Great point!  As Losey notes, new lawyers are the ones handling eDiscovery at most firms, so reaching out to them as law students is a great way to establish a foothold.
  9. Let me export a privilege log with a click.  I would extend this to production logs, exception logs, etc.  It should be a no-brainer to select the documents you want, the fields you want on the report, click a button and export to Excel.
  10. Let me kick the tires on a case for free.  Clients always understand an application better when working with their own data, as opposed to a demo database.  That’s why (shameless plug warning!) CloudNine offers a 100% No-Risk Trial Offer on OnDemand®, so that our clients can try it with their own data (even as much as 100 GB or more), at no risk.  What better way to get them to try your product?

So, what do you think?  How do your vendors stack up?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

P.S. — Happy 84th Birthday, Dad!

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.

Brad Jenkins of CloudNine Discovery – eDiscovery Trends

This is the first of the 2013 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends?
  2. If last year’s “next big thing” was the emergence of predictive coding, what do you feel is this year’s “next big thing”?
  3. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Brad Jenkins of CloudNine Discovery.  Brad has over 20 years of experience as an entrepreneur, as well as 14 years leading customer focused companies in the litigation support arena. Brad also writes the Litigation Support Industry Blog, which covers news about litigation support and e-discovery companies’ funding activities, acquisitions & mergers and notable business successes. He has authored many articles on document management and litigation support issues, and has appeared as a speaker before national audiences on document management practices and solutions.  He’s also my boss!   🙂

What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends?

Well, clearly the technology assisted review/predictive coding wave is the most popular topic here at the show.  I think I counted at least six sessions discussing the topic and numerous vendors touting their tools.  And, this blog covered it and the cases using quite a bit last year.  I’m sure you’ll hear that from a lot of the folks you’re interviewing.

Another trend that I’m seeing is integration of applications to make the discovery process more seamless, especially the integration of cloud-based collection and review applications.  We have an alliance with BIA and their TotalDiscovery legal hold and collection tool, which can export data into our review application, OnDemand®, which our clients are using quite successfully to collect data and move it along the process.  I think the “best of breed” approach between an application that’s focused on the left side of the EDRM model and one that’s focused on the right side is an approach that makes sense for a lot of organizations.

If last year’s “next big thing” was the emergence of predictive coding, what do you feel is this year’s “next big thing”?

I’m not sure that I see just one thing as the “next big thing”.  I certainly see the continued focus on integration of applications as one big thing.  Another big thing that I see is a broadening acceptance of technology assisted review from more than just predictive coding.  For example, clustering similar documents together can make review more efficient and more accurate and we provide that in OnDemand through our partnership with Hot Neuron’s Clustify™.

Perhaps the biggest thing that I see is education and adoption of the technology.  Many lawyers still don’t actively use the technology and don’t find the applications intuitive.  We’ve worked hard to make OnDemand easy to use, requiring minimal or no training.  A lot of vendors tout their products as easy to use, but we’re backing our claim with our free no risk trial of OnDemand that includes free data assessment, free native processing, free data load and free first month hosting for the first data set on any new OnDemand project.  We feel that we have a team of “Aces” and a hand full of aces is almost impossible to beat.  So, the free no risk trial reflects our confidence that clients that try OnDemand will embrace its ease-of-use and self-service features and continue to use it and us for their discovery needs.

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

In addition to our integration success with BIA, our partnership with Clustify and our free no risk trial, we’re also previewing the initial release of the mobile version of OnDemand.  The first mobile version will be designed for project administrators to add users and maintain user rights, as well as obtain key statistics about their projects.  It’s our first step toward our 2013 goal of making OnDemand completely platform independent and we are targeting a third quarter release of a new redesigned version of OnDemand that will support that goal.

Thanks, Brad, for participating in the interview!

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

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine 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.

