Electronic Discovery Archives

I Don’t Mean to Be Critical, But Here are Some Critical Trends: eDiscovery Trends

February 10, 2017

It must be our week for surveys. Yesterday, we covered the Complex Discovery Winter 2017 eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey results. Here’s another set of surveys that look at critical trends for AmLaw 200 law firms and Fortune 500 corporations.

In the past several days, The Cowen Group (TCG) has released two surveys: The AmLaw 200 eDiscovery Critical Trends Report and the Corporate eDiscovery Critical Trends Report. Here are the top 5 takeaways identified by David Cowen for each report:

AmLaw 200 eDiscovery Critical Trends Report: 75 of the AmLaw 200 participated in this survey

Top Three eDiscovery, Data or Information Governance Pain Points: 1) Variety of data sources (46%), 2) Institutional resistance to change (41%), 3) Volume of data growth (39%).
In the next six months, 78% of respondents anticipate their eDiscovery/Litigation Support workload will increase.
38% of respondents expect their litigation support/eDiscovery group or department to increase in size in the next six months.
In the next 6 to 12 months, 91% of respondents would like to increase their usage of artificial intelligence and advanced analytics.
The top five technology investment priorities are: 1) Review technology (42%), 2) Project management workflow software (41%), 3) Predictive analytics (36%), 4) Matter management (33%), 5) Knowledge management (29%).

Corporate eDiscovery Critical Trends Report: 44 of the Fortune 500 participated in this survey.

In the next six months, 7% of respondents anticipate their eDiscovery/Litigation Support workload will increase.
77% of respondents expect to increase their use of predictive analytics and artificial intelligence in the next 6 to 12 months but many lack the internal resources to execute.
43% of the F-500 will increase their use of strategic partners and vendors in response to the increase in eDiscovery workload and complexity of tools and technology in 2017.
85% of corporate counsel will not be adding staff- thus relying more on strategic partners and service providers.
The top four technology investment priorities are: 1) Project management workflow software (40%), 2) Knowledge management (34%), 3) tie Review technology and Legal Hold (each at 31%).

For more information or to request a full copy of the AmLaw 200 and/or Corporate Discovery reports, click on the appropriate links above.

The Cowen Group stays busy! Here is a link to their 2016 eDiscovery and Litigation Support Salary Report we covered back in November.

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

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

Are We More Confident in eDiscovery Business Than We Were a Year Ago?: eDiscovery Trends

February 9, 2017

The results are in from the Complex Discovery Winter 2017 eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey, which has just concluded and (as was the case for the 2016 Winter, Spring, Summer and Fall surveys) the results are published on Rob Robinson’s terrific Complex Discovery site. How confident are individuals working in the eDiscovery ecosystem in the business of eDiscovery? Let’s see.

As always, Rob provides a complete breakdown of the latest survey results, which you can check out here. So, to avoid redundancy, I will primarily focus on trends over the past four surveys to see how the responses have varied from quarter to quarter and (for the first time since this is the second year of the quarterly survey) will take a look at a year over year comparison to the Winter 2016 survey.

The Winter 2017 Survey response period was initiated on January 20, and continued until registration of 100 responses on February 6. Rob notes that this limiting of responders to 100 individuals is new with the Winter 2017 survey and is designed to create linearity in the number of responses for each quarterly survey (it also gets rid of those pesky decimal points in the results). This quarter the 100 responses were received at the fastest rate in the history of the survey. So, in the future, if you want your voice heard, respond early!

Percentage of Provider Respondents Rising Back Up: Of the types of respondents, 56 out of 100 were either Software and/or Services Provider (40%) or Consultancy (16%) for a total of 56% of respondents as some sort of outsourced provider (over half of total respondents – I’m counting law firm respondents as consumers even though they can also be providers as well). Law firm respondents comprised a majority of the remaining respondents with 33%. No other type of respondents was over 4%. Here’s a graphical representation of the trend over the past four quarters:

When comparing this year’s Winter survey to last year’s survey, it is clear that (despite the rise in percentage of provider respondents this time), the survey is still more diverse than before, especially with regard to the percentage of law firm respondents:

Not Quite Half of Respondents Consider Business to Be Good: Less than half (49%, to be exact) of respondents rated the current general business conditions for eDiscovery in their segment to be good, with 9% rating business conditions as bad. Last quarter, those numbers were 56.6% and 6.2% respectively, so this quarter reflects less bullish than last quarter. Will that trend continue? We’ll see. Here is the trend for the last four quarterly surveys:

When comparing against last year’s Winter survey, the difference is even more pronounced with nearly a 10% decrease of respondents rating current general business conditions for eDiscovery in their segment to be good:

