Close
Enter your
text here

Ethics

Craig Ball of Craig D. Ball, P.C.: eDiscovery Trends

This is the fifth of the 2016 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscovery Daily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year to get their observations regarding trends at the show and generally within the eDiscovery industry.  Unlike previous years, some of the questions posed to each thought leader were tailored to their position in the industry, so we have dispensed with the standard questions we normally ask all thought leaders.

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 in the United States and abroad, having delivered over 1,700 presentations and papers.  Craig’s articles on forensic technology and electronic discovery frequently appear in the national media and he teaches E-Discovery and Digital Evidence at the University of Texas School of Law.  He currently blogs on eDiscovery topics at ballinyourcourt.com.

What are your general observations emerging eDiscovery trends for 2016?

{Interviewed Craig after LTNY, as he did not make it to the show this year}

I skipped LegalTech this year – first time in twenty years – because Mardi Gras was early this year, I chose the circus on the Mississippi over the one on the Hudson.  Still, I got lots of feedback from those who attended LTNY while I was catching beads at 29 parades.  I wanted to see if I’d missed anything of note.  The only trend that emerged was lack of change in the focus of the show.  LTNY is still dominated by electronic discovery as it has been for almost a decade; but, there are continued signs of consolidation within the industry as organizations fold into one another.

Not surprisingly, we don’t see outright failure in this space.  Companies don’t disappear, but instead reach a point where whatever is left is absorbed by a national brand for its equipment or core technology.  So, we’ve seen steady consolidation within the industry, and that trend continues.  As the broader economy goes, so goes litigation and discovery.

Another trend that I’ve observed is an increased focus on eDiscovery automation and considerable growth of, and investment in, eDiscovery automation providers.  What are your thoughts about that trend?

The term “automation” has gotten some play lately.  I’m trying to figure out what each usage means because it’s still in the buzzword phase as marketers deploy the term in the never-ending struggle to differentiate their products. Automated workflows are key to Cloud SaaS offerings.  Hosted systems must be capable of programmatic routines to ingest and process data, effecting ready hand-off of data across processing and review.    An automated SaaS offering should be sufficiently autonomous to facilitate workflow across multiple stages of the EDRM with little manual intervention.

Assuming “automation” means  we can put something into the hopper and it will emerge ready for review or production in forms we were expecting, then automation is a necessary precursor to growth and cost effectiveness in hosted products.  That’s positive for consumers if it means price reductions and commoditization of features of electronic discovery.  It may not be so great for the vendor community unless they can scale up the volume.

In the case Nuvasive v. Madsen Medical, the Court recently vacated an adverse inference instruction sanction previously applied against the plaintiff because of the amendment to Rule 37(e).  Do you see that as a trend for other cases and do you expect that other parties that have been sanctioned will file motions to have their sanctions re-considered?

I don’t think it signals a trend. There are relatively few cases that fall into the transition point.  I don’t expect to see a rash of sanctions being reconsidered by virtue of the latest amendments.

Nuvasive is interesting because it goes to the issue of whether it’s fundamentally fair to impose the new Rules retroactively.  The Rules speak to that issue and make it clear that they can be applied retroactively as long as they operate fairly.  The amendments to the Rules make clear that serious sanctions (such as adverse inference instructions) require proof of an intent to deprive a discovering party of the particular information.  Nuvasive involved serious sanctions, so I can see why the Court might want to weigh amended Rule 37(e).  Still, I’m not sure why the parties and the Court failed to anticipate the Rule changes, as the amendment process was pretty far along in July 2015, when sanctions were imposed.  The tenor of the Court’s opinion in reversing himself was that it was just ‘bad luck’ that the amended rules kicked in when they did.

I think that we will see judicial action once termed “sanctions” couched in less-loaded terms.  After Rule 37(e), Courts will distinguish punitive responses from remedial actions designed to rectify unwarranted failure to preserve relevant information. New Rule 37(e) won’t tie the hands of jurists determined to rectify discovery abuse.  We’re already seeing push back from jurists unwilling to surrender discretionary authority when the facts demand fairness.   As well, we’ve seen at least one case where the Court reversed himself, citing 37(e) as the basis for reconsideration.  As is apparent in Nuvasive and in Judge Francis’ recent order in Cat 3, the Rules are tools, and they can be turned this way and that in determined hands.

