Close
Enter your
text here

Electronic Discovery

Electronic Discovery Dispute Sees Court Requesting Cooperation from Both Parties to Avoid “Court-Ordered Middle Ground” – eDiscovery Case Law
 

In Fort Worth Employees’ Retirement Fund v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., No. 09 Civ. 3701 (JPO) (JFC), 2013 U.S. Dist. (S.D.N.Y. Dec.16, 2013), a complex discovery dispute arose during the process of this securities action lawsuit revolving around the defendants’ loan products and offerings with regards to a specific consumer class, in which the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel an expanded discovery.

Prior to the motion, the defendants had used approximately 80,000 search terms to produce discovery documents, which had yielded around 875,000 hits. The documents had not been turned over, as they were being reviewed for production. However, the plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ search terms were “woefully deficient” in filing the motion to compel. The specific request was for more search terms, more custodians, and an extended discovery time period in order to receive all relevant information.

Search terms already in use by the defendants included the names of the 9 securities offerings at issue within the lawsuit, the loan numbers for roughly 35,000 loans under review, CUSIP numbers assigned to more than 300 underlying certificates for the securities offerings, names and dates assigned to loan transactions, and the lead plaintiffs’ names, as well as their advisors. The defendants also used several abbreviations and variations for each term to uncover relevant electronically stored information (ESI) in which actual terms might have been truncated or modified.

In response to the motion to compel, the defendants stated the search terms were comprehensive. However, the plaintiffs complained that the number of documents was “‘actually minimal’ for a case of this size” and that the names and numbers used would turn up “just a few specific, narrow categories of information,” while excluding “broad categories of documents that do not specifically reference ‘a particular loan, loan pool or securitization in the text of the documentor e-mail’ but instead address general practices or concerns, such as ‘widespread abandonment of underwriting guidelines.’” The plaintiffs further cited the March 30, 2011, Order of the Honorable John G. Koeltl, U.S.D.J., claiming that “documents do not need to be specifically related to the loans and offerings at issue in this case to be relevant.”

The request by the plaintiffs asked that the defendants add a search protocol to incorporate “combinations of terms aimed at discovering relevant documents that are not loan specific,” to include terms like “the names of loan originators, due diligence firms, rating agencies, and ‘descriptors’ (such as ‘awful’ and ‘toxic’).” The defendants objected to the additional 116,000 proposed search terms as too broad and unduly burdensome, since its sampling indicated that the expanded terms would “yield an unreviewable pool of over 11 million documents.”

Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, after hearing the positions of both parties, found some truth in each side’s argument. While the plaintiffs had “provided sufficient justification for expanding search terms beyond numbers and names to ensure that the ESI search captures all of the relevant documents pertaining to the loans and offerings at issue,” the defendants would face “an unreasonable burden of production” using the plaintiffs’ proposed search terms, as they would be required to “sift through voluminous irrelevant documents added to the search results.”

In such disputes regarding discovery, a court-ordered middle ground is often supplied as a remedy. However, Judge Francis did not issue an order, stating that it would be “impractical and inappropriate” due to the “nature of this request and the complexities of crafting a search protocol.” Instead, the parties were urged to “reexamine their positions and work together in good faith to create a mutually acceptable ESI search regime.” Failing a cooperative agreement by both parties, a special master would be appointed to the case in order to recommend an appropriate search protocol, with the costs to be split between plaintiffs and defendants.

So, what do you think? Should defendants expect to produce a higher volume of electronic discovery documents in cases that are larger in scope? Is the possibility of general relevance to the issues before the court enough to expand the burden of eDiscovery for defendants? 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 eleventh (and final) of the 2014 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders after LTNY this year (don’t get us started) and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What significant eDiscovery trends did you see at LTNY this year and what do you see for 2014?
  2. With new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure now in the comment phase, do you see those being approved this year and what do you see as the impact of those Rules changes?
  3. It seems despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery?  Do you agree with that and, if so, what do you think can be done to improve the situation?
  4. 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 1,500 presentations and papers. Craig’s articles on forensic technology and electronic discovery frequently appear in the national media, and just ended nine years writing a monthly column on computer forensics and eDiscovery for Law Technology News called Ball in your Court.  He currentlyblogs on those topics at ballinyourcourt.com.

As usual, Craig gave us so much useful information that we decided to spread it out, yesterday was Part 1 of the interview and here is the rest!

It seems despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery?  Do you agree with that and, if so, what do you think can be done to improve the situation?

I have to marvel at the ingenuity of my colleagues who have so effectively deflected the obligation to learn much of the nuts and bolts of eDiscovery.  A mastery of buzzwords and buzz concepts is not the same thing.  You can almost see the eagerness of some to deploy certain ideas that they have picked up as though simply encanting a buzz word is the same as applying it in a practical fashion.  Lawyers focus on the work product privilege as a means to avoid transparency in essential applications.  They trot out something that they’ve distilled from Zubulake, now ten years old.  Again, they are fighting the last war.  They are still over-preserving in shocking ways and still issuing legal holds that are boilerplate.  They’re still failing to give useful information in legal hold notices (as they can’t tell people to do what they themselves don’t know how to do).  We’re seeing little creativity and a copious quantity of uninspired mimicry.  It isn’t working.

The problem I have with this is that it is that eDiscovery isn’t that hard.  We make it hard.  We sit down in a room and start talking about the moving parts and everyone starts getting very depressed.  They’re desperate to seize upon a one-dimensional solution – they want to find a hammer that they can bang against everything.  It isn’t that hard.  Though there are strategies that you need for different kinds of evidence, there are recognitions you must make that there are different users that use data in different ways.  Different levels of fragility.  But, we’re not talking about learning Chinese pictographs here, we’re talking about a small handful of common productivity file types and a tiny handful of mechanisms for communication.  In any other industry, they would be so happy to have so little complexity to deal with; but in our industry, any complexity at all seems to be overwhelming.  And, it frustrates me because, if lawyers would devote a bit of of genuine energy and time to this, and if we made more resources available to them, we could really make not just incremental strides, but great leaps in reducing the cost and anguish associated with electronic discovery.  It’s not that hard, it doesn’t have to be that expensive.  But, it does require a certain minimal fluency to understand what you’re dealing with.

We all work with digital information, all day, every day.  Right now you are taping me on a digital recorder, we’re having a conversation on digital phones where the conversation is being converted into packets and it’s moving back and forth.  I’m staring at two screens now with my email on the left screen and the internet on the right screen with my smart phone and my tablet close by.  That’s modern life.  If we don’t approach electronic discovery with the same engagement that we do with digital tools in other aspects of our lives, we’re doomed to continue to commit malpractice in both how we approach eDiscovery and how we spend our client’s money on eDiscovery.  And, it’s just sad, it remains deeply sad.

We aren’t deploying the right tools.  Soon, our opponents and courts will realize that we’re fighting the last war and that it’s very easy to step around our defenses.  We haven’t put the tools–the weapons in the hands of the infantry – the working stiff lawyer – to allow them to begin to deal with electronic discovery.

How is it going to get better?  Right now, the only path I see is going to be the enthusiast, the individual lawyer who – out of boredom, ambition or aversion unemployment – decides that they’re going to craft a new career path for themselves.  I hear from one of those lawyers nearly every day, so that means that I hear from 150-200 lawyers each year who tell me that they want to do what I do.  That’s great, but the resources for them to achieve that, to get the information they need, are still sparse in the context of law practice.  You can go out there and learn forensics and information systems and IT.  But, to integrate the parts of those disciplines that are attendant to eDiscovery, it’s difficult.  We’re still having electronic discovery taught, by and large, by people who consider it a body of law and who shun its technology aspect.