Almost Everyone Still Expects eDiscovery Business Conditions to be as Good or Better Six Months From Now: Almost all respondents (96%) expect business conditions will be in their segment to be the same or better six months from now (slightly above last quarter’s 94.7%), but the percentage expecting business to be better fell to an all-time low of 40%. Revenue (at combined 90% for the same or better) and profit (combined 86%) dropped from last quarter. Here is the profits trend for the last four quarterly surveys:

When compared against last year’s Winter survey, the distribution for profits six months from now was less bullish with a 6% decrease of respondents expecting higher profits and a 4% increase of respondents expecting lower profits:

Increasing Volumes of Data and Budgetary Constraints Are Most Impactful to eDiscovery Business: Increasing Volumes of Data and Budgetary Constraints were tied for the top of the most impactful factors to the business of eDiscovery over the next six months at 26% each (perhaps budgeting is more notable during the winter?). Increasing Types of Data (17%) stayed at third, followed by Data Security (15%), with Lack of Personnel and Inadequate Technology (both at 8%) bringing up the rear. The graph below illustrates the distribution across the most recent four quarterly surveys.

A year ago, Budgetary Constraints was voted as the most impactful to eDiscovery business, so maybe there is something to the time of year theory with regard to budget considerations:

Still a Fairly Even Split Among the Roles: Last time, the “rank and file” dominated the responses with 73.5% of total responses. This time, Executive Leadership respondents rose back up (to 38%), though Operational Management was the leader (at 39%) and Tactical Execution dropped a bit (down to 23%). Here’s the breakdown of the last four quarters:

The survey is certainly more distributed than last year, where Executive Leadership was a clear majority of the responses. Does that mean that the “rank and file” are less bullish than Execs? Or does it mean that eDiscovery professionals in general are less bullish than before? Hmmm…

Again, Rob has published the results on his site here, which shows responses to additional questions not referenced here. Check it out.

So, what do you think? What’s your state of confidence in the business of eDiscovery? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Webcast: Filtering in CloudNine – A Short Demonstration

February 8, 2017

Thoughts About LegalTech New York 2017: eDiscovery Trends

February 8, 2017

Another LegalTech New York (LTNY) – or “LegalWeek” as they now like to call the event – is in the books. What did attendees at the conference think about this year’s show? Let’s take a look.

I reached out to several attendees (some of whom I met with during the show) to get their thoughts and impressions of this year’s show, how it differed from past shows (if at all) and if they had suggestions for improvements. As a few pointed out in responding, these are their personal opinions and observations regarding the show, not those of their employer or clients. Here is what they had to say:

George Socha, Managing Director at BDO: “Cybersecurity concerns are driving IG investments, many of which will draw on e-discovery tools, techniques and expertise.”

Shawn Gaines, Director of Marketing Communications at kCura: “As always, Legaltech was an awesome place to meet up with the rest of the legal technology community, leading to great meetings and one-on-one conversations. Traffic in the exhibit hall started strong, but seemed to fade earlier than usual, perhaps due to what seemed like a smaller set of exhibitors. The quality of the people there, however, still can’t be beat—and there aren’t too many other opportunities like this to bring together people from all ends of the industry.”

Rob Robinson, Author of the Complex Discovery blog: “Having participated in some way in Legaltech since 2006, it is always fascinating to see how many authors and reporters parachute into the information stream of Legaltech in early January and then add their icing to the cake of content being shared by industry experts. This reporting serves the purpose of highlighting topics but many times falls short of the investigative and educational journalism that could benefit industry professionals. Instead of just providing a mouthpiece and distribution network for the comments of individuals and companies that pay for access, it would be incredibly refreshing and beneficial to see these authors and reporters also focus on how technologies can benefit end users…Cost recovery may be a sound financial business model for ALM, but charging attendees a fee to learn more about exhibitors who have already paid for the opportunity to share their information and offerings with attendees seemed overreaching. As an event’s success is directly related to the quality and quantity of its attendees, it might be beneficial for ALM to deeply consider the impact of future access cost changes on not only finances but on perception.”

Greg Buckles, eDiscovery Consultant & Evangelist – The EDJ Group Inc.: Orange is the new black – again. Automation and efficiency everywhere, but do the end customers really care? Does fast track processing directly to Relativity just convert your technology to a commodity? LTNY losing traction? Booths down, crowd down and most briefing suites in adjacent hotels?

Michele Lange, Director of Thought Leadership at KrolLDiscovery: “Habitual LTNY attendees were happy to report that the stalwart event remained largely unchanged as part of the greater Legalweek experience, with many attendees welcoming the additional, high-quality keynotes occurring throughout the week. Attendees also commented on the reduction in time in the educational sessions – from 75 to 60 minutes – to better align with CLE requirements. Panelists (many of which were newcomers to the LTNY speaking stage) were more succinct in their remarks, resulting in better, more focused discussions this year.”