Sanctions aren’t going away, and that’s a good thing.  We are mired in the last century when it comes to discovery.  Lawyers need direction, and sanctions opinions supply guidance.  There is little in the way of a “carrot” for eDiscovery – all we have is the “stick.”  If courts fail to sanction incompetence and abuse, then lawyers won’t pursue competence, and parties will continue to “twiddle their thumbs” until evidence disappears.  Few lawyers maliciously hide damaging evidence; but, they’re expert at rationalizing it away or, in the case of e-discovery, content to let their ignorance serve as their armor.  “What you don’t know, can’t hurt me,” is their credo.

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

I’m going back to basics.  Last year was about trying to develop a core curriculum and re-engineer my teaching to make it an engaging foundation in information technology for lawyers.  I hope 2016 will bring an increased ability to push out more information and reach more people.  I’m doing a project for the DC Bar where I will be providing evening CLE programs by live semi-weekly webcasts.  Small groups of motivated people are my sweet spot.  As always, I’m looking forward to this year’s Georgetown University Law School eDiscovery Training Academy, during the first full week in June.  Both the faculty and the students are delightful.  I’ve come to recognize that anyone willing to work at it can learn the technology they need to be formidable in e-discovery in just three solid days.  That’s less time than most of us spend at Starbucks each year.

I’m using the California ethics decision (which we covered here when it was still a Proposed Opinion) as a jumping off point for the concept of core competencies for lawyers.  As you know, the State Bar of California issued an advisory opinion last year identifying nine areas in which lawyers must either be competent in order to accept a case involving eDiscovery or must associate competent counsel or decline representation. That courageous opinion serves as an effective touchstone for talking to lawyers– not just in California, but all over– about the skills they must embrace to be competent to accept a case involving eDiscovery.

There are virtually no cases without electronic evidence, only cases where the lawyers choose to ignore it.  And there is so much more coming!  Never in history have advocates had so much powerful evidence at their disposal, and never have they been so content to look away.  Three days per advocate could change all that—a long weekend.  But, finding the time is only half the battle.  The other half is finding the course that doesn’t give short shrift to the “e” in e-discovery.

Candidly, 2016 is also about taking some time for me.  I’ve been doing 50 to 70 presentations a year for twenty years.  I average about four flights a week; so, I’m hoping to cut all that down by half.  I’m saying “no” more and stopping to smell the roses.  That’s why I’ve gotten a second home in New Orleans, and will spend more time reading, thinking and working on fewer projects with greater focus.  Every teacher needs a sabbatical, right?

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. 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. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

No Matter Where You Are, You Can Still Attend the UF EDRM E-Discovery Conference: eDiscovery Trends

This year’s University of Florida EDRM E-Discovery Conference is coming up on March 30.  If you plan to attend in person, great!  But, if you can’t attend in person, the good news is that you don’t have to be there, or even in the state of Florida, to attend.

The fourth annual one-day conference provides a pathway for attorneys, paralegals and support professionals to move beyond simple keyword searching to basic data analytics, covering simple tools such as near duplicates analysis, automatic document grouping through technology assisted review, document clustering, and the process of finding “more like this” to manage your data collection during eDiscovery more efficiently.

The conference features a special kick off in the morning with Craig Ball speaking on the nine eDiscovery skills every litigator and trial attorney must have, includes a luncheon address by the Hon. Ralph Artigliere on emerging eDiscovery ethics and includes several sessions with a number of knowledgeable speakers and panelists covering a variety of data analytics topics, concluding with a judicial panel discussion on court expectations of attorney eDiscovery competence, the new federal eDiscovery rules, and “the good, the bad, and the ugly e-discovery hearing and motion practice.”  A link to the Agenda is here.