2012 eDiscovery Year in Review: eDiscovery Case Law, Part 3

As we noted the past two days, eDiscoveryDaily published 98 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 62 unique cases!  Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to social media and the first cases approving technology assisted review.  Today, let’s take a look back at cases related to admissibility and the duty to preserve and produce electronically stored information (ESI).

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!

ADMISSIBILITY AND DUTY TO PRESERVE AND PRODUCE

Admissibility of ESI, and the duty to preserve and produce it, is more at issue than ever.  Whether the issue is whether certain emails should be considered privileged, whether cloning of computer files is acceptable or whether text messages require substantiation of authorship, parties are disputing what ESI should actually be admissible in litigation.  Parties are also disputing when and where litigation holds are required and whether collection and search practices are acceptable.  In short, there are numerous disputes about data being produced and not being produced.  Here are (a whopping) sixteen cases related to admissibility and the duty to preserve and produce ESI:

Emails Between Husband and Wife Are Not Privileged, If Sent from Work Computer.  In United States v. Hamilton, the Fourth Circuit found that the district court had not abused its discretion in finding that e-mails between the defendant and his wife did not merit marital privilege protection because the defendant had used his office computer and his work e-mail account to send and receive the communications and because he had not taken steps to protect the e-mails in question, even after his employer instituted a policy permitting inspection of e-mails and he was on notice of the policy.

Defendant Had Duty to Preserve Despite No Physical Possession of Documents.  In Haskins v. First American Title Insurance Co., a court found that an insurance company had a duty to issue a litigation hold to its independent title agents because litigation was reasonably foreseeable and the duty to preserve extends to third parties, as long as the documents are “within a party’s possession, custody, or control.” Although it did not have physical possession, the insurance company controlled the agents’ documents because it had “‘the legal right or ability to obtain the documents from [the agents] upon demand.’”

Defendant Compelled to Produce Additional Discovery to Plaintiff.  In Freeman v. Dal-Tile Corp., a case alleging harassment and discrimination, among other claims, against her former employer Dal-Tile Corporation, the plaintiff brought a motion to compel, asserting that some of the defendant’s discovery responses related to its search for ESI were deficient.

Defendant Claiming Not Reasonably Accessible Data Has Some ‘Splaining To Do.  In Murray v. Coleman, the plaintiff alleged harassment and retaliation in connection with his employment with the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS). This discovery dispute arose when the plaintiff requested access to certain electronic records, alleging that the defendants withheld them.

Cloning of Computer Files: When There’s a Will, There’s a Way.  In Matter of Tilimbo, a court held it was permissible to order cloning of computer files where doing so did not place an unreasonable burden on a nonparty, appropriate steps were taken to protect any privileged information, and the nonparty had not previously produced the requested information in hard copy.

Citing Rule 26(g), Court Orders Plaintiff’s Counsel to Disclose Search Strategy.  Our 501st post on the blog addresses S2 Automation LLC v. Micron Technology, where New Mexico District Judge James Browning ordered the plaintiff’s attorneys to disclose the search strategy their client used to identify responsive documents, based on Federal Rule 26(g) that requires attorneys to sign discovery responses and certify that they are “complete and correct.”

Judge Scheindlin Says “No” to Self-Collection, “Yes” to Predictive Coding.  When most people think of the horrors of Friday the 13th, they think of Jason Voorhees. When US Immigration and Customs thinks of Friday the 13th horrors, do they think of Judge Shira Scheindlin?  New York District Judge Scheindlin issued a decision on Friday, July 13, addressing the adequacy of searching and self-collection by government entity custodians in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

Plaintiff Compelled to Produce Mirror Image of Drives Despite Defendant’s Initial Failure to Request Metadata.  In Commercial Law Corp., P.C. v. FDIC, Michigan District Judge Sean F. Cox ruled that a party can be compelled to produce a mirror image of its computer drives using a neutral third-party expert where metadata is relevant and the circumstances dictate it, even though the requesting party initially failed to request that metadata and specify the format of documents in its first discovery request.