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

My mission for 2014 is wake our readers up on the issue of form of production.  That’s a little silly because your readers are among the most enlightened of consumers of electronic discovery.  But, helping requesting parties change the archaic way they ask for ESI has been a big part of what I want to accomplish in 2014.  And, helping them to make sensible choices about forms of production so that they can get complete and utile forms, That’s not always a native form, but it’s rarely static images.  I know that is something that I’ve jawed about for a long time and I imagine there are quite a few people that are tired of hearing me speak about it, but I’m finally starting to get some traction.

Judges are starting to listen and understand.  As we chip away at this absurd practice to turn everything into electronic paper, what becomes clear is that the processes that we’ve developed to produce spreadsheets and PowerPoints in native forms apply with equal force and success to Word documents, and now you realize that you’ve covered the Microsoft Office complement of data.  Those are the files that tend to make up the most common attachments to emails and, oh, by the way, emails can be provided in functional formats that are also complete.  Everyone technologist knows what’s in an email.  It has to have a certain complement of features to be called an email and traverse the internet.  Why don’t we just start providing emails in forms that function?  Helping parties to exchange forms that function is my mission for 2014.

I don’t expect that by next year that I will tell you that everyone has awakened to the fact that native and near-native productions are cheaper and better.  Let’s face it, there are a lot of people conserving very old tools and workflows who will not give them up until they are forced to give them up.  There are all sorts of changes for the greater good that decent, intelligent people resist too long, just as they did with women’s suffrage and civil rights.  I don’t mean to trivialize civil rights by comparing them to litigants’ rights, but changes must and shall come to pass.  We must evolve to become Juris Doctor Electronicus: modern, digitally-capable counsel.

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.

eDiscovery Professional Profile: Do You Know Duane Lites?

This blog is the first in a series aimed at helping you to get to know your peers better.  Each week I’ll give you career highlights of a law firm or corporate law department eDiscovery professional.  Today’s profile is on Duane Lites – an eDiscovery and Litigation Support veteran.

______________________________________

Duane is the Director of Litigation Support at Jackson Walker LLP, located in the firm’s Dallas office.  Jackson Walker is one of the largest ‘all Texas’ firms with 350+ lawyers in seven offices located throughout the state.  Duane has been with the firm since 2007.

Duane manages the firm’s Litigation Support department, which offers litigation support and eDiscovery services to all the firm’s litigators.  The department does its own eDiscovery processing, manages document reviews, provides trial graphic services, provides litigation support consulting services and on occasion provides forensics services. Duane manages the day-to-day operations of the department, trains and manages the staff (located in 4 of the firm’s offices), develops and implements department policies and procedures, consults with litigators, and procures and implements technology based on the practices and needs of the litigators.

In the mid 1980s Duane worked as a computer programmer at an oil and gas company in Dallas.  His boss left to take a position at a litigation support vendor, and convinced Duane to join him there in 1986.  Duane’s first work in litigation support was on a large asbestos case, working with a paper collection of about 500,000 documents (that was a huge case in the 1980s!). He worked converting key-punched data into load-ready form for the vendor’s timeshare system. Over time, he moved into working more with the databases and was heavily involved with integrating images with databases when that technology was first implemented in the industry. Between then and starting at Jackson Walker, Duane worked at two other law firms in Dallas and also spent some time with a few Litigation Support vendors and consulting organizations to round out his experience.  Over time he realized that his preference was being in a firm, assisting and working directly with litigation teams, understanding their needs, and finding solutions to their problems.

The move to Jackson Walker was a good one for Duane. He has buy-in at all levels. Litigators through the firm’s executive managers support his efforts, trust his judgment, and provide the resources he needs to optimize the department’s value to the firm.

One of the most valuable things Duane has learned in his years as a litigation technology professional is that ‘relationship’ is critical to the success of a litigation support department and to effectively marketing litigation support and eDiscovery services within a firm. To be successful you really need to understand what the lawyers are doing and what they need.  The best way to do that is to develop good relationships with them.

His biggest challenge today is managing resources with workflow — the workflow is increasing at a faster pace than the resources are, and managing that can be tricky.  One of his initiatives for this year is to get everyone in his department cross-trained, thereby giving him more flexibility in allocating resources.

Throughout his career, Duane has been active in professional organizations and endeavors.  He is a past president of the Dallas Fort Worth Association of Litigation Support Managers, a member of ILTA, on the editor board of the Litigation Support Today publication, and a co-founder of the popular Yahoo Group, The Litigation Support List.  Started in 1998, the list has grown its membership to over 9,000 litigation technology professionals. Duane still maintains and monitors the list.

Duane was born and raised in Texas and has been in Dallas for almost 30 years.  He is a history buff.  In his spare time he researches American history, builds military dioramas, and enjoys antique shopping with his wife. He has recently taken up restoring antique desk fans, circa the early 1900s. He also enjoys golf, sporting events, and spending time with his family.

He’ll be at the upcoming annual ILTA conference in Nashville in August.  Say hello or introduce yourself if you haven’t yet met him. Duane always enjoys meeting peers in the litigation support and eDiscovery community.

Please let us know if there are eDiscovery topics you’d like to see us cover in eDiscoveryDaily.

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.

Planning for the Unexpected: Changing eDiscovery Providers on Short Notice – eDiscovery Best Practices
 

Editor’s note: From time to time, we get the opportunity to host a “guest blogger” which not only provides a different perspective to our readers, but also gives me a break from writing for a day!  🙂  Formerly the Vice President of eDiscovery and Information Governance at one of largest biopharmaceutical companies in the world, Ronke Ekwensi is now a Managing Director at Huron Legal, where she helps clients overcome information lifecycle challenges to meet immediate and long-term information governance and eDiscovery goals.  Ronke has written a terrific article about her challenge in having to switch eDiscovery providers right after taking over as head of eDiscovery and how she and her team addressed that challenge.  Enjoy!

_________________________________

About a month after assuming my role as head of eDiscovery for one of the world’s largest biopharmaceutical companies, I was suddenly forced to change eDiscovery vendors.

The day began with what I thought was a routine business meeting with our existing eDiscovery vendor, a relationship which, until that moment, had been blissful. Five minutes into the meeting, bliss was replaced with shock when I learned that the company’s owners had decided to “get out of the eDiscovery business.”

The experience forcefully taught me the importance of carefully choosing an eDiscovery vendor. Savvy practitioners typically look at vendors’ substantive qualifications such as analytics expertise, review capacity, processing and hosting technology, but do not necessarily look at their underlying stability and are often unprepared to deal with an eventuality like the one I faced. 

Following are some lessons I learned from the experience:

1.  Communicate internally

The first order of business should be internal communication. Your approach to communication could possibly make or break the success of the transition.

a. With management

It is critical to keep upper management informed. Their data and their litigation are at issue and you do not want them to learn of the situation elsewhere. The communication should be direct and focused; while tempting, this is not the time to be alarmist or adversarial. I chose to simply state the facts and make assurances that my team and I had the situation under control. I committed to deliver to management a fully executable plan within a few days.

b. With affected stakeholders

It is also important to make sure that those affected by the change are kept informed of the situation, including internal stakeholders and outside counsel.

2.  Assemble a transition team

Bring together the key team members who will be involved in the transition. I kicked off a small internal team from the law department (both eDiscovery and litigation) and our IT organization.