Andrew Haslam, eDisclosure Project Manager at Squire Patton Boggs: “For the fourth year in a row, the number of exhibitors was down, what was stretched across three areas, could easily have fitted into 2. There used to be a whole section of training organisations, nary a one this time around. Without the central show, all the fringe activities will struggle to justify themselves, to reuse the Ernest Hemmingway’s quote from Andrew McAfee’s wonderful day 1 Keynote, ‘How did you go bankrupt?’ ‘Two ways. Gradually and then suddenly.’ Are we seeing ALM tipping into a sudden decline? Was this the reason for charging people an admittance fee, or was it a far nobler desire to keep out the ‘mouchers’. Let’s see what next year brings.”

Drew Macaulay, Managing Director at Consilio: “My impression of LegalTech this year was that it was definitely quieter in the exhibit halls, but still busy in the educational tracks, particularly those that related to regulatory investigations and cross border discovery challenges and best practices. In particular, there was a lot of interest in the potential impact of the forthcoming General Data Protection Regulation, which comes into force in May 2018 and has broad implications for law firms, corporations and eDiscovery firms alike.”

Bill Piwonka, Chief Marketing Officer at Exterro: “Legal Week this year was in tune with the trends we’ve been seeing, namely that while people in the industry are becoming more e-discovery proficient, there is still much to be learned. With the FRCP amendments, new technologies, ever-growing data volumes and types, and a large number of organizations moving to the cloud, the latest knowledge on how to stay in front of these changes is more vital than ever. LegalWeek 2017 was instrumental in providing that knowledge, and more, for all who attended.”

David Horrigan, e-Discovery Counsel and Legal Content Director at kCura: “This year, ALM expanded the show from Legaltech to Legalweek, bringing more legal issues into a larger overall event. I think many speakers did a great job in showing how technology relates to all areas of the law. For instance, Dean Erwin Chemerinsky was one who did an outstanding job of bringing other areas of the law into the rest of the program. Many sessions did an excellent job of really hitting home how technology and the law aren’t just for programmers and legal teams—they affect everyday life.”

Craig Ball, Noted eDiscovery Thought Leader and Author of Ball in Your Court blog: “Though I enjoyed LTNY 2017 as much as any before (and for me it’s been two decades of LTNY), this year’s show seemed a shadow of its former self. Traffic was down, and the plenary keynotes saw a fraction of their customary attendance. Consolidation among e-discovery vendors was striking in terms of its impact on the show floor. Maybe not an entirely bad thing as e-discovery had all but taken over the show. I witnessed these things but expect that ALM will report that LTNY was still bigger and better and HUGER by every measure. As they say in New York, Mazeltov!”

“I thought the decision to charge for floor and plenary admission was not implemented wisely. I’d charge a modest amount online to register but credit it back when attendees showed up. Considering how much vendors pay to be onsite, the admission charge felt…tacky.”

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

As for my own thoughts, it seems to me that more and more of the activities are outside the conference as attendees take the opportunity provided by the biggest legal technology show of the year to arrange meetings to further business relationships. While that’s great for doing business, it’s not as great for the show itself as many of the attendees find it difficult to find time to actually attend sessions or visit the exhibit hall. Many of the people I spoke with during the show had yet to attend the show itself.

Personally, I always try to find time to attend at least a few sessions and the ones I attended this year were first rate, as always. My particular favorite was the keynote on Day 2 (February 1) of the conference regarding effects of the December 2015 Rules amendments discussed by several judges and attorneys reflecting both the defense and plaintiff viewpoints. As for the Exhibit Hall, I spent some time in the Hall and spoke with several of the exhibitors, who noted that attendance in the Exhibit Hall seemed diminished compared to previous years (especially after the first day). It will be interesting to see if exhibitors raise concerns over the decision to charge for Exhibits only passes and the potential impact it has on attendance in the Hall.

So, what do you think? Did you attend this year’s LegalTech? If so, what did you think of the conference? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Is Keyword Searching Dead? Find Out Here: eDiscovery Best Practices

February 7, 2017

As I fly back from NYC after Legal Tech New York (and after a weekend spent with the wife and kids), I need an easy but interesting topic to write about for Tuesday’s post. This’ll do. :o)

With all of the hype surrounding Technology Assisted Review, many wonder if keyword search still has a place in eDiscovery. Perhaps it does, if it’s conducted properly.

Later this month, you can decide for yourself. On Tuesday, February 28 at 12:00pm CT (1:00pm ET, 10:00 am PT), CloudNine will be conducting a webcast titled Best Practices for eDiscovery Searching via the BrightTALK network.