General and Ethics CLE credits for the conference are currently awaiting approval.  If you plan to attend in person, the event will take place in Holland Hall at the University of Florida, Levin College of Law.  But, if you can’t attend in person, the event will also be streamed online.  So, you don’t have to be present to win!  Or, at least to learn.  :o)

The conference costs $99 to attend in person or $49 to attend online.  It’s free to attend (either in person or online) if you’re a currently enrolled student in an ABA Accredited Law School, Accredited eDiscovery Graduate program, or Accredited Paralegal program or are University and College Faculty or Professional Staff, Judicial Officials, Clerks, or Employees of Government Bodies and Agencies.  To register for the conference, click here.

So, what do you think?  Are you attending the conference?  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.

Tom O’Connor of Advanced Discovery: eDiscovery Trends

This is the fourth of the 2016 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscovery Daily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year to get their observations regarding trends at the show and generally within the eDiscovery industry.  Unlike previous years, some of the questions posed to each thought leader were tailored to their position in the industry, so we have dispensed with the standard questions we normally ask all thought leaders.

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 and he is the Senior ESI Consultant with Advanced Discovery.

What are your general observations about LTNY this year and about emerging eDiscovery trends overall?

{Interviewed the first morning of LTNY, so the focus of the question to Tom was more about his expectations for the show and also about general industry trends}.

When I got here to the show, I bounced around a bit and talked to several people here and I think there’s a lot of uncertainty in people’s minds.  I hate to say that we’re at a crossroads, but a couple of different things are going on in technology right now and I think people are worried that they made the right decision.  I’m talking about both vendors making the right technology decision on where to take their company and clients making the right choice.

I was at a presentation given by the CEO of a major company in our space recently and he was asked “what keeps you up at night?”  He responded that what he was most worried about was whether his company was flexible enough to make quick changes and adaptations in the market, because if you can’t do that, you can lose business really quickly.  You can sink in 18 months no matter what your market share is.  So, as a vendor, you have to be thinking “can I see something and react and respond?”  I think that goes across the board in every segment of the EDRM.  Technology changes so fast and we’re a profession that works by looking in the rearview mirror.  We work with precedent; we don’t want to be that first person out there trying something new.  So, there’s a lot of uncertainty.

Related to that, I think that tension between corporate clients and big law firms is becoming intensified.  Once again, it revolves around questions such as “am I getting the best technology?”, “am I getting the best ROI?”, “should I be bringing eDiscovery in house?”.  I’m seeing a lot of corporations going to master services agreements (MSAs).  That’s something that we do a lot of at Advanced Discovery.  It’s almost like an in-between state where corporations are deciding not to bring eDiscovery fully in-house, but not giving it to the law firms either and they’re saying to companies like ours “why don’t you run it for us?”  If there’s a trend right now, I would say that’s it, especially based on discussions that I had with other show attendees last night.

I always seem to ask you about the state of attorneys and their knowledge (or, rather, their lack thereof) about eDiscovery.  Do you think there has been any positive change in the past year with regard to attorneys’ knowledge about eDiscovery?

A couple of months ago, I asked a well-known judge in the field that question and he said that he’s seen minimal change.  I’ve seen some change, but I think the word I would use to describe it is “glacial”.  There has been some movement.  We’re seeing many more law schools embrace technology training of some sort.  Unfortunately, many of those are not full-time faculty, they are either adjunct faculty or CLE, like the Georgetown eDiscovery Training Academy that I’m part of – that’s actually run by their CLE department, it’s not part of their core curriculum.  Judge Facciola teaches two courses at the school full time and Craig Ball is teaching one at the University of Texas Law School.  But, overall, I haven’t seen schools really embrace the idea that this should be part of the curriculum.  Until that happens, I think the change will continue to be slow.

A great case in point: I think Craig and I did one our standup routine videos for the eDiscovery Channel, where we talked about the California Bar’s recent Formal Opinion (No. 2015-193, which we covered here when it was still a Proposed Opinion) and they listed nine things you need to be able to know how to do.  But, are they going to train people on this?  Who is going to be responsible for educating people on this new duty that they’ve imposed?  Now, it’s only early February, so maybe the Bar in California is going to come up with some sort of program.  But, that’s the quandary that I see – “you have this duty, good luck with that!”