3.  Assess the current state

The transition team’s first order of business should be to assess the full state of affairs.  In our case, the team was charged with answering the following questions:

  • What data is in the vendor’s possession? 
  • In what phases of the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) is the data?
  • Which matters are affected?
  • In what stage in the litigation are these matters?
  • What is the implication of switching providers mid-matter?
  • What are the technical options available for data transfer?
  • What are the risks inherent in each option and are they defensible?

Each component of these answers can require technical expertise and legal advice to ensure defensibility.

4.  Identify a new eDiscovery partner

“Vendor going out of business” is a very uncomfortable feeling, and it highlighted for me the importance of looking beyond technical and EDRM capabilities in the vendor selection process. A critical part of our selection was the potential vendors’ financial stability, based on a strong balance sheet, diversified products or services, and a diversified client base. We elected not to consider providers for whom a single “anchor client” accounted for more than 50% of their revenue. 

Working with our procurement organization, we developed a robust set of objective and subjective criteria with which to evaluate potential providers on their likely longevity. The criteria included:

  • Annual eDiscovery services revenue above $25 million.
  • Fully verifiable multi-year financial statements (particularly privately held companies)
  • At least three favorable client references within our industry

Through the partner selection process, I was skeptical of low priced vendors, privately held companies without financial transparency, and the “new kid in town.” I was not enamoured by flashy presentations of the latest, greatest technology.  We ultimately selected a partner that was financially stable and did quality work at a good price point.

5.  Transfer active matters

I once worked with a facilities manager who quipped, “the way to get people to reduce the paper in their offices is to move them frequently.” That was certainly true in the digital equivalent of our transition plan.  The cost, complexity, and risk of moving over 40 terabytes relating to hundreds of matters necessitated that we develop a strategic approach to data transition. We therefore archived as much data as was practical, based on the direction of the lawyers overseeing the matter and the opportunity to reduce cost. The rest of the data we transitioned to our new platform.

6.  Create defensible documentation

My team and I entered this situation at a disadvantage. I was new to the position and my team was completely new. The vendor relationship had been established and most of the data had been transferred before I joined the company. The data related to multi-year matters that had gone through a phased collection process. I was determined that, going forward, we would document our process, both for defensibility and to preserve organizational history. Each action taken for each matter was fully documented and the documentation was preserved as a business record.

Conclusion

While not pleasant at the time, the experience resulted in tremendous benefits in the end. We were able to improve our existing processes, seek opportunities to reduce costs, “clean house,” and select an eDiscovery partner, not just another vendor. I am happy to report that the relationship lasted a long time.

_________________________________

So, what do you think? Have you been forced to suddenly switch eDiscovery providers?  If so, how did you handle it?  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.

Ralph Losey of Jackson Lewis, LLP – eDiscovery Trends

This is the tenth of the 2014 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders after LTNY this year (don’t get us started) and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What significant eDiscovery trends did you see at LTNY this year and what do you see for 2014?
  2. With new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure now in the comment phase, do you see those being approved this year and what do you see as the impact of those Rules changes?
  3. It seems despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery?  Do you agree with that and, if so, what do you think can be done to improve the situation?
  4. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Ralph Losey. Ralph is an attorney in private practice with the law firm of Jackson Lewis, LLP, where he is a Shareholder and the firm’s National e-Discovery Counsel. Ralph is also a prolific author of eDiscovery books and articles, the principal author and publisher of the popular e-Discovery Team® Blog, founder and owner of an online training program, e-Discovery Team Training, with attorney and technical students all over the world, founder of the new Electronic Discovery Best Practices (EDBP) lawyer-centric work flow model. Ralph is also the publisher of LegalSearchScience.com and PreSuit.com on predictive coding methods and applications.

What significant eDiscovery trends did you see at LTNY this year and what do you see for 2014?

The presentation that I did at the show was called the “John Henry moment”, and I presented with Cliff Dutton, who is a technology expert at AIG (not an attorney, but an expert with technical processes in electronic discovery). The other panelist was Jason Baron (whose own thought leader interview from last week can be found here).  Cliff, Jason and I were examining at LegalTech what comes next after predictive coding.  What is the inevitable direction that technology is taking?  That was really the theme behind the “John Henry moment”.  A similar question was asked by other panels, but, and of course I’m prejudiced, I think our panel had some particularly good, unique insights.

Before I get into the answer that emerged from our panel, I will say that other panels were focusing on other parts of the technology world.  They were talking about things like data breach and privacy – those are two big issues that we’ve seen in the past, but they seem to be emerging even stronger than before and were big issues in the keynote speech.  It appears to be a surprise to some people that there is crime on the Internet.  Many of us are quite aware of that – I had to change my credit card just a couple of months ago.  So, data breaches, either on purpose by a hacker or unintentional through negligence, and data privacy are certainly big issues.

These were not the issues that Jason, Cliff and I talked about.  Instead, we were talking about the advancement into the second machine age.  This is something that has been discussed by the New York Times and also in a best-selling book called The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies.  It has to do with the application of ever more sophisticated computer algorithms that allow us to replicate what the human mind is capable of doing and to automate not just manual labor, but automate the mental labor of mankind.  Of course, what we’re focused on is its application to lawyers – what we lawyers do that can now be improved, enhanced and automated.

Now, in the past, the big discussion has been on predictive coding and this is certainly an example of the application of advanced computers and what is being called “analytics” –  taking big data and understanding the implications of big data.  Examples outside the law include Netflix, that takes your viewing history and tells you about a new movie they have that you’re going to like, and Amazon who takes you buying history and suggests books that you’re going to like.  They’ve both analyzed your data.  So, what we were discussing is how this concept will impact the law.  That’s really an important topic that our panel addressed that I had an opportunity to follow up on recently in my blog (that parodied the movie Minority Report, which had something called “pre-crime”), called “pre-suit”.  Not “pre-crime”, but “pre-suit”.  I’ve already (surprisingly) been able to get the URL for presuit.com and it discusses corporate counsel using what I call “smart data” to predict and prevent litigation before it happens.  That’s what our panel discussed and I think that’s really the next big thing (with all due respect to people that are focused by privacy and data breach issues).  So, I think the next big thing is to apply data analytics and the latest advancements in artificial intelligence to get a much better handle and control on litigation than we have today.

The idea behind “pre-suit” is essentially to win your next lawsuit before it’s even filed.  Jason Baron also recently wrote an article about it in Law Technology News (Escape From the Island of E-Discovery), which I didn’t know about when I wrote my article – he showed it to me the day of our panel session.  He talks about three examples of using data analytics for something other than predictive coding: the first two are data remediation for information governance purposes and records classification to, for example, classify and file your emails for you.  The third one he calls “bad conduct detection” – I call it the use of smart data to predict and prevent a cause of action from occurring – basically, when employees within your company are doing something that could be a basis for a lawsuit.

He wrote about it in the article and, independently, I had the same idea I (at least I think I did – Jason is alleged to have mind control abilities!).  In my blog, I wrote about how this “pre-suit” concept will work and this isn’t based on science fiction, it’s based on technology that’s available today.  We have the technology to detect patterns of wrongful activity that are there.  In corporate email and text messages, we can detect when an employee may be harassing another employee.  It’s far more than just looking for certain words that should never be said in email, but also patterns so you can bring in an employee for counseling before damage is done, before a reputation is ruined or a lot of emotional harm happens and way before a complaint is filed by the victim.