Our webcast session will cover goals for effective searching, what to consider prior to collecting ESI that will be subject to search, mechanisms for culling prior to searching, mechanisms for improving search recall and precision, challenges to effective searching and recommended best practices for searching and validating your search results to ensure effective search results.

We will cover many of the concepts we’ve covered on this blog over the years, showing you how not to get wild with wildcards, how to cull out email signature logos from review, how to expand the recall of searches to capture additional hits that might be missed due to misspellings or poor quality text, how to effectively conduct name searches to maximize hit retrieval and how to account for noise words in your search results.

We will also use external sites to help us check our proposed wildcard terms for variations to ensure that our term isn’t too broad (or too narrow) and we will use other sites to help us determine how large of a sample size we need for testing our search result set and even generate our sample set for us.

And, finally, we will look at relevant case law regarding the use of search to identify good and bad examples (i.e., what to do and what NOT to do) when performing searches to retrieve potentially responsive ESI and discuss a proper work flow to QC your search results.

Karen DeSouza, the Director of Review Services at CloudNine, and I will conduct this hour long webcast to discuss best practices for effective searching that may just help you decide whether keyword search still has a place in your eDiscovery workflow. Click here to register for the webinar. Hope to see you then!

So, what do you think? Is keyword searching dead? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Overrule Plaintiff’s Objections to Discovery Requests

With No Intent or Duty to Preserve, Court Finds No Spoliation Occurred: eDiscovery Case Law

February 6, 2017

In Archer et. al. v. York City School District, et. al., No. 13-2826 (M.D. Pa., Dec. 28, 2016), Pennsylvania District Judge John E. Jones, III ruled that the plaintiffs had presented no evidence showing that the defendants acted with intent when they deleted the email account of the former Assistant Superintendent, nor had a duty to preserve arose prior to the deletion of the account.

Case Background

In this case brought forward in November 2013 by a group of students and parents suing the defendants to protest the decision not to renew their school’s charter based upon the performance of the school and the hardship on the city’s budget, the defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. In their opposition to the summary judgment motion, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants spoliated evidence when they deleted the email account of former assistant superintendent Perry-Cross, who retired in February 2012. Her email account was deleted afterward, with the defendants suggesting that this may have occurred as soon as ninety days after, while the plaintiffs alleging that her emails were “purged sometime after 2012” (though they failed to provide any evidence that pointed to this timeline).

The parties agreed that the first two elements of spoliation – that the emails were within the defendants’ control and they were relevant to the claims of the instant case – were not at issue. But, the defendants disagreed with the last two elements, arguing that the emails were deleted as a matter of course, so the defendants were not attempting to suppress evidence and further arguing that at the time the emails were deleted, there was no reasonably foreseeable duty to preserve the account.

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to intent to destroy evidence, Judge Jones stated: “Plaintiffs here have presented no factual basis whatsoever in support of their allegations that Defendants’ intended to destroy evidence helpful to Plaintiffs’ claims. Rather, the District’s policy of purging former employees’ email accounts within ninety days, and the fact that litigation did not commence until well over a year after Defendant Perry-Cross left the District and potentially over a year after the deletion occurred amounts to evidence supporting the opposite conclusion. Defendants also point to their swift and prompt reaction to turn over newly discovered evidence in the form of another District employee’s email account after previously believing it was deleted…This compilation of evidence, taken as a whole, leads the Court to conclude that Plaintiffs have failed to support their allegation that Defendants acted with intent to spoil evidence when they deleted Defendant Perry-Cross’s email account.”

With regard to the defendants’ duty to preserve, Judge Jones stated: “Plaintiffs attempt to persuade the Court that ‘[t]here can be no credible argument that the defendants were not aware that the disruption of 700-800 children and tens of millions of dollars would not produce litigation’ such that Defendants should have been on notice of their duty to preserve Defendant Perry-Cross’ email account…We disagree. Plaintiffs’ argument that by the simple act of doing their jobs, Defendants should have been on notice of litigation that would not commence until nearly a full year later does not create knowledge that litigation is ‘pending or probable.’”

Finding that the plaintiffs “have failed to establish both the third and fourth elements of spoliation”, Judge Jones found that their allegation of spoliation had no merit and granted the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety.

So, what do you think? When did the duty to preserve data begin? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Court Orders Plaintiff to Produce Emails with Original Metadata: eDiscovery Case Law

February 3, 2017

In Singh et. al. v. Hancock Natural Resources Group, Inc. et. al., No. 15-1435 (E.D. Cal., Dec. 29, 2016), California Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston granted the defendants’ motion to compel (in part), ordering the plaintiffs’ to “produce all emails and other documents sought by the defendants in the format demanded with the accompanying metadata from the native computer”.