Of course, nobody has the resources to provide that for a million lawyers.  There are some excellent resources out there, like the Georgetown Academy, but we cap that at about sixty students.  Do the math – once a year, sixty students.  Mike Arkfeld has a great course at Arizona State that he has been developing – let’s say, maybe, a couple of hundred people show up there and half of them probably already know everything.  It’s a little bit here and a little bit here, but there hasn’t been a sea change.  I don’t mean to point the finger at the law schools, but it’s just that they would be the most obvious to implement change, along with the bar associations.  But, nobody wants to own responsibility.

I think the third thing is that I’m surprised that there hasn’t been a big commercial attempt at this.  That somebody like a Thomson Reuters or a LexisNexis hasn’t said “we’re going to offer a course”.  It’s almost like everyone is afraid – no one wants to say they’re offering certifications because they’re not willing to take the risk that something might “go south”.  It’s the quandary that ACEDS has had from day one – how to you say that someone is certified when, in many states, it’s considered the providence of the bar association to say that you’re a specialist in a field.  There was a Federal court decision in Florida, I think back in September or October, where a firm who had people with 20+ years of experience indicated that they were specialists and the Florida Bar challenged their right to call themselves specialists without taking the Bar exam to designate specialists.  The firm sued and the court agreed that they had every right to call themselves specialists if they had that much experience.  After that, the bar association backed off and decided not to go after anybody else who does that.  Of course, there’s no standard as to who can call themselves an expert or specialist – is it 10 years or 15 years?  Who knows?  But, it seems to me that’s a door opener that benefits organizations like ACEDS that provide training.

So, in that regard, maybe this year things will open up.  But, it’s like pulling teeth.  Actually, it’s worse than that, it’s like pulling teeth without Novocain.  It’s frustrating.  I remember going around with Browning Marean to law schools 14 or 15 years ago and trying to get education programs going back then, so people have been trying for a long time.  It’s just frustrating.  I understand that people don’t go to law school to learn technology and their wish is fulfilled.  Unless they seek out one of these specialty courses, they don’t get it.

Part of the issue is that we’re faced with bureaucracy – we’ve got state bar associations and the ABA.  You’d think that maybe somebody like the ABA would take the lead on it, but that hasn’t happened.  Without naming names, there are a couple of bar associations where just getting a CLE course approved is like joining the Navy – there are ten page forms to fill out and certify.  Thankfully, not all states are like that.  I do a CLE 3 or 4 times a year for the Louisiana Bar on the basics of technology where we don’t even focus so much on eDiscovery as opposed to just helping them understand how a computer works – teaching them things like what a “bit” is, what a “byte” is, what’s a “temp file”, what is “slack space”, how data is actually stored on the computer.  We’re not trying to give them a PhD in Computer Science in this course, we’re just trying to teach them some basic concepts.  If you want to take on a medical malpractice case, you need to know the difference between an aorta and a fibula.  That’s the level we’re trying to teach – basic stuff.

In the meantime, we’re still encountering people who don’t understand things like why metadata is important and still get in fights over productions about that where they propose to give us just TIFF and text files and we say “no, you’re not”.  There was an appellate decision recently in Texas where Craig was the expert and the producing party claimed it was actually more expensive to produce native files.  What is your native file system, stone tablets?  How can you say that with a straight face?  Of course, if they already have the documents in a Relativity database, maybe they think it’s less expensive than producing native files, because they can simply perform an export.  But, the native files must still be there in the database, the client probably provided them to you and they can be produced.

Advanced Discovery just acquired Millnet, a London-based company.  We’ve been having meetings, trying to do the “vulcan mind-meld” and we were talking about this and they were laughing and I didn’t understand why.  They said that over in the UK, everybody produces native files.  I said “what about Bates numbers” and they started laughing again.  They said that nobody cares about Bates numbers over there.  Of course, it’s a different system over there, less adversarial, and loser pays, but it was like “wow, somebody understands the best way to do this”.  They were aghast to hear that it’s commonplace here.

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

It’s been literally a year now (since last year’s show) since I’ve been with Advanced Discovery.  I’m doing a lot of CLE, a lot of “lunch and learns” and a lot of client consulting – all about these various issues that you and I have been discussing.  The company has grown a great deal, so I’m jumping around like a “cat on a hot tin roof” (to use a New Orleans analogy) as we have offices from DC to all over California, just purchased a small service bureau in Pittsburgh and have a couple more on the horizon.  As one of my colleague said this morning, “Tom is in New York preaching the gospel of ESI”.  I also write a weekly blog for Advanced Discovery and put it up on my personal blog as well.  So, I’ve been doing a lot of education work.