So, this is really the next big thing – to stop lawsuits before they mature.  In other words, why should we depend on plaintiff’s counsel to come to the door of corporate counsel to let them know that they’ve found this group of employees in the company that have been discriminated against or are receiving wrongful treatment?  Find about it in advance and fix it yourself – much more effectively and much cheaper.  It’s essentially good citizenship for corporations to police their own activities rather than having outside attorneys find it and air their “dirty laundry” in a courtroom.  That’s the vision that our panel came articulated and that I think is the next big thing.

With new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure now in the comment phase, do you see those being approved this year and what do you see as the impact of those Rules changes?

I wrote a blog post about it and I did predict that they would pass this year, but the level of controversy seems to be heating up at the last minute.  The commentary that Judge Scheindlin filed with the Rules Committee is just one indication that it’s escalating.  It’s very intense and it may be a closer question than I thought.  As I’ve written about it, my view is that some of these changes may not even be constitutional and that’s something that former Judge Ron Hedges believes – that some of the rules have gone too far in violating separation of powers, that the rules are going into substantive law.  I’m concerned how political the Federal Rules have become.  The judicial branch is supposed to be a separate branch of government, not part of the legislative branch.  So, I must say that I share Judge Hedges’ concerns on that and, even though I still think it will be approved, I am not pleased by how politicized the whole process has become..

Having said all of that, the reason that I’m not having the same emotional reaction that Judge Scheindlin and other commentators have had – on both the right and the left (frankly, this has become a liberal vs. conservative issue) – is that I don’t think it will have the profound impact that some people fear.  Ultimately, rules changes don’t change things as much as people expect them to do so.  Certainly, the 2006 rules changes didn’t lead to a huge impact, and regardless of what gets passed here, I don’t think it will have a huge impact either.  There is really a cultural change that is needed for eDiscovery to work right, rather than creating yet more rules that people can misunderstand and argue about.  In my opinion, we’re going to get more of a change by focusing on education, doing the kind of thing that you do, bringing the word to people so that they can understand what’s going on.  I think that does more good than creating more rules, especially when they’re particularly complicated rules.

One good result of the new rules is the emphasis on proportionality and cooperation.  I think those are good things, it doesn’t hurt to have them in the rules and that will encourage people to do what the rules already require – cooperate with each other and always have proportionality in mind.

It seems despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery?  Do you agree with that and, if so, what do you think can be done to improve the situation?

You pointed out the resources that are already there.  Do we need more and better resources?  I suppose.  And, I’ll still continue to work on that as, I’m sure, the other educational leaders that you’ve mentioned will do as well.  I think one of the most important new efforts to come on the scene is the one started by another Losey, Adam Losey, and his foundation IT-Lex.  That’s an educational foundation effort that is more oriented toward younger lawyers.  That is ultimately the answer.  Old fogies like me are going to retire and they just don’t want to learn.  They’re closed minded and, frankly, they’re getting more and more irrelevant every day.  We need to focus on the next generation and I’m really proud of Adam in how he’s doing a good job of carrying the torch on that.

I’m seeing this in my own family – first with my son Adam at Foley and now with his wife, my daughter-in-law, Catherine Losey who is now at Littler doing eDiscovery.  I can tell you that the next generation gets it and the hope is in the future.  I think you have to take a longer term view of things.  I tried cajoling lawyers my age into doing it and it doesn’t work, honestly.  In the book that I mentioned before, The Second Machine Age, delays like this in learning how to use technology have always been.  This is nothing new and it’s not unique to the legal industry.  It typically takes ten to twenty years for business or any general cultural activity to adapt to the new technology and figure out how to use it.

For people like me, it has been an exercise in patience because I’m ready to do everything yesterday.  But, the reality is that it will catch up, it’s starting to catch up and those of us who do know the technology needn’t despair that 98% of the bar still doesn’t know what we do.  That’s OK.  The number of people who do know will grow rapidly, particularly as people retire.  There are plenty of smart people my age who don’t get it, but they understand that they don’t get it, so they ask me to do it or they ask someone else who does get it to do it.  That is a fundamental ethical responsibility that good lawyers get.  Eventually, you’re going to have a field of specialists that focus on eDiscovery, especially complex artificial intelligence and other technology.  That’s how we will get at the truth.  There will be a specialty bar that other lawyers use who don’t do that.  But, right now, we’re still in a shakedown period.  We may see things speed up because of more eDiscovery malpractice cases – there have already been a few and there will be more.  And, competition will force the people that don’t get it out and allow opportunities for the next generation and the few in my generation that do get it.  Overall, I’m optimistic, because I don’t think there’s anything unique about lawyers to keep them from getting it; there are plenty of younger lawyers that do get it.  They are our future and I’m optimistic for that future.

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

Well, my online training program (e-Discovery Team Training) is still alive and well.  An encouraging sign is that we’re starting to have smaller firms signing up four, five or even six attorneys and paralegals.  So, I will keep eDiscovery Team Training in place as a cheaper, intro level, A to Z, course about eDiscovery for people that can’t afford to take the more expensive courses.  It’s an inexpensive alternative for people who do want to learn, that want to remain relevant and that understand that, in today’s world, it’s all about constant training, re-training and learning.

As for the more advanced training that I provide, I find that you can’t teach predictive coding just by writing and I’ve written maybe 35 essays on the subject.  I find it’s much more effective for me to teach it the good-old fashioned way – the way that Abe Lincoln learned law – with a one-on-one apprenticeship.  In other words, I show my attorneys by doing.  With something as complicated as predictive coding, coming in and consulting and actually helping lawyers do it is more effective than writing about it.  But, with the simple intros to eDiscovery, the writing is still effective, so I’ll keep on doing that too. I’ll keep writing on the advanced topics too, but with the understanding that many of the methods of predictive coding are too complex to teach my words alone.

Thanks, Ralph, 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.

Tom O’Connor of Gulf Coast Legal Technology Center – eDiscovery Trends

This is the ninth of the 2014 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders after LTNY this year (don’t get us started) and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What significant eDiscovery trends did you see at LTNY this year and what do you see for 2014?
  2. With new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure now in the comment phase, do you see those being approved this year and what do you see as the impact of those Rules changes?
  3. It seems despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery?  Do you agree with that and, if so, what do you think can be done to improve the situation?
  4. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Tom O’Connor.  Tom is a nationally known consultant, speaker and writer in the area of computerized litigation support systems.  A frequent lecturer on the subject of legal technology, Tom has been on the faculty of numerous national CLE providers and has taught college level courses on legal technology.  Tom’s involvement with large cases led him to become familiar with dozens of various software applications for litigation support and he has both designed databases and trained legal staffs in their use on many of the cases mentioned above. This work has involved both public and private law firms of all sizes across the nation.  Tom is the Director of the Gulf Coast Legal Technology Center in New Orleans.

What significant eDiscovery trends did you see at LTNY this year and what do you see for 2014?

In my opinion, LegalTech has become a real car show.  There are just too many vendors on the show floor, all saying they do the same thing.  Someone at the show tallied it up and determined that 38% of the exhibitors were eDiscovery vendors.  And, that’s just the dedicated eDiscovery vendors – there are other companies like Lexis, who do other things, but half of their booth was focused on eDiscovery.  The show has sections of the booths down one long hall with sales people standing in front of each section and it’s like “running the gauntlet” when you walk by them.  It’s a bit overwhelming.