Case Background

In this breach of contract case over the sale of farmland, the defendants requested email communications in TIFF format with the corresponding metadata. The plaintiff produced TIFF formatted emails, but only after they had been forwarded from the subject computer to the office of the former attorney for the plaintiffs, rendering the metadata “wholly useless and irrelevant because it pertains to the forwarded versions of the emails to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s paralegal, not the original emails between Plaintiffs and Hancock.”

The defendants argued that the metadata from the native versions of the email was crucial because it appeared that the plaintiffs produced key emails that were changed when compared to the same emails directed to the recipient. According to the defendant, some emails appeared to have been “whited out” from the plaintiffs’ versions, and in other instances new and different text had been inserted into Plaintiff’s versions. In one example, the plaintiffs’ copy of an email stated that the defendant’s representative indicated (apparently, when discussing a document related to the sale) that “It’s Acceptable.” The one produced by the defendant did not have this language.

Regarding the inconsistencies, the plaintiff’s only argument was that their attorney (who had since been replaced) explained that he did not have any experience in eDiscovery and was working with a computer specialist to correct the problem.

There was also a dispute over whether the defendants had actually ever sent an email with a signed copy of the sales agreement. The plaintiffs provided a standalone PDF copy of the sales agreement signed by the plaintiff (with no supporting metadata) and an email from the plaintiff, sending an unsigned version of the agreement.

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to the forwarded emails produced with incorrect metadata, Judge Thurston ruled “In light of the significant showing as to the importance of the metadata from the native computer, the Court GRANTS the motion. Thus, the motion to compel as to any request for electronically held documents is GRANTED. Within ten days, the plaintiffs SHALL produce all emails and other documents sought by the defendants in the format demanded with the accompanying metadata from the native computer.”

Observing that the defendants were arguing that the email that discussed the sales agreement included an unsigned, draft copy of the agreement and that the plaintiffs had failed to provide an email which supported that the plaintiff sent an executed, final copy of the sales agreement, Judge Thurston ordered the plaintiff to “provide all responsive emails and documents… in the format demanded and with the accompanying metadata from the native computer.”

So, what do you think? Would a native file production have eliminated the issue? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Thursday LTNY 2017 Sessions: eDiscovery Trends

February 2, 2017

As noted yesterday and Tuesday, LegalWeek 2017 – which includes of course the marquee event LegalTech® New York (LTNY) – is happening this week and eDiscovery Daily is here to report about the latest eDiscovery trends being discussed at the show. This is the last day to check out the show if you’re in the New York area with a number of sessions (both paid and free) available and at least 182 exhibitors providing information on their products and services.

While at the show, we will (for the seventh year in a row!) be interviewing several industry thought leaders to see what they think are the significant trends for 2017 and, which of those are evident at LTNY. After the show, we will announce the series of thought leader interviews and identify when each will be published. Mark your calendars!

American Lawyer Media (ALM) has redesigned their site so that all three days are on a single page, so you can’t really perform a “find” anymore to get the number of hits for “discovery” or “information governance” for the day. Nonetheless, based on Monday’s post, there is still plenty to talk about! Sessions in the main conference tracks include:

10:30 – 11:30 AM:

E-Discovery for Investigations and Criminal Matters

Traditionally, e-discovery has been a part of complex commercial litigation, but as electronically stored information becomes a ubiquitous part of everyday life, the frontiers of e-discovery are expanding to new areas of law and corporate governance. These areas include the expanded use of e-discovery in investigations and criminal matters. Join us for this session as speakers from government and private practice discuss these growing fields in e-discovery.

Speakers to include: Moderator: David Horrigan, E-Discovery Counsel & Legal Content Director, kCura; Panelists: Edward J. McAndrew, Partner, Ballard Spahr, Xavier Rodriguez, United States District Judge, Western District of Texas, Ronald Sharpe, U.S. Attorney District, Virgin Islands, Stan Stampson, Senior Counsel, The World Bank.

Update on Effects of Brexit on Privacy and Data Protection Considerations

Now that Brexit is a reality, organizations doing business or even serving customers in the United Kingdom are struggling to understand which data protection requirements they should follow and how. Technically the General Data Protection Requirements (GDPR) of the European Union will no longer apply to the UK. So what are organizations supposed to do if they are doing business not only in the UK but also in other EU countries? In this session, a panel of experts will walk the audience through the salient UK requirements, as well as the salient GDPR requirements.

Speakers to include: Moderator: John Isaza, Partner, Rimon PC; Panelist: Richard Hogg, Global InfoGov Solutions Leader, IBM, Jason C. Stearns, Director – Legal & Compliance Group, BlackRock, Jill M. Williamson, Counsel, Rimon PC.

