Close
Enter your
text here

eDiscovery

Five Reasons to Outsource Litigation Support – eDiscovery Best Practices

When you’re Jackson Lewis and your firm’s national eDiscovery counsel is noted eDiscovery expert and founder of the new Electronic Discovery Best Practices (EDBP.com) (as well as previous thought leader interviewee on this blog) Ralph Losey, it would make sense that you would want to handle all of your litigation support work in house.  Right?  Wrong.

As Losey writes in the Law Technology News article Five Reasons to Outsource Litigation Support, in June, Jackson Lewis “decided to outsource to a vendor all of our nonlegal electronic data discovery work that our litigation support department had been providing to our clients.”  Losey identifies five reasons “[b]ased on our experience” why your organization should consider outsourcing.

  1. Core Competency: Losey asks the question “Why should you own and operate a nonlegal e-discovery business within your walls under the guise of a litigation support department?”  Collection, forensic analysis, processing, database creation and other related tasks are highly technical, nonlegal tasks that are the core competency of eDiscovery vendors, not law firms.  Losey notes that aside from the outsourcing of document review, the eDiscovery market is not “engaged in the practice of law”.
  2. Complexity: Losey notes that eDiscovery work “is not equivalent to making copies, as some lawyers think, and should not be done in-house, especially when there are so many good companies that specialize in this kind of work.”  Would you go to a general practitioner for heart bypass surgery?  Some tasks are best performed by specialists.
  3. Cost Savings: Keeping a litigation support business staffed with qualified people and current with hardware and software technology is expensive – it also adds considerably to firm overhead.  Losey notes that you “cannot give lawyers yesterday’s technology and expect them to compete.”  Would you give your attorneys out of date books on state and federal statutes for practicing law?  He also says “you can leverage your mass buying power and negotiate a low rate for all of your clients” that use your selected vendor.  Frankly, I’m surprised more firms don’t consider this – it’s a win-win for all as many vendors are willing to discount services for continual business.
  4. Risk: Losey states that “[m]istakes can happen, especially when a firm is operating outside of its core competency” and that firms often build the risk into their rates, which can penalize clients who don’t use the nonlegal services.  Again, giving the work to the organization best qualified to perform the work – the eDiscovery vendor – only makes sense.
  5. Ethics: The Comment to ABA Model Rule of Professional Responsibility 5.7 says, “When a lawyer performs law-related services or controls an organization that does so, there exists the potential for ethical problems.”  Just because “everyone does it” doesn’t make it right.  Losey notes that some ethical issues can be raised by outsourcing as well, but that’s true of any profession and that Jackson Lewis uses “whatever vendor the client wants” with direct billing from vendor to client.  Most vendors like that arrangement as well, it streamlines on time payment of invoices to the vendor for work performed.

So, what do you think?  How does your organization handle litigation support?  Do you outsource it or do you handle it in house?  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.

Defendant Ordered to Retain Outside Vendor, Monetary Sanction Awarded – eDiscovery Case Law

In Carrillo v. Schneider Logistics, Inc. (C.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2012), California Magistrate Judge David Bristow ordered the defendant to “retain, at its expense, an outside vendor, to be jointly selected by the parties, to collect electronically stored information and email correspondence”.  The defendant was ordered to produce all surveillance videotapes responsive to plaintiffs’ discovery requests and monetary sanctions were awarded for plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs incurred as a result of the defendant’s discovery violations.

Sequence of Events of Defendant’s Discovery Failures

In this class action wage and hour case against the defendants (a Wal-Mart provider), the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel responses to the first set of requests for production of documents.  Here’s a sequence of events that led to the filing of the motion (all dates in 2012):

  • On February 1, plaintiffs propounded their First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to the defendant;
  • The defendant provided its initial responses on March 12 and supplemental responses on April 4;
  • The plaintiffs, believing that the defendant’s document production was incomplete, began a series of meet and confers with the defendant, and expressed concern that the defendant had not produced all responsive non-privileged documents;
  • On May 31, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel regarding the defendant’s failure to produce documents relating to Wal-Mart and their alleged failure to conduct a proper search and produce responsive documents;
  • After the Court ordered the parties to further meet and confer, the parties resolved their dispute and submitted a proposed order, which resulted in the Court ordering the defendant to supplement its responses to the requests for production of documents and produce responsive documents, including those relating to Wal-Mart. The defendant was also ordered to produce a custodian of records and person most knowledgeable regarding Schneider’s document retention policies;
  • Following the Court’s Order, the defendant produced an additional 23,000 documents, many of which related to categories of documents the defendant previously claimed did not exist;
  • The defendant also designated two employees to address the defendant’s retention policies and its efforts to search for responsive documents. When these witnesses appeared for their depositions, however, they were unable to answer many basic questions regarding the defendant’s document retention policies and the defendant’s search for responsive documents;
  • On July 10, the plaintiffs deposed an area manager for the defendant who testified that she had deleted various emails, including reports, continued to delete documents up to the date of her deposition, and that she had never received an instruction advising her not to delete such emails;