Having said that, a lot of people were still getting stuff done, but they were doing so in the suites either at the hotel or across the street.  I saw a lot of good B-to-B activities off the sales floor and I think you can get more done with the leads that you get if you can get them off the sales floor in a more sane environment.  At the same time, if you’re not at the show, people question you.  They’ll say “hey, what happened to the wombat company?”  So, being at the show still helps, at least with name recognition.

One trend that has been going on for a while is that “everybody under the sun” is doing eDiscovery or says that they’re doing eDiscovery.  The phenomenal growth of the number of eDiscovery vendors of all sizes surprises me.  We see headlines about providers getting bought out and some companies acquiring other companies, but it seems like every time one gets acquired, two more take its place.  That surprised me as I expected to see more stratification, but did not.  Not that buyouts aren’t occurring, but there’s just so much growth in the space that the number of players is not shrinking.

Another trend that I noticed which puzzled me until I walked around the show and realized what was going on, is the entry of companies like IBM and Xerox into the eDiscovery space.  It puzzled me until I took a good look at their products and realized that the trend is to get more throughput in processing.  Our data sets are getting so big.  A terabyte is just not that unusual anymore.  Two to five terabytes is becoming typical in large cases.  500 GB to 1 terabyte is becoming more common, even in a small case.  Being able to process 5 to 10 GB an hour isn’t cutting it anymore and I saw more pressure on vendors to process up to a terabyte (or even more) per day.  So, it makes sense that companies like IBM and Xerox are going to get into the big data space for corporate clients because they’re already there and they have the horsepower.  So, I see the industry focused on different ways to speed up ingestion and processing of data.

That has been accompanied by another trend: pricing pressures.  Providers are starting to offer deals like $20 per GB all in with hosting, processing, review, unlimited users, etc.  From the other end of the spectrum of companies like IBM and Xerox are small technology companies, coming not from legal but from a very high-end technology background, looking to apply their technology skills in the eDiscovery space and offering really discounted prices.  I’ve seen a lot of that and we started to see it last year, with providers starting to offer project pricing and getting away from a per GB pricing model.  I think we’re going to see more and more of that as the year goes along.  I hesitate to use the word “commoditized” because I don’t think it is.  It’s not like scanning – every eDiscovery job is different with the types of files you have and what you want to accomplish.  But, there will certainly be a big push to lower the pricing from what we’ve been seeing for the 1-3 years and I think you’re going to see some pretty dramatic price cuts with pressure from new players coming into the market and increased competition.

With new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure now in the comment phase, do you see those being approved this year and what do you see as the impact of those Rules changes?

I’ve been astonished that after the first wave of comments last fall that there has been little or no public comments or even discussion in the media about the rules changes. The public comment period closes tomorrow (Tom was interviewed on February 14) and you know the saying “March comes in like a lion and goes out like a lamb”?  That seems to be how it is with the end of the comment period.  I think I saw one article mentioning the fact that the comments were closing this week.  It has been a surprising non-issue to me.

For that reason, I think the rules changes will go through.  I don’t think there has been a concerted effort to speak out against them.  As I understand it, the rules still won’t be enacted until 2016 because they still have to go back to the committee and through Congress and through the Supreme Court.  It’s a really lengthy period which allows for intervention at a number of different steps.  But, I haven’t seen any concerted effort mounted to talk against them, though Judge Scheindlin has been quite adamant in her comments.  My personal feeling is that we didn’t need the new rules.  I think they benefit the corporate defense world and change some standards.  Craig Ball pointed out in a column last year that they don’t even address the issue of metadata, which is problematic.  I don’t think we needed the rules changes, quite frankly.  And, I wrote a column about that last year.  In a world where I hear commentators and judges say that 90% of the attorneys that appear in front of them still don’t understand ESI or how things work, clearly if they don’t understand the current rules, why do we need rules changes?  Let’s get people up to speed on what they’re supposed to be doing now before we worry about fine tuning it.  I understand the motivation behind getting them enacted from the people who are pushing for them, why they wanted them and I suspect they will pretty much go through as written.

It seems despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery?  Do you agree with that and, if so, what do you think can be done to improve the situation?

I absolutely agree with that.  I think the obvious remedy is to educate them where lawyers get educated, which is in law schools and I think the law schools have been negligent, if not grossly negligent, in addressing that issue.  Browning Marean and I went around to the different law schools to try to get them to sponsor a clinic or educational program in this area eight or nine years ago and were rebuffed.  Even to this day, though there are some individuals that are teaching classes at individual law schools, with the exception of a new program at Northeastern, there has been no curriculum devoted to technology as part of the regular law school curriculum.

Even the programs that have sprung up: the wonderful job that Craig Ball and Judge Facciola does at Georgetown Law School is sponsored by their CLE department, not the law school itself.  Michael Arkfeld has a great program that he does for three days down at the Sandra Day O’Connor law school in Arizona State University (covered on the blog here).  But, it’s a three day program, not a course, not a curriculum.  It’s not a focus in the curriculum of the actual law school itself.  We’ve had “grass roots” efforts spring up with Craig’s and Michael’s efforts, what Ralph Losey and his son Adam have been doing, as well as a number of people at the local level with CLE programs.  But, the fact is that lawyers get educated in law schools and if you really want to solve this, you make it as part of the curriculum at law schools.

There has always been an attitude on the part of law schools.  As Browning and I were told by the dean of a top flight law school several years ago, “we train architects, not carpenters”.  I myself was referred to, face-to-face, by a group of law professors as a “tradesman”.  They said “Gee, Tom, this proposal is a great idea, but why would we trust the education of our students to a tradesman like you?”  There’s this sort of disdainful academic outlook on anything that involves the hands-on use of computers and that’s got to change.  Judge Rosenthal said that “we have to change the paradigm” on how we handle things.  Lawyers and judges alike have to look at things differently and all of us need to adjust how we look at the world today.  Because it’s not just a legal issue, it’s a social issue.  Society has changed how it manufactures, creates and stores information/data/documents.  Other professional areas have caught onto that and legal education has really lagged behind.

I mentioned the eDiscovery Institute at Georgetown Law School, which happens every June.  But, they cap the attendants at about 60.  Do the math, there are about a million lawyers in the country and if you’re only going to educate 60 per year, you’ll never get there.  I also think that bar associations could be much more forthright in education in this area and requiring it.  Judicial pressure is having the best results – judges are requiring some sort of certification of competence in this area.  I know of several Federal judges who require the parties to state for the record that they’re qualified to address eDiscovery.  Some of the pilot projects that have sprung up, like the one at the University of Chicago, are going to require a self-certifying affidavit of competence (assuming they pass) stating that you’re qualified to talk about these issues.  Judges are expecting lawyers, regardless of how they learn it, to know what they’re talking about with regard to technology and not to waste the court’s time.

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

I just recently published a new guide on Technolawyer, titled LitigationWorld Quick Start Guide to Mastering Ediscovery (and covered on this blog here).  There are a lot of beginner’s guides to eDiscovery, but this one doesn’t really focus on eDiscovery, it focuses on technology, answering questions like:  How do computers work?  What are bits, bytes, RAM, what’s a gigabyte, what’s a terabyte, etc.