Also, about once a month or so, Craig Ball and I amuse each other on the eDiscovery Channel on Youtube.  Craig has stepped in where Browning was.  We think we’re the funniest guys in eDiscovery.  Occasionally, we’ll get somebody else to sit down with us as well.

I miss Browning, especially when I come to a show like this.  He was just a genuinely nice guy.  He and I were opposites in so many ways.  Though we were both from the Boston area, he was what they call a “Boston Brahmin”, a “yankee”, a protestant and a partner at a huge firm. I’m South Shore, Irish and a blue-collar worker.  He was hard-core Republican and I’m a hard-core Democrat.  Despite all that, we got along famously.  I think much of that related to our sense of humor, but he also reminded me of the lawyers I knew when I was growing up that made me want to be a lawyer, where the profession was much more collegial.  He became Of Counsel for the firm and I asked him “don’t you miss having a clientele?” and he said “I miss going to court, I miss trials”.  But, he added, “the last ten years, the majority of my clients only wanted a ‘hammer’ – they wanted me to beat the crap out of the opposition, they weren’t concerned about getting a solution.”  Despite that, Browning never lost that collegiality.  I’ve never known anyone who had a bad word to say about him – he was universally liked and respected, even when he didn’t agree with you, he could disagree with you in a very respectful way.

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. 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.

Less Than Half the States Still Have an Ethics Opinion Regarding Lawyer Cloud Usage: eDiscovery Best Practices

From time to time, we like to take a look back at stories we’ve covered in the past and provide an update.  About a year and a half ago, we published a blog post regarding the states that have published ethics opinions for lawyers regarding using and storing client data in the cloud.  At that time, only 14 states (less than one third) had published an ethics opinion regarding lawyer cloud usage.  Eighteen months later, only a few more states have done so.

The Legal Technology Resource Center (LTRC) of the American Bar Association’s (ABA) web site has a page titled Cloud Ethics Opinions Around the U.S., where the ABA provides an interactive map of the states (see the image of it above), with the states that have published ethics opinions shown in blue.  Oddly enough, Wisconsin is not shown in blue, though they appear to have published an ethics opinion earlier this year.  On the actual site, you can either click on the state to scroll down to it or manually scroll down to the state by name alphabetically (the list still has “Nevada” after “New Hampshire”, “New Jersey” and “New York” for some reason).  Anyway, according to the ABA, here are the states that have published ethics opinions – with links to each state’s opinion (note that several of the links on the ABA site are not working, so we found the correct links and are providing them below):

If you counted, we’re up to 20 total states with opinions – less than 40% of the total state jurisdictions (when you include DC).

As noted previously, the ABA site provides two tabs below the interactive map to highlight the opinions:

  • Quick Reference tab that identifies whether cloud usage for client data is permitted (so far, all states say “Yes”), the standard for use (currently all states with opinions enforce a reasonable care standard) and a bullet point list of specific requirements or recommendations;
  • Opinion Summaries tab that provides a brief summary for each of the opinions.

Hopefully, the next time we check, a majority of the states will have published their own opinions by then.

So, what do you think? Are you surprised that more states don’t have published cloud ethics opinions?  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.

Even Lawyers Need Love Sometimes: eDiscovery Trends

If you work in the legal industry, you’ve probably heard this joke.  What do you call 5,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?  A good start.  Get it?  It’s easy to joke about hating lawyers and some of us may not be joking.  But, even lawyers need love sometimes.  Believe it or not, today is National Love Your Lawyer Day.