This led the plaintiffs to file their Motion to Compel on August 23, as they identified a “substantial number of emails and surveillance videotapes which had not been produced”.

Judge Bristow’s Ruling

Noting that the “record reflects – at best – a haphazard search for records”, Judge Bristow stated that the defendant had “disregarded its obligation to conduct a reasonably diligent search for responsive documents, including, as explained below, electronically stored information.”  Noting that at least 20 employees of the defendant regularly used “@wal-mart.com” email accounts for conducting business, the judge also noted that the defendant had still not produced any emails from those accounts and discounted the defendant’s contention that it had “no control” over those documents since the defendant’s employees used the Wal-Mart email address as their primary work email account.  The judge also ruled that the defendant had withheld surveillance videotapes and that it had not taken adequate steps to preserve documents.

As a result, the defendant was ordered to retain an outside vendor to collect ESI and email correspondence within 45 days and produce all responsive videotapes within 10 days.  The plaintiff was given 11 days to file a brief detailing their claim for attorneys’ fees and costs, with the defendant having two weeks to respond regarding the reasonableness of the stated costs.  Judge Bristow did deny the plaintiff’s request for other sanctions without prejudice as “premature”.

So, what do you think?  Have you seen other cases where parties were ordered to retain an outside vendor?  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.

Another Social Media Discovery Request Ruled Overbroad – eDiscovery Case Law

As was the case in Mailhoit v. Home Depot previously, Ohio Magistrate Judge Mark R. Abel ruled in Howell v. The Buckeye Ranch, Case No. 2:11-cv-1014 (S. D. Ohio Oct. 1, 2012) that the defendant’s request (to compel the plaintiff to provide her user names and passwords for each of the social media sites she uses) was overbroad.

Background on Defendant’s Request

In this employment discrimination action where the plaintiff alleged that male supervisors, senior youth leaders, and coworkers sexually harassed her, the defendant filed a Motion to Compel in August to compel the plaintiff to give them her user names and passwords for each of the social media sites she uses.  The defendant contended that information on the plaintiff’s social media sites “may be relevant to (1) whether the alleged sexual acts occurred and (2) her present emotional state”, indicating their belief that the plaintiff “is not currently impaired by serious emotional distress and is enjoying life”.

The plaintiff contended that the defendant’s discovery request was “overbroad and unduly burdensome” and that the defendant had “offered no evidence or other reason to back up” their speculation that there might be relevant information in the private sections of her social media sites.  The defendant countered that the plaintiff testified as to several impacts of the alleged sexual harassment and that she cannot regularly update her Facebook account, yet her Facebook public pages contained evidence that the plaintiff still regularly updates her account.

Judge Abel’s Ruling

Judge Abel acknowledged that “[r]elevant information in the private section of a social media account is discoverable”, but that “a litigant has no right to serve overbroad discovery requests that seek irrelevant information”.  Comparing the request of electronic social media data to that of hard copy documents, Judge Abel stated:

“The fact that the information defendants seek is in an electronic file as opposed to a file cabinet does not give them the right to rummage through the entire file. The same rules that govern the discovery of information in hard copy documents apply to electronic files. Defendants are free to serve interrogatories and document requests that seek information from the accounts that is relevant to the claims and defenses in this lawsuit. Plaintiff’s counsel can then access the private sections of Howell’s social media accounts and provide the information and documents responsive to the discovery requests.”

Judge Abel did note that the plaintiff “remains under an obligation to preserve all the information” in her social media accounts, so the defendants would presumably be able to access that information through requests for specific relevant information.

So, what do you think?  How does this case compare to other cases (such as these three cases) where user names and passwords to social media sites were granted?  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.

Does This Scare You? – eDiscovery Horrors!

Today is Halloween.  While we could try to “scare” you with the traditional “frights”, we’re an eDiscovery blog, so every year we try to “scare” you in a different way instead.  Does this scare you?