I literally had a discussion about an hour ago with a client for whom we have a big case going on in Federal court and there’s a large production, over a terabyte being processed by our opponents in the case right now.  I asked the client how much paper he thought that was and he had no idea.  The next time we start arguing cost in front of the judge, I’m going to bring in a chart that says a gigabyte is X number of pages of paper so that it has some meaning to them.  So, I think it’s really important to explain these basic concepts, and we in the technology world forget quite a bit how little many lawyers know about technology.  So the guide is designed to talk about how electronic media stores data, how that data is retrieved and explains some of the common terms and phrases used in the physical construction and workings of a computer.  Before you even start talking about eDiscovery, you need to have an understanding of how computers work and how they find data and where data can reside.  We throw around terms like “slack space” and “metadata” casually without realizing that not everyone understands those terms.  This guide is meant to address that knowledge gap.

I’m continuing some of my case work, of course.  Lastly, I recently joined a company called Cavo, which is bringing a new eDiscovery product to market that I’m excited about.  Busy as always!  And, of course, there are always good things going on in New Orleans!

Thanks, Tom, 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.

Apple Can’t Mention Inadvertent Disclosure in Samsung Case – eDiscovery Case Law

Back in January, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP was sanctioned for their inadvertent disclosure in the Apple vs Samsung litigation (commonly referred to as “patentgate”).  California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal handed down an order on motions for sanctions against Quinn Emanuel (in essence) requiring the firm to “reimburse Apple, Nokia, and their counsel for any and all costs and fees incurred in litigating this motion and the discovery associated with it”.  Many felt that Samsung and Quinn Emanuel got off lightly.  Now, Apple can’t even mention the inadvertent disclosure in the upcoming Samsung trial.

According to a story on Law360 (subscription required), U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh barred Apple last Wednesday from presenting evidence that Quinn Emanuel leaked confidential information regarding an Apple license agreement, saying that such testimony could prejudice jurors.  “The court believes any evidence [on the leak] could be irrelevant and a waste of time. It would confuse the jury and is outweighed by prejudice,” Judge Koh said. “Apple says it doesn’t intend to bring in any information of that violation unless Samsung opens the door.”

Judge Koh also came close to barring Apple from introducing evidence on the total revenues Samsung earned selling its products that are alleged to infringe on Apple patents. In their damages retrial in November where Apple was awarded $290.5 million (bringing the total awarded for infringing on Apple products to almost $930 million), Samsung’s revenues became a sticking point.  Although Samsung argued last week that Apple shouldn’t be allowed to bring up any of Samsung’s revenues or profits from the accused products, Judge Koh said she wouldn’t go that far. Apple’s damages expert uses many of those numbers in his calculations, and it would be “weird” to limit his testimony on income he considered in those calculations, she said.

For our previous coverage of the case, click here, here, here, here, here and here.

So, what do you think? Is this the case that never ends?  Will there be much more to come?  Do you wish you had some of the fees from this case?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Jason R. Baron of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP – eDiscovery Trends

This is the eighth of the 2014 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders after LTNY this year (don’t get us started) and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What significant eDiscovery trends did you see at LTNY this year and what do you see for 2014?
  2. With new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure now in the comment phase, do you see those being approved this year and what do you see as the impact of those Rules changes?
  3. It seems despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery?  Do you agree with that and, if so, what do you think can be done to improve the situation?
  4. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Jason R. Baron.  An internationally recognized speaker and author on the preservation of electronic documents, Jason is a member of Drinker Biddle’s Information Governance and eDiscovery practice.  Jason previously served as Director of Litigation for the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and as trial lawyer and senior counsel at the Department of Justice.  He was a founding co-coordinator of the National Institute of Standards and Technology TREC Legal Track, a multi-year international information retrieval project devoted to evaluating search issues in a legal context.  He also founded the international DESI (Discovery of Electronically Stored Information) workshop series, bringing together lawyers and academics to discuss cutting-edge issues in eDiscovery.

What significant eDiscovery trends did you see at LTNY this year and what do you see for 2014?

I think that it was clear, not only to me but to many other attendees that I spoke with at the show, that there was a greater focus and attention this year on Information Governance.  It’s the new black.  You saw that especially in the educational sessions.  Now my good friend Ralph Losey, in a recent posting on his brillilant blog e-Discovery Team®, referred in passing to the topic of Information Governance as “boring” – however, what I think he meant to say is that if Information Governance is simply viewed as the current buzzword for what constitutes electronic recordkeeping best practices, that would be unfortunate.  It’s a lot more profound than that.

In my view, the types of analytics that we use in eDiscovery for predictive coding have an important role in Information Governance as well.  The research that I had some role in, coming out of the TREC Legal Track, and subsequent articles by Maura Grossman, Patrick Oot and others, have all helped to crystallize what constitute best practices in the eDiscovery search and document review space.  But the knowledge that we have gained about analytics in these various research studies, as validated in recent court opinions like Da Silva Moore, are applicable to a much broader application than merely in eDiscovery practice.

That is to say, we can all be smarter about using analytical methods to solve lots of legal issues which arise outside of the narrow band of eDiscovery but inside the broader realm of Information Governance.  Ralph discussed this in a recent blog when he referred to the idea of using “presuit” analytics to predict and prevent lawsuits from happening in the first place.  Ralph’s column shows that he certainly gets it, and that I can count him in as a true believer in pre-litigation analytics being accomplished to lower corporate overall risk including the prevention of potential lawsuits.

So, the hottest topic at LegalTech was Information Governance and, as part of that discussion, a conversation about what best practices are from a technology perspective in the space.  What other trends  out there were noted?

Other themes at LegalTech that reflect trends specifically affecting legal and eDiscovery practice: First, it’s clear to us that the cloud is becoming a dominant paradigm for the storage of big data, and that we need to continue to understand how eDiscovery in particular can be optimized in cloud environments.  Second, there is increased attention to the notion of technological competence, in light of the amendments to the Model professional rules of responsibility, including the comment to Rule 1 about the need for attorneys to be technologically competent in keeping up with the law.  That comment certainly means something in the eDiscovery space.  Beyond those two, we saw a conversation about new technologies and new ideas that are happening and that need to be absorbed into the practice of law – for example, sessions on drones and sessions that noted the “Internet of things”.  In all sorts of ways, these various discussion threads show that there are a thousand different ways to collect data in the world, all of it is ESI and all of it needs to be factored in when we’re litigating cases and when we’re trying to govern the data that organizations hold.

With new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure now in the comment phase, do you see those being approved this year and what do you see as the impact of those Rules changes?

Well, my crystal ball tells me not to make predictions.  However, we’re now up to 700 comments in the last week leading up to the February 15, 2014 deadline for responding. [Editor’s note: over 2,000 comments were submitted by the actual deadline.]  Those comments are sharply divided between a community of plaintiffs’ counsel who question the necessity for rules change, and the defense bar, which at least a part of which strongly urges rules changes in the belief that the present rules encourage over-preservation of evidence, and that more in the way of limitations imposed on discovery should now be imposed.  So, that’s the battleground.  I think a good bet in the space is that the language that emerges is going to be much like the amendments currently proposed, but no one knows for sure.

My view about the amendments is a different one than what has been reflected in most of the comments, which I have put forward on behalf of the Information Governance Initiative (see below).  The view that I have is that there are aspects of the rules amendments that can be supported, and certainly Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 should be amended to incorporate the notion of parties cooperating.   However, what I believe to be of greater importance than rules change is a recognition on the part of the judiciary as well as all litigants that the volume and complexity of data is doubling every couple of years, and the technological environment is one that should include advanced tools to help remediate the severe challenges we all face in terms of the preservation of ESI. We live in a world of exponential growth of big data and we need to deal with that fact at a more foundational level than with rules changes for litigation.  So, I urge that we pay attention to both best practices as a matter of technology in the maintenance of big data in electronic systems, as well as continued education of the bench and bar on how to deal with this new reality — because we’re not going back to the 20th century.  The world of exabytes that we live in is only getting bigger and we have to deal with it.  In my mind, I’m attempting to carve out a middle ground where the rules debate is not as draconian or as starkly imagined as parties would reflect in the comments, but rather that we need to step back and ask more fundamental questions.