12:30 – 1:30 PM:

New Frontiers for International e-Discovery

Cross-Border e-discovery has always presented challenges for practitioners and clients alike. With the increase in data privacy and protection requirements around the globe, Brexit in the United Kingdom, the upcoming EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the demise of the EU-US Safe Harbor, and the uncertain future of the EU-US Privacy Shield, these challenges are only growing. To prepare for the future of international e-discovery, hear this panel of US and international legal experts discuss ways to navigate the new frontiers of international e-discovery.

Speakers to include: Moderator: Steve Couling, Vice President of International Sales, kCura; Panelists: Chris Dale, Founder, eDisclosure Information Project, Karyn Harty, Partner, McCann Fitzgerald, Davin Teo, Managing Director Forensic Technology, Alvarez & Marsal Disputes & Investigations Limited, David Horrigan, E-Discovery Counsel & Legal Content Director, kCura.

Data Disposition Strategies from the Trenches

Despite advances in technology and legal clarifications, organizations continue to struggle with hitting the delete button on back-up tapes. This is due in part to a grave misunderstanding of where the law currently stands on the issue, as well as legitimate concerns about inadvertent spoliation or the perception that it was intentional. In this session, without naming names, a panel of experts will walk the audience through the legal methodology and thought processes used to help clients reach a studied and vetted decision to finally hit the delete button.

Stop the Lip Service: Real Advocacy Under the Federal Rules

While counsel has been overrun with news that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have changed – very little guidance has been provided to in-house counsel and large data holders on how to leverage the 2015 Amendments to prevent discovery side-shows that waste time and drive costs. This program will discuss how to use the new rules to your organization’s advantage in litigation, including effectively negotiating scope in discovery, cutting short unduly burdensome and disproportionate requests; and re-scoping preservation requirements with concepts of proportionality. Hosted by the Electronic Discovery Institute.

Speakers to include: Moderator: Zach Warren, Editor-In-Chief, Legaltech News; Panelists: Jamie Brown, Consulting Attorney – Law and Technology, Barclay’s, Patrick Oot, Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Robert Owen, Partner, Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, LLP, George Socha, Managing Director, BDO Consulting.

2:00 – 3:00 PM:

The Future of e-Discovery Law, Business, and Practice

In this final session of Legaltech New York 2017, members of the bar and bench and industry analysts predict the future of e-discovery, including how the law will change, how the industry will change, and how law firms and corporations will deal with exploding data volumes in the coming decades of the 21st Century.

Speakers to include: Moderator: David Horrigan, E-Discovery Counsel & Legal Content Director, kCura; Panelists: Monica Bay, Fellow, CodeX: The Stanford Center for Legal Informatics, Dennis Garcia, Assistant General Counsel, Microsoft, James Francis IV (S.D.N.Y), United States Magistrate Judge, Daniel Martin Katz, Professor, Illinois Tech – Chicago Kent College of Law, Andrew Jimenez, CEO, Fronteo USA.

Social Media: Ethics and Records Considerations

Social Media presents a host of challenges for organizations, not the least of which involve its impact on legal ethics and records retention considerations. John Isaza will lead a panel of experts and walk the audience through legal ethics implications arising from a social media presence, including best practices on how to address those ethical concerns. A related topic of discussion will be the records that could arise from social media, including best practices on how to declare, classify and manage the resulting records.

Speakers to include: Moderator: John Isaza, Partner, Rimon PC; Panelists: Jerry Cohen, Partner, Burns & Levinson LLP, Kevin Fumai, Managing Counsel, Oracle, Jefferey Ogden Katz, Member, The Patterson Law Firm LLC.

In addition to these, there are other eDiscovery-related sessions today. For a complete description for all sessions today (and for the entire show, since they’re all on one page), click here.

So, what do you think? Did you attend LTNY this year? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

CloudNine Highlighted in KMWorld for Relativity Integration

February 1, 2017

CloudNine Unveils Relativity Integration for E-Discovery Processing Automation

CloudNine, which provides e-discovery automation software and professional services for litigation, investigations, and audits, has announced an integration with Relativity, kCura’s e-discovery platform.

CloudNine’s integration aims to provide Relativity users with a tool to accelerate the upload, processing, and ingestion of electronically stored information (ESI), enabling Relativity users to immediately ingest ESI directly from their desktops and automatically move ESI into Relativity for more efficient e-discovery.

To learn more about CloudNine in the Relativity Ecosystem, click here.

For the original mention in KMWorld, click here.