As noted in this press release, National Love Your Lawyer Day was established in 2001 by the American Lawyers Public Image Association (ALPIA).  It’s a day in which lawyers and judges are celebrated for all the good they do, often thanklessly. On this day, the public is asked to let their favorite legal eagles know how much they love and appreciate them. “Call your attorney and say Happy Lawyer’s Day! or thanks for a doing a great job, or even send a gift, flowers or a card,” says Nader Anise, Executive Director of ALPIA. “Lawyers are always painted as the bad guy, even if they pull off some crazy Houdini-esque maneuvers to help their clients. We’re hoping this day will spark public interest in commending lawyers rather than condemning them.”  She didn’t say write a blog post about them, but that’s how I show my love.  :o)

And don’t even think about bad-mouthing lawyers on Love Your Lawyer Day – that is, unless you’re holding a wad of cash. Not only is lawyer bashing a big no-no and considered in poor taste, but anyone unable to bridle his tongue from verbally jabbing lawyers (late-night talk show hosts take note) is being asked to donate a $20 “fine” per joke to the charity of his choice.  Hope that joke in the intro of this post doesn’t count, I’m tapped out.  :o(

Anyway, those of us in the eDiscovery industry have been known to grumble from time to time about how the expertise of lawyers in eDiscovery continues to be lacking, despite ethics guidance from sources such as American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rule 1.1, which discusses competent representation to a client and includes a comment (Comment 8) which states that “a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology”.  And, states are beginning to provide opinions regarding an attorney’s ethical duties in the handling of discovery of electronically stored information, as California did recently (Proposed Formal Opinion Interim No. 11-0004 has now become Formal Opinion No. 2015-193).

At CloudNine, we love lawyers every day, not just today.  To do our part in helping lawyers get up to speed on eDiscovery, we have, of course, provided this blog each day for over five years now to help educate lawyers (as well as others in our profession).  We have also begun offering a one-hour session (CLE approved in Texas) titled What Every Attorney Should Know about eDiscovery in 2015 (pretty soon, we’ll have to update the title).  We cover key terms to know, the EDRM model, Federal and State rules and resources, ethics considerations (the course includes a .25 ethics credit) and we cover key cases important to the evolution of electronic discovery.

We have conducted this CLE session for a few firms in the past few months and it has been very well received.  If your firm might be interested in this presentation (especially if you’re in the Houston area or somewhere in Texas), drop me a line at daustin@cloudnincloudnine.comm.  We’ll be happy to show you our love!

So, what do you think?  Are you looking for some CLE credit opportunities?  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.

If You’re Going to Mine for Metadata in New Jersey, You May Want to Think Twice: eDiscovery Best Practices

A newly proposed adjustment to ethics rules in New Jersey would restrict attorneys from accessing metadata in documents if the metadata was inadvertently sent.

As discussed in the New Jersey Law Journal – Proposal Burdens Recipient in Ethics of Metadata E-Discovery, by David Gialanella (subscription required) – attorneys would be permitted to access the embedded metadata of documents produced in electronic discovery, but only as long as the metadata doesn’t appear to have been transmitted in error – the same way New Jersey lawyers have been required to treat the paper and electronic documents themselves.  The recommendation came from the Working Group on Ethical Issues Involving Metadata in Electronic Documents, which also urged discovery rule amendments.

In some cases, metadata can be accessed easily, and in others it must be “mined” using sophisticated software.  One big issue is that many (if not most) in the legal profession don’t know how metadata works and some don’t even know what it is.  Reviewing ethics opinions of other jurisdictions, the Working Group “found no consensus – indeed, no clear majority view – in the opinions of other jurisdictions with respect to the ethical implications of a lawyer’s review of unrequested metadata in a document transmitted to that lawyer.”  So, the Group had to make its own recommendations.

In its Report and Recommendations to the Supreme Court, dated September 14, 2015, the Working Group recommended:

  • That an Official Comment be added to New Jersey Rule of Professional Conduct 4.4(b) stating that lawyers who receive electronic documents may review unrequested metadata, provided that the receiving lawyer reasonably believes that the metadata was not inadvertently sent;
  • That the civil discovery rules be amended (and new Official Comments added) to highlight issues pertaining to metadata;
  • That steps be taken to minimize the disclosure of metadata in documents electronically filed with the Judiciary; and
  • That judges, lawyers, and law students be educated about metadata issues as a component of judicial education programs, continuing legal education, and law school curricula.