It seems despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery?  Do you agree with that and, if so, what do you think can be done to improve the situation?

Every survey that I know of drives this point home, that there is a “bubble” that some of us practice in where we go from conference to conference, acting as if the 2006 rules amendments are “old hat,” whereas the concept of how to deal with ESI is something new and novel to many others.  So, there is a learning curve that exists where the greater part of the legal community needs to become better versed in the more advanced aspects of eDiscovery.  By now, everyone knows about email potentially being relevant evidence, but not very many people could step through a workflow on predictive coding.  Nor do they necessarily have to do so in a large swath of cases that, candidly, are not a candidate for the most advanced methods.  We need to apply some degree of proportionality analysis to competence and the level of competence that someone needs is dependent on the complexity of the case.  If there is giant litigation that involves billions of documents, then you really need to understand the technical issues at hand, and what questions to ask, to ensure that you’re using the most advanced and efficient search and document review methods.  On the other hand, if you have a case that is only a couple of hundred documents that is in state court or some local jurisdiction, then these more advanced methods are obviously not needed.

So, I think there is an aspect that you’re exactly right to point out, that this is all still new, and we are still maturing in mapping out defensible ediscovery practices in the post-2006 Rules amendment world. But, increasingly, as I have said, we live in a world of digital information.  Whether it’s a family law case involving the exchange of emails or an employment case or even a hit and run case involving GPS data, attorneys are necessarily finding that there cases do indeed involve aspects of discovery where digital or electronic evidence is material and important.  To that extent, all lawyers need to know something about how to preserve, how to collect, how to review and how to produce ESI.  It is clear to me as the years go by that the bar is getting raised in a greater and greater number of cases and that more and more lawyers need to be competent with respect to basic eDiscovery.

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

Here’s one thing I’m very excited about.  Bennett Borden, who is chair of the Information Governance and eDiscovery practice here at Drinker Biddle, and Barclay Blair, who runs the company ViaLumina and is a thought leader in the Information Governance space, have teamed up to found the Information Governance Initiative and invited me to act as Co-Chair.  The Initiative is a vendor-neutral industry consortium and think tank which has as its mission a goal of fostering discussion about best practices in the Information Governance space.  We have received a large outpouring of goodwill in the form of individuals joining up as members (it’s free to join, by the way), as well as corporate sponsors who have products and services that address IG issues.  And we hope through various platforms that there will be a better smarter dialogue about how to deal with the challenges of big data and Information Governance using many of the analytical methods that I alluded to earlier.  This is exciting to be part of and I’m delighted, after joining Drinker Biddle, to be able to work with Bennett, Barclay, as well as Jay Brudz and others, to attempt to provide some measure of thought leadership in this space.

I should note that there are other great organizations who are also putting on programs, including The Sedona Conference, which has put out a wonderful Commentary on Information Governance spearheaded by Sedona WG1 chair Conor Crowley, that’s freely available for download.  Sedona and ARMA have also teamed up to put on an information governance conference coming up in April 2014 in Florida.  These are all great to advance the ball.    Hopefully, all of our collective efforts will help to jump start serious conversations around optimizing IG.  For my part, I certainly would encourage individuals to look up the IG Initiative and participate in future activities. (See www.iginitiative.com.)

Thanks, Jason, 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.

Federal Court Partially Reverses District Court’s Taxation of Electronic Discovery Costs – eDiscovery Case Law

In CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., No. 2013-1036, 2013 U.S. App. (Fed. Circ. Dec. 13, 2013), the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part and vacated in part an earlier decision by the Georgia district court to require the plaintiffs to pay the defendants’ costs relating to the production and duplication of electronically stored information (ESI) offered as eDiscovery, limiting taxation to only those costs which were directly related to copying.

Circuit Judges O’Malley and Taranto heard the appeals case, which was filed by the plaintiff after a district court ruled in favor of the defendants regarding the taxation of costs for eDiscovery. The initial case, a patent infringement lawsuit, was found in favor of the defendants, and the district court determined that the plaintiffs should pay the defendants’ costs, with two defendants asking for nearly $270,000 and nearly $50,000, respectively.

In filing for costs, the first defendant categorized $243,000 of the requested amount as “other” costs, stating that the fees were to cover expenses for the eDiscovery vendor that produced the ESI. The remaining $4,500 was characterized as the costs of making copies of the data. The second defendant did not identify any costs for making copies, and categorized $34,000 of the total cost as expenses for its eDiscovery vendor.

On appeal, Judges O’Malley and Taranto followed the leads of previous cases in the Third Circuit (Race Tires America, Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp) and the Fourth Circuit (The Country Vintner of North Carolina, LLC v. E & J Gallo Winery, Inc.) with narrow interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1920, which is concerned with defining costs that are and are not recoverable regarding eDiscovery. The applicable law was noted as the scope of section 1920(4), which first defined as recoverable for costs “[f]ees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case.” Section 1920(4), amended in order to address electronic evidence, now states that recovery costs for ESI are allowed only for “the reasonable costs of actually duplicating those documents, not for the cost of gathering those documents as a prelude to duplication.”

Observation and examination of the defendants’ discovery process found that the first stage performed by the vendor was the closest in scope to the process of making copies, and therefore was recoverable. This stage includes imaging hard drives and other source media, and then processing the resultant images to extract relevant individual documents. Judges O’Malley and Taranto noted that “the statute covers costs for steps, which commonly involve an initial reproduction, that necessarily precede the creation of a final production copy: converting electronic files to non-editable formats . . . and scanning paper documents.”

However, the taxation line was drawn at “costs incurred in preparing to copy,” such as the next stage of the vendor’s process, which involved organizing the extracted documents into a database to be “indexed, decrypted, and de-duplicated, and filtered, analyzed, searched, and reviewed to determine which were responsive to discovery requests and which contained privileged information.” The defendants asked for these costs to be subject to recovery, categorizing them as “project management, keyword searching, ‘statistical previews,’ ‘auditing and logging of files and ensuring compliance with Federal Rules,’ and ‘extraction of proprietary data,’ along with other characterizations. In addition, the defendants requested that the costs of convenience actions such as buying, installing, and configuring a data-host server be relegated to the plaintiffs. The judges dismissed these costs as unrecoverable, but did classify the costs of creating “load files” – scanned images that indicate breaks in documents – as recoverable and subject to taxation.

Finally, Judges O’Malley and Taranto limited recovery costs to only the subset of documents that was actually produced by the defendants’ eDiscovery vendor. The matter was then remanded to the district court, which will consider what format was required for ESI production, and which costs were appropriate to assign to the plaintiff.

So, what do you think? Should the entirety of eDiscovery production costs be subject to taxation and awarded to the prevailing party? Is there a broader interpretation of costs related to copying electronic documents that should be considered? 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.