Wednesday LTNY 2017 Sessions: eDiscovery Trends

February 1, 2017

As noted yesterday, LegalWeek 2017 – which includes of course the marquee event LegalTech® New York (LTNY) – is happening this week and eDiscovery Daily is here to report about the latest eDiscovery trends being discussed at the show. There’s still time to check out the show if you’re in the New York area with a number of sessions (both paid and free) available and at least 182 exhibitors providing information on their products and services.

9:00 – 10:00 AM:

The Effects of the December 2015 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure from 3 Perspectives (Judges, Defense & Plaintiff)

Speakers to include: Moderator: Patrick Oot, Partner, Shook Hardy & Bacon; Panelists: Hon. Andrew J. Peck, United States Magistrate Judge, Southern District of New York, Hon. Xavier Rodriguez, United States District Judge, Western District of Texas, Hon. Elizabeth D. Laporte, United States District Court Judge, Northern District of California, Ariana Tadler, Partner, Milberg LLP, Paul D. Weiner, National eDiscovery Counsel | Shareholder, Littler Mendelson P.C.

10:30 – 11:30 AM:

The Data Privacy Landscape: Emerging Laws Affecting Cross-Border Discovery

In this session, a panel of leading eDiscovery experts will offer best practices for navigating the current state of cross-border data transfers unscathed. The panel will evaluate the impact of the General Data Protection Regulation, the EU-US Privacy Shield, blocking statutes and other data localization developments from around the globe, including in Russia, South America and the Asia-Pacific. Panelists will also review differing definitions of privacy in light of recent case law and discuss how they affect organizations’ legal obligations and suggest strategies for implementing safeguards and reducing the risks posed by these developing laws.

Speakers to include: Moderator: Drew Macaulay, Consilio; Panelists: Natascha Gerlach, Senior Attorney, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP (Brussels, Belgium), Taylor M. Hoffman, Global Head of eDiscovery Management & Senior Vice President, Swiss Re America Holding Corporation, John Davis, Executive Director and Counsel – Global eDiscovery, UBS, Catherine Castaldo, Global Chief Privacy & Data Protection Counsel, GE Capital.

5 Forces Changing Corporate eDiscovery: What Law Firms Need to Know

Corporate eDiscovery is evolving, and savvy law firms are adapting to new client demands. This session brings together inhouse and outside experts to discuss quantitative and qualitative benchmark data from dozens of interviews with AmLaw 200 firms and Fortune 500 companies. Join us for an interactive session that covers real client issues like data security, cloud consolidation, outsourcing, reporting, TAR adoption… and see how corporate legal and outside counsel are actually working with each other in the new model.

Speakers to include: Moderator: Hal Marcus, Director of Product Marketing, OpenText Discovery; Panelists: Ari Kaplan, Ari Kaplan Advisors, Rachelle Rennagel, eDiscovery Special Counsel, Pillsbury, Sharika de Freitas, Senior Manager, Discovery Solutions & Technology, Viacom, Mira Edelman, Discovery Counsel, Google.

3 Situations, 2 Lawyers, 1 Corporation: Using Relativity in a Data Breach, an Investigation & Litigation

Hypothetical scenarios with real-world Relativity workflows. Learn how a fictitious corporation in the financial services sector leverages new document review work streams to assist with three different types of hypothetical legal matters—a data breach response, an investigation, and litigation.

Speakers to include: Moderator: Cathleen Peterson, SVP – Consulting & Advanced Review Services, Kroll Ontrack; Panelist: Bernard (Brian) Hensgenbaugh, Partner, Baker Mackenzie.

1:30 – 2:30 PM:

Finding a New Safe Harbor: Using Technology and 1LR to Comply With Cross-Border Data Privacy Rules

The nullification of the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Agreement was a shot heard around the legal world. In the vacuum created by the collapse of this framework, and with new data privacy laws continuously emerging, organizations have been struggling to determine how best to proceed with cross-border data transfers for litigation, compliance and regulatory investigations. In this panel, international e-discovery experts will discuss how various approaches to compliance, including tools such as deduplication, predictive coding, automatic redaction and anonymization.

Speakers to include: Moderator: Michael Becker, Consilio; Panelist: Jeff Nass, Senior Counsel – eDiscovery, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ashley Baynham, Partner, Brown Rudnick, Brian Corbin, Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, Legal Discovery Management, JPMorgan Chase & Co.

TAI: Technology Assisted Investigations for the Enterprise

How many lawyers does it take to investigate an email server? Analytics are a force multiplier for modern investigators, empowering lean teams to understand and review millions of documents. Join this session to learn about the expert techniques and tools used by top lawyers, data scientists, and regulators to expedite fact finding, inform decisions, and better support their clients. This session will present practical strategies and real life success stories that you can start replicating right away to find smoking gun emails—or prove the lack thereof.