The Working Group recommended the following changes to Rule of Professional Conduct 4.4(b) (additions underlined and shown in red, deletions bracketed and shown in blue):

(b) A lawyer who receives a document or electronic information and has reasonable cause to believe that the document or information was inadvertently sent shall not read the document or information or, if he or she has begun to do so, shall stop reading [the document,] it. The lawyer shall (1) promptly notify the sender[,] and (2) return the document or information to the sender and, if in electronic form, delete it and take reasonable measures to assure that the information is inaccessible.

With regard to metadata in discovery, the Working Group “decided not to recommend any particular approach to metadata in discovery as a general default position”, but did recommend that the general Civil Part discovery rule, Rule 4:10-2, be amended to specifically address metadata in electronic documents.

A copy of the report can be found in the New Jersey Courts website here.

So, what do you think?  Is it unethical for attorneys to review inadvertently sent metadata?  Should discovery rules address the ethics of receiving metadata specifically?  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.

You’re More Likely to Be Hit by Lightning Than to Be Sanctioned for Non-Preservation of ESI: eDiscovery Best Practices

When it comes to eDiscovery topics, eDiscovery expert (and frequent thought leader interviewee on this blog) Craig Ball doesn’t hesitate to speak his mind and confront the (oftentimes) brutal truth.  In Craig’s latest post in his excellent Ball in Your Court blog, he does so in spades.

In Preservation and Proportionality, Craig sets the stage with a graphic showing a Lady Justice statue with a thumb holding down one end of the scales (I like it!).  He introduces the topic by stating:

“Litigants have been ignoring e-discovery obligations with impunity for so long they’ve come to think of it as an entitlement.  Protected from predators, few have evolved.  But now that opponents and courts are waking to this failure, those who’ve failed to adapt are feeling exposed. They don’t like it, and they want protection.  They call it ‘proportionality.’

Proportionality sounds wholesome and virtuous, like ‘patriotism’ or ‘faith;’ but like those wholesome virtues, it’s sometimes the refuge of scoundrels.”

But, without proportionality, how will organizations protect themselves against the “increased” threat of sanctions for spoliation?  Craig addresses that by debunking the myth:

“The much-ballyhooed ‘rise in sanctions’ is designed to mislead.   The solid metrics we have on spoliation sanctions prove that the risk of being sanctioned for negligent non-preservation remains miniscule (.00675% per a report from the Federal Judicial Center).  Put simply: In the United States, you are more likely to be hit by lightning than to be sanctioned for non-preservation of ESI.”

Noting that “the overwhelming majority of e-discovery sanctions decisions turn on venal acts like intentional destruction of evidence and contemptuous disregard of discovery obligations”, Craig decides to “tell it like it is: The claim that diligent, responsible litigants are being sanctioned for innocent e-discovery errors is hogwash.”

Craig then addresses how many organizations address their preservation obligations to avoid sanctions “by embracing monumental inefficiency in preservation instead of making sensible, defensible choices” and blaming the plaintiff for requesting the data (spoiler alert, it’s not the plaintiff’s fault).  “To the extent ‘proportionality’ is a byword for ‘let us err with impunity,’ it’s too soon in the evolution of e-discovery to be so resigned to incompetence.  If anything, we need more sanctions for incompetence, not more safe harbors”, Craig states.

Craig’s post continues to discuss the level of competence of lawyers preserving data, the efforts to use the proportionality argument and the court’s role in deciding (“proportionality shouldn’t be pressed into service as a “Get Out of Jail Free” card for botched preservation; but, it can prove instructive to courts weighing sanctions for failure to preserve relevant evidence”, he states).  In the end, it’s up to courts to “insist parties know how to use the scale and don’t put their thumbs on the pan” (of the scales of justice, that is).

By the way, this isn’t a recent sentiment of Craig’s spawned by the impending Federal rules changes this December, he notes that he wrote this post four years ago, but never posted it.  Interesting.

A link to his post is here.

So, what do you think?  Do you think we need more sanctions for incompetence and not just for willful destruction of ESI?   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.

Defendant Gets Summary Judgment, Not Dismissal, Due to Plaintiff’s Wiping of Hard Drive: eDiscovery Case Law

In Watkins v. Infosys, 14-0247 (W.D. Wa., July 23, 2015), Washington District Judge John C. Coughenour denied the defendant’s Motion for the Sanction of Dismissal but granted the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment against the plaintiff for spoliation of data due to her use of “Disk Wiping” software to delete ESI.