The defendant had been previously sanctioned $500,000 ($475,000 to the plaintiff and $25,000 to the court) and held in contempt of court by the magistrate judge for spoliation, who also recommended an adverse inference instruction be issued at trial.  The defendant appealed to the district court, where Minnesota District Judge John Tunheim increased the award to the plaintiff to $600,000.  Oops!

What about this?

Even though the litigation hold letter from April 2008 was sent to the primary custodians, at least one principal was determined to have actively deleted relevant emails. Additionally, the plaintiffs made no effort to suspend the automatic destruction policy of emails, so emails that were deleted could not be recovered.  Ultimately, the court found that 9 of 14 key custodians had deleted relevant documents. After the defendants raised its spoliation concerns with the court, the plaintiffs continued to delete relevant information, including decommissioning and discarding an email server without preserving any of the relevant ESI.  As a result, the New York Supreme Court imposed the severest of sanctions against the plaintiffs for spoliation of evidence – dismissal of their $20 million case.

Or this?

For most organizations, information volume doubles every 18-24 months and 90% of the data in the world has been created in the last two years. In a typical company in 2011, storing that data consumed about 10% of the IT budget. At a growth rate of 40% (even as storage unit costs decline), storing this data will consume over 20% of the typical IT budget by 2014.

How about this?

There “was stunned silence by all attorneys in the court room after that order. It looks like neither side saw it coming.”

Or maybe this?

If you have deleted any of your photos from Facebook in the past three years, you may be surprised to find that they are probably still on the company’s servers.

Scary, huh?  If the possibility of sanctions, exponential data growth and judges ordering parties to perform predictive coding 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!

Those of you who are really mortified that the next post in Jane Gennarelli’s “Litigation 101” series won’t run this week, fear not – it will run tomorrow.

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.

Both Sides Instructed to Use Predictive Coding or Show Cause Why Not – eDiscovery Case Law

As reported in Ralph Losey’s e-Discovery Team® blog, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster in Delaware Chancery Court – in EORHB, Inc., et al v. HOA Holdings, LLC, C.A. No. 7409-VCL (Del. Ch. Oct. 15, 2012) – has issued a “surprise” bench order requiring both sides to use predictive coding and to use the same vendor.

As Ralph notes, this “appears to be the first time a judge has required both sides of a dispute to use predictive coding when neither has asked for it. It may also be the first time a judge has ordered parties to use the same vendor.”  Vice Chancellor Laster’s instruction was as follows:

“This seems to me to be an ideal non-expedited case in which the parties would benefit from using predictive coding.  I would like you all, if you do not want to use predictive coding, to show cause why this is not a case where predictive coding is the way to go.

I would like you all to talk about a single discovery provider that could be used to warehouse both sides’ documents to be your single vendor.  Pick one of these wonderful discovery super powers that is able to maintain the integrity of both side’s documents and insure that no one can access the other side’s information.  If you cannot agree on a suitable discovery vendor, you can submit names to me and I will pick one for you.

One thing I don’t want to do – one of the nice things about most of these situations is once people get to the indemnification realm, particularly if you get the business guys involved, they have some interest in working out a number and moving on.  The problem is that these types of indemnification claims can generate a huge amount of documents.  That’s why I would really encourage you all, instead of burning lots of hours with people reviewing, it seems to me this is the type of non-expedited case where we could all benefit from some new technology use.”

Ralph notes that there “was stunned silence by all attorneys in the court room after that order. It looks like neither side saw it coming.”  It will be interesting to see if either, or both party, proceeds to object and attempt to “show cause” as to why they shouldn’t use predictive coding.

So, what do you think?  Is this an isolated case or the start of a trend?  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.

Proportionality Rules! (and other proportionality sources) – eDiscovery Best Practices

I found this nice summary of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and other sources that address proportionality and cooperation in eDiscovery from the Baker Hostetler blog, Discovery Advocate, written by Gil Keteltas entitled Advocating Proportionality? Start with the Rules!  Here are the highlights.