Court Allows Third Party Discovery Because Defendant is an “Unreliable Source”.  Repeatedly referring to the defendant’s unreliability and untrustworthiness in discovery and “desire to suppress the truth,” Nebraska Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart found, in Peter Kiewit Sons’, Inc. v. Wall Street Equity Group, Inc., that the defendant avoided responding substantively to the plaintiff’s discovery requests through a pattern of destruction and misrepresentation and therefore monetary sanctions and an adverse jury instruction at trial were appropriate.

Inadmissibility of Text Messages Being Appealed.  In October 2011, we covered a case – Commonwealth v. Koch – where a Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled text messages inadmissible, declaring that parties seeking to introduce electronic materials, such as cell phone text messages and email, must be prepared to substantiate their claim of authorship with “circumstantial evidence” that corroborates the sender’s identity. That case, where Amy N. Koch was originally convicted at trial on drug charges (partially due to text messages found on her cell phone), is now being appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Another Case with Inadmissible Text Messages.  Above, we discussed a case where a Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled text messages inadmissible, declaring that parties seeking to introduce electronic materials, such as cell phone text messages and email, must be prepared to substantiate their claim of authorship with “circumstantial evidence” that corroborates the sender’s identity. That case is now being appealed to the state Supreme Court. Today, we have another case – Rodriguez v. Nevada – where text messages were ruled inadmissible.

Court Grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Mirror-Imaging of Defendant’s Computers.  In approving a motion for expedited discovery in United Factory Furniture Corp. v. Alterwitz, Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach granted the plaintiff’s motion for a mirror-imaging order after determining the benefit outweighed the burden of the discovery, and it denied as unnecessary the plaintiff’s motion for an order to preserve evidence and a preliminary injunction from spoliation of evidence.

Court Orders eDiscovery Evidentiary Hearing When Parties Are Unable to Cooperate.  A month ago, in Chura v. Delmar Gardens of Lenexa, Inc., Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse ordered an evidentiary hearing to discuss the sufficiency of the defendant’s search for ESI and format of production in response to the plaintiff’s motion to compel additional searching and production.

At The Eleventh Hour, Encrypted Hard Drive Is Decrypted.  In our previous post regarding the case U.S. v. Fricosu, Colorado district judge Robert Blackburn ruled that Ramona Fricosu must produce an unencrypted version of her Toshiba laptop’s hard drive to prosecutors in a mortgage fraud case for police inspection. Naturally, the defendant appealed. On February 21st, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to get involved, saying Ramona Fricosu’s case must first be resolved in District Court before her attorney can appeal. She would have been required to turn over the unencrypted contents of the drive as of March 1. However, at the last minute, Colorado federal authorities decrypted the laptop.

Court Rules Exact Search Terms Are Limited.  In Custom Hardware Eng’g & Consulting v. Dowell, the plaintiff and defendant could not agree on search terms to be used for discovery on defendant’s forensically imaged computers. After reviewing proposed search terms from both sides, and the defendant’s objections to the plaintiff’s proposed list, the court ruled that the defendant’s proposed list was “problematic and inappropriate” and that their objections to the plaintiff’s proposed terms were “without merit” and ruled for use of the plaintiff’s search terms in discovery.

KPMG Loses Another Round to Pippins.  As discussed previously in eDiscovery Daily, KPMG sought a protective order in Pippins v. KPMG LLP to require the preservation of only a random sample of 100 hard drives from among those it had already preserved for this and other litigation or shift the cost of any preservation beyond that requested scope. Lawyers for Pippins won a ruling last November by Magistrate Judge James Cott to use all available drives and Judge Cott encouraged the parties to continue to meet and confer to reach agreement on sampling. However, the parties were unable to agree and KPMG appealed to the District Court. In February, District Court Judge Colleen McMahon upheld the lower court ruling.

Tune in tomorrow for more key cases of 2012 and, once again, the most common theme of the year!

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.