Speakers to include: Moderator: Adam Kuhn, eDiscovery Attorney, OpenText Discovery; Panelists: Robert Keeling, Partner, Sidley Austin, John Davis, Executive Director and Counsel – Global eDiscovery, UBS, David Yerich, Director – eDiscovery, UnitedHealth Group, Laura Roman, E-Discovery Specialist, New York Stock Exchange, Stephen Medlock, Senior Associate, Mayer Brown.

Mobile Device Investigations: From Android to iPhone and Back

A smartphone from a key employee lands on your desk, what next? Spend 60 minutes with a mobile forensics expert and in-house counsel/IT, who will discuss various scenarios involving forensics and perform a live smartphone acquisition to help you see actual data available that might help an investigation or litigation. Questions that will be answered include: (1) What mobile device data might be helpful during litigation? (2) What common legal and IT challenges are associated with mobile forensics investigations? (3) How do mobile device investigations differ from computer investigations?

Speakers to include: Moderator: Jason Bergerson, Director of Consulting Operations, Kroll Ontrack; Panelists: Rich Robinson, eDiscovery & Information Manager, JCPenney, Michael J. Burg, Corporate Counsel, DISH Network L.L.C., Clifford E. Nichols, Senior Counsel, Day Pitney.

Cost Predictability in eDiscovery: A Real Innovation That Is Long Overdue

You have already heard it: ECA, TAR, AI and AFAs are the answers. Despite all the hype, there are legal departments that can control and predict the internal and external contributors to the total cost of eDiscovery. They are doing so in the face of typical uncontrollable variables like the number of custodians in a matter, the number of pages per document that are in a gigabyte of data, and the speed at which documents are reviewed. In this session, our experts go beyond the theoretical and will discuss their first-hand experiences in creating predictable eDiscovery budgets and reducing total eDiscovery costs.

Speakers to include: Moderator: Jamie Berry, Senior Vice President of Questio Operations, UnitedLex; Panelists: Constance Mockaitis, Senior Manager, eDiscovery, AbbVie, Jacob Herstek, Vice President and Senior Legal Counsel, HSBC Bank USA, NA, Judith Beall, Associate General Counsel & Senior Vice President, Bank of America, Ellen Blanchard, Senior Corporate Counsel, eDiscovery, T-Mobile.

3:00 – 4:00 PM:

Global Investigations and Multilingual Data – How to Manage the Risks Presented by Multilingual Datasets

Global businesses speak many languages. While conducting business in multiple languages is necessary and inevitable it also creates grave business risks as some of the most egregious and concerning compliance issues become much harder to detect. Sound risk management requires an effective approach to reviewing multilingual datasets. In this thought-provoking session, attendees will get a refreshing flavor for how delightfully complex multilingual reviews can be. The speakers will illustrate the challenges of searching multilingual data and explain workflow choices for the review of multilingual documents.

Speakers to include: Moderator: Ben Rusch, Consilio; Panelist: Farrah Pepper, Executive Counsel Discovery, General Electric Company, Mark Hjerpe, Partner, Divergent Translations.

Enough Already! Predictive Coding is for Every Matter

Machine learning isn’t just for multimillion document discovery— it’s not even just for discovery. Come learn how continuous machine learning is being used every day for litigation, investigations, due diligence and more as a natural extension of human analysis. No complicated written protocols, advanced project management, or extraordinary involvement by SMEs needed. This session will include a discussion of the latest case law, trends, and perceived “barriers”.

Speakers to include: Moderator: Hal Marcus, Director of Product Marketing, OpenText Discovery; Panelists: Ethan Ackerman, Associate, Morgan Lewis, Kiriaki Tourikis, Vice President, Associate General Counsel, JPMorgan Chase, Dawson Horn, Vice President, Associate General Counsel, AIG Corp, Alexis Mitchell, Principal Data Scientist, OpenText Discovery.

Information Governance – Hindsight is 20/20: A Moderated Debate

It’s an InfoGov showdown! Panelists will debate the merits of taking a reactive approach (“we did the best we could give the situation”) versus applying a proactive model (“you could have been better prepared if you had done this”) in a global discovery matter. This session will provide you with a playbook on how to implement a global Information Governance program, balancing against the practical constraints preventing organizations from making infogov a priority – from people that have lived through both reactive and proactive approaches to discovery.

Speakers to include: Moderator: Tom Barce, Director of Consulting Services, Kroll Ontrack; Panelists: Patrick J. Burke, Senior Counsel, Seyfarth Shaw, Ben Hubble, Manager – Records Management, Wendy’s, Jessica Escalera, Global Head of Legal Discovery Operations, Barclays.