As the author notes, Rules 1, 26 and 37 each provide verbiage addressing proportionality, as follows:

  • Rule 1 states that the rules “should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”
  • In Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures, a party must describe  by category and location all electronically stored information in the party’s possession, custody or control  “that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment.”
  • Rule 26(f) mandates that the parties confer and discuss “any issues about preserving discoverable information; and develop a proposed discovery plan” that indicates the “parties’ views and proposals” concerning, inter alia, issues relating to the disclosure or discovery of ESI, form of production and assertions of privilege.
  • Rule 26(g) requires certification, based on a reasonable inquiry, that Rule 26(a) disclosures were complete and that discovery requests, responses and objections are proper, necessary and reasonable given the law, nature and stage of the case.
  • Rule 37(f) authorizes sanctions for failure to make disclosures or cooperate in discovery, including for failing “to participate in good faith in developing and submitting a proposed discovery plan as required by Rule 26(f).”

The author also recommends two publications from the The Sedona Conference®: Its Cooperation Proclamation and its Commentary on Proportionality (previously covered on this blog here and here), as well as this proportionality test white paper from the American Bar Association.  If you want case law dealing with proportionality, take a look here, here, here, here and here.  And, that’s just this year!

With 90% of the data in the world having been created in the last two years, managing eDiscovery of all that data continues to get more and more expensive.  Key to keeping those costs in check is the ability to promote proportionality, especially through the Rule 26(f) meet and confer with opposing counsel, and with the court (especially when the parties can’t agree on conducting eDiscovery more cost effectively).  The sources listed in this article provide excellent ammunition to advocate proportionality in eDiscovery with opposing counsel as well as with the court.

So, what do you think?  Have you disputed eDiscovery scope with opposing counsel in your cases?   If so, how have you addressed those disputes?  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.

EDRM Announces Several Updates at Mid-Year Meeting – eDiscovery Trends

Last week, the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) conducted its mid-year meeting to enable the working groups to meet and further accomplishments in each of the teams for the year.  Having attended several of these meetings in the past, I’ve always found them to usually yield significant progress within the working groups, as well as providing a great opportunity for eDiscovery professionals to get together and talk shop.  Based on the results of the meeting, EDRM issued an announcement with updates from several of their more active projects.

Here are the updates:

  • Data Set: The Data Set project announced the launch of its new file upload utility. “The upload utility will allow us to develop a modern data set that more accurately represents the type of files that are commonly encountered in data processing,” said Eric Robi of Elluma Discovery, co-chair of the project with Michael Lappin of NUIX. The Data Set project also announced a soon-to-be-published “million file dataset” and an upcoming redacted version of the Enron data set, previously described on this blog here.
  • Information Governance Reference Model (IGRM): The IGRM team announced that its updated model (IGRM v3) was recently published and presented at ARMA International’s 57th Annual Conference & Expo and the IAPP Privacy Academy 2012. As discussed on this blog just a couple of weeks ago, the updated version adds privacy and security as key stakeholders in the model.
  • Jobs: The Jobs project continued development of the EDRM RACI (responsible, accountable, consulted, informed) Matrix, a tool designed to help hiring managers better understand the responsibilities associated with common e-discovery roles. RACI maps responsibilities to the EDRM framework so e-discovery duties associated can be assigned to the appropriate parties.
  • Metrics: The Metrics project team refined the EDRM Metrics database, an anonymous set of e-discovery processing metrics derived from actual matters, which will include a CSV upload function to make it easier for vendors and law firms to anonymously submit data to the system.  Having worked on the early stages of this project, my “hats off” to the team for the additional accomplishments.
  • Search: The Search group announced that its EDRM Computer Assisted Review Reference Model (CARRM) soon will be available for public comment. The goal of CARRM is to demystify the predictive coding process and to allow for a common communication platform between vendors and end-users at each phase of the CAR process and it will be interesting to see the document that emerges from these efforts.

EDRM meets in person twice a year, in May for the annual meeting and October for the mid-year meeting, with regular working group phone calls scheduled throughout the year to keep the projects progressing.  The next in person meeting is next year’s annual meeting, currently scheduled for May 7 thru 9, 2013.  For more information about EDRM, click here.  For information on joining EDRM, including fee information for participation, click here.

So, what do you think?  Have you been following the activity of EDRM?  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.

Government Document Productions Can Be Like Water Torture – eDiscovery Case Law

In Botell v. United States, 2012 U.S. Dist. (E.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2012), Magistrate Judge Gregory Hollows noted that the US Government’s “document production performance in these proceedings has been akin to a drop-by-drop water torture” and ordered a preclusion order prohibiting the US Government “from presenting evidence in its case that had been requested by plaintiffs in the Requests for Production, but which has not been produced” as of the date of the order.  The US was also still required to produce the documents, whether they planned to use them or not.  Judge Hollows also noted that the “Plaintiff has not waived any motion to seek further sanctions regarding non-production of documents, or spoliation of documents.”