George Socha of Socha Consulting LLC – eDiscovery Trends

This is the seventh of the 2014 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders after LTNY this year (don’t get us started) and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What significant eDiscovery trends did you see at LTNY this year and what do you see for 2014?
  2. With new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure now in the comment phase, do you see those being approved this year and what do you see as the impact of those Rules changes?
  3. It seems despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery?  Do you agree with that and, if so, what do you think can be done to improve the situation?
  4. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is George Socha.  A litigator for 16 years, George is President of Socha Consulting LLC, offering services as an electronic discovery expert witness, special master and advisor to corporations, law firms and their clients, and legal vertical market software and service providers in the areas of electronic discovery and automated litigation support. George has also been co-author of the leading survey on the electronic discovery market, The Socha-Gelbmann Electronic Discovery Survey; in 2011, he and Tom Gelbmann converted the Survey into Apersee, an online system for selecting eDiscovery providers and their offerings.  In 2005, he and Tom Gelbmann launched the Electronic Discovery Reference Model project to establish standards within the eDiscovery industry – today, the EDRM model has become a standard in the industry for the eDiscovery life cycle and there are nine active projects with over 300 members from 81 participating organizations.  George has a J.D. for Cornell Law School and a B.A. from the University of Wisconsin – Madison.

What significant eDiscovery trends did you see at LTNY this year and what do you see for 2014?

I don’t think I saw any obvious new trends.  It was a year of adjustments, rather than anything dramatic.  When something dramatic shows up at LegalTech, usually it is because someone on the provider side has managed to catch a marketing wave and then everyone else is trying to ride that wave.  There was the early case assessment wave, the predictive coding wave, but no new wave yet.  The challenge is predicting what the new wave will be – like trying to predict what will go viral on the web.  Although I am sure there is a lot of speculation about what the next big thing will be, if you look at past projections in the industry we frequently got it wrong.  My guess is that the new wave will be a new wave precisely because it will come from an area we haven’t been paying much attention to.

Nonetheless, here are some thoughts.  One, we are seeing consolidation on the software side of the industry.  In any given area, review for example, we are seeing a limited number of offerings accounting of a substantial portion of the market.  Part of what is changing here is that specific products are not dominating only because of appealing mixes of functions, features, pricing and marketing.  They are establishing their holds by way of ecosystems built around their offerings – add-on tools, services offered in connection with the products, workflows built around the products, and the like.  As anyone who has followed legal technology knows, those who are on top today most likely will not remain there forever, so we can expect to see some of today’s leaders drop down the list as others elbow their way up.

There continues to be much discussion about consolidation on the services side.  There is a limited degree of consolidation to the extent that there are a number of mergers and acquisitions that have taken place, not just over the last year, but over the last few years.  Were those acquired organizations not replaced by others, then we would be having real consolidation.  But, I continue to see new service providers enter the marketplace – at least as rapidly as other providers are acquired, merged or disappear.  So, there is no meaningful consolidation on the service provider side – not if consolidation is defined as fewer players in the market.

Another thing that I’m seeing is the beginning of a change in focus.  Although many of the folks at LegalTech continue to cast production as the ultimate objective of e-discovery, a growing number are taking a newer – or really an older – approach.  They are looking to how one might tease a story out of the data.  This makes a lot of sense, because discovery isn’t intended to be a process unto itself; it’s meant to be part of a larger litigation or dispute resolution process.  The reason that you’re engaging in discovery or, more specifically, in eDiscovery is to help bring a matter to a satisfactory resolution.  I’m seeing more discussions and presentations about how eDiscovery fits into that larger context.  This change in focus could become a trend or it could fizzle out.  I think it ought to become a trend, but we’ll see.

With new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure now in the comment phase, do you see those being approved this year and what do you see as the impact of those Rules changes?

I think the second question is the more important question.  I don’t see the proposed amendments achieving the type of meaningful change that people advocating for them hope to see. I think many people pushing for the changes feel the 2006 rules changes weren’t effective.  If you look at why the 2006 changes have not been effective, I think it’s largely because people haven’t paid attention to them.  If that is the case, what good will changing the rules again accomplish?

I think that a more effective approach would be more robust education for both judges and practitioners, with that education, especially the judicial education, coming from a broader range of educators than has been the case in the past.  If we focus on judicial education, judges should be hearing from the attorneys who are actually doing the work.  They also ought to be hearing from the corporate, governmental and similar people who are the end clients. And, they ought to be hearing from the service and software providers.  As long as education to judges doesn’t include strong and well thought out insight from those three areas, the judges are going to find it difficult to get the education they need to be more effective in implementing the 2006 changes – never mind any changes that may come from the must recent push to amend the rules.

By the way, it would be unfair to lay this problem at the foot of the judiciary.  By and large, judges do and should turn to litigants to better understand the particulars of “where the rubber hits the road” with electronic discovery issues in matters before them.  The litigants themselves, the lawyers, are doing a terrible job of educating the judges because, by and large, they have not attempted to educate themselves about such aspects of eDiscovery as the 2006 rules changes.  If the lawyers appearing before judges haven’t educated themselves about the 2006 changes, why do we think it will be any different with changes in 2014?

It seems despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery?  Do you agree with that and, if so, what do you think can be done to improve the situation?

This is a problem.  I wish I had a quick and easy answer, but I don’t.  Most attorneys don’t know enough about the theory or practice of eDiscovery.  For all the conferences and webinars held on such topics, they don’t seem to reach the bulk of practicing attorneys.  I suspect that the only real answer is time – and a lot of it. .

No matter have good the content delivered at programs such as LegalTech, it is clear that these programs are mostly attended by a small cadre of people who keep running into each other. Look at the first two days at LegalTech; they are like a class reunion.  You see all your old friends, people in the “bubble” who deal with electronic discovery a lot.  It’s our “same old, same old”.  Most of us could spend 2 1/2 days debating one small arcane issue within eDiscovery. There are over 2 million attorneys practicing in the US and they are not in this “bubble” – maybe, at most 2,000 are.

Then you get the third day of LegalTech.  Every year I hear the providers complaining that’s the day when people show up looking for baubles and other little giveaway items.  Providers bemoan that those attendees are not there for substantive content and they’re not there to really understand what the exhibitors have to offer – they just want free stuff to fill their shopping bag.  And, in some way, the real problem is that those are exactly the people we need to reach and those are clearly the people we are not reaching.

How do we reach those folks?  Many ask that question, but so far not have found an effective answer.  eDiscovery needs to “cross the chasm” (as in Geoffrey Moore’s book Crossing the Chasm where you have that big gulf between the early adopters and the rest of the people).  In the larger legal world, we have not crossed the chasm at all when it comes to eDiscovery.  Within the eDiscovery world, you could argue that we’ve crossed the predictive coding chasm, or you could argue that we haven’t, but at least it’s a debate.  I don’t think there is even a debate in the larger legal world as to whether eDiscovery has crossed the chasm, it has not.

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

Several things: We keep pushing EDRM forward.  For the last four or five months we have put out a monthly EDRM update highlighting the many things we are working on – frameworks, standards and resources.  In addition, we have begun the process of making EDRM a 501(c)(6) trade organization.  There are several reasons for doing this, but the main reason is to ensure that EDRM is well positioned so that we can look forward not just to the beginning of our tenth year in April, but to our 20th and our 30th years.

I’m also in the early stages of launching a new group called ABIKOS, a service and technology firm focused on the eDiscovery space.  Our objective is to take discovery back to what it was meant to be – with the focus on bringing matters to a satisfactory resolution

As for Apersee, we’re in the early stages of Apersee version 3.  We have some planning and discussion to do, but we hope in the coming months that you’ll see a greater emphasis on the areas that have actually been of interest to folks, changing the focus to the portions of it in which people have found the greatest value.

Thanks, George, 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.