In this wrongful death and personal injury action at Lassen Volcanic National Park when a mortared rock wall gave way killing one child and injuring another, the US Government produced over 7,000 pages of documents, yet, it was noted that “there is a glaring lack of production of emails from defendant’s agents and employees” with emails having only been produced from one custodian.  As five other custodians were referenced in the produced emails, the plaintiffs contended that emails should have been produced from them as well.  With regard to the back up of emails, one of the defendant declarations described the backup policy as follows: “[b]ack-up emails are retained for 30 days only, unless they are subject to a litigation hold notice or pertain to the BP Gulf Oil spill.”

Judge Hollows ordered the defendants to provide a declaration describing “searches conducted to locate physical and electronic copies of emails” responsive to production requests, noting the declaration “shall state the steps taken to locate these emails, whether any such emails exist, and if not, a definitive statement that they no longer exist. If further responsive documents are located, they shall be produced at the time declarations are filed.”

Summarizing the production issue in his order, Judge Hollows noted as follows:

“At this juncture, the United States has purportedly been looking for documents for months, yet the undersigned, to the date of the hearing, does not have confidence that an organized, thorough search has been performed. Rather, defendant’s document production performance in these proceedings has been akin to a drop-by-drop water torture. At some point, plaintiff must be protected from the United States’ further belated production of pertinent documents.”

As a result, Judge Hollows issued the preclusion order, with the possibility of more sanctions to come.

So, what do you think?  Was the ruling harsh enough?  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.

No Bates Numbers in a Native Production? Get Over It! – eDiscovery Best Practices

Last week, we discussed the benefits of requesting document productions in native format, including the ability to use Early Data Assessment/FirstPass Review applications to analyze your opponents produced data and metadata, using capabilities like email analytics and message thread analysis (where missing emails in threads can be identified), synonym searching, fuzzy searching and domain categorization.  If you don’t understand the benefits of receiving the underlying metadata, try reviewing an image of an Excel spreadsheet and see if you can understand how the numbers were calculated without the underlying formulas.  Not so easy, is it?

However, one objection that attorneys provide against producing documents in native format is that they’re not conducive to Bates labeling.  Some native file types, such as Excel files, are not stored in a typical paginated, document-oriented format, so it is difficult or even impossible determine the number of pages for each file.  Other file types vary the number of pages and placement of text on pages based on the document styles applied.  For example, Word uses document styles based on the fonts installed on the workstation to display the content of the Word document; however, if the chosen font is not available when the document is viewed on another workstation, Word will substitute with another font and style that can change the formatting and even which page content appears.  Since attorneys are so used to having a Bates stamp on each page of a document, many are still known to produce (and request production) in an image format, adding costs unnecessarily.  Would those same attorneys print out every email in their Inbox before reading them?

However, most courts today accept a file-level “Bates” or Unique Production Identifier (UPI) where each file is named with a prefix and a sequential number.  These numbers look just like Bates numbers, except they’re not stamped in the file itself; instead, they are used as the file name.  These productions are usually accompanied by a data file, containing metadata for loading into a review tool, which includes the original file name and path of each file being produced.

So, how do you get around the issue of referencing individual page numbers for presentation at deposition or trial?  Those files can still be converted to image (or printed) and a number applied for presentation.  It’s common to simply use the Bates number as the prefix, followed by a sequential number, so page 6 of the 45th file in the production could be stamped like this: PROD000045-00006.  This enables you to tie back to the production, yet only convert to image those files that need to be presented.

So, what do you think?  How do you handle production numbering in native productions?   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.

Avoiding the Redaction “Epic Fail” – eDiscovery Best Practices

On the surface, it may seem easy enough to redact a document during eDiscovery review to obscure confidential or privileged information.  All you need to do is draw a black box over the affected text, right?  Not so fast, my friend.  There’s a lot more to consider in order to ensure that you don’t inadvertently produce information that was intended to be redacted.  Here are a few redaction “epic fails” and how to avoid them.

Failure to “Burn” the Redaction into the Image

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

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

Failing to Update Corresponding Text Files to Remove Redacted Text

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

Producing Un-Redacted Native Files

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

Failing to Redact Metadata

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

Quality Control (QC) Check before Producing

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

So, what do you think?  How do you handle redactions within your productions?  Do you have a process to QC check redactions before producing?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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