Case Background

In this discrimination case, the defendant’s forensic expert determined that the plaintiff performed a Bing search for the term “disk wipe” and downloaded and installed file wiping software onto the hard drive of her work computer around October 20, 2013, and ran the program to wipe files.  In addition, eleven external media drives had been connected to the plaintiff’s laptop in the days prior to the disk wipe.  Furthermore, the plaintiff perjured herself when she stated that “she did not `remove’ things from Defendant’s premises,” and that she “followed procedures typical with such litigation . . . to avoid the alteration or deletion of documents, in addition to preserving data back-ups relating to her employment.”

The plaintiff ultimately admitted in her deposition that she wiped the files, claiming that she did so out of concern for information preservation and client confidentiality.  In a supplemented response filed on the last day of discovery, the plaintiff again refused to turn over the wiped contents of her work computer, claiming that all of the files passed through the defendant’s servers (so the defendant presumably had copies), that the unproduced files were “vast and irrelevant to the claims or controversies in this case” and that she was “in the process of replicating all documents that she retained and will provide the same to Defendant upon their soonest availability.”

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Coughenour stated that he found the plaintiff’s responses “both illogical and unbelievable”, noting that her “brief in response to Defendant’s motion for the sanction of dismissal only exacerbates the problem…There, Plaintiff regurgitates flimsy justifications for wiping her disk drive, doubles-down on her unsupported argument about the irrelevance of the wiped files, and asserts blankly that “there has been no actual suppression or withholding of evidence since the entire content of Plaintiff’s computer has been produced to Defendant.”

With the spoliation (and associated perjury) clear, Judge Coughenour then turned his attention to determining the appropriate sanctions.  To consider dismissal, he noted the requirement to weigh five factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, (2) the court’s need to manage its dockets, (3) the risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions, (4) the public policy favoring the disposition of cases on their merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.  Reviewing the five factors, Judge Coughenour found “that three weigh in favor of dismissal and two do not” and, while describing it as “an incredibly close call”, he stated that “the Court prefers to address this case, finally, on its merits.”  Therefore, he denied the defendant’s motion for dismissal, opting instead to grant a motion for summary judgment.  Judge Coughenour also ordered plaintiff’s counsel to show cause as to why sanctions should not be issued against them.

So, what do you think?  Should the court have granted the motion for dismissal?  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.

Plaintiff Once Again Sanctioned with an Adverse Inference Instruction, But Still No Complete Dismissal: eDiscovery Case Law

In Lynn M. Johnson v. BAE Systems, Inc. et. al., Civil Action No. 11-cv-02172 (RLW) (D.D.C. May 27, 2015), District of Columbia District Judge Robert L. Wilkins granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to the plaintiff’s claims for negligence, battery, and defamation, but chose to “impose lesser, but nonetheless severe, sanctions” in the form of an adverse inference instruction for her remaining claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Case Background

The plaintiff, a U.S. government employee deployed in Iraq, sued the defendants for actions taken by its employee during a project that they worked on together, alleging “severe physical and emotional health problems”.  During discovery, the defendant requested medical records in preparation for an expert witness’s examination of the plaintiff – she provided the defendant with falsified medical records which she had edited in an effort to eliminate references to health issues that predated her deployment to Iraq. The defendant filed a motion for sanctions seeking dismissal and the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion, sanctioning the plaintiff and her counsel with fees and an adverse inference instruction.

Then, on September 25, 2013, the defendant requested a forensic examination of the plaintiff’s computer.  That evening, the plaintiff contracted with a local computer technician who performed various maintenance functions, which included running a program called CCleaner that is capable of permanently deleting files.  Subsequent forensic analysis showed that several Microsoft Outlook .pst email storage files were placed into the recycling bin and deleted on September 27.  The technician testified that the plaintiff did not tell him she was in litigation, she did not ask him not to delete anything from her computer and he did not place the Outlook files in the recycle bin. The defendants also requested Facebook messages, and the court found evidence that the plaintiff had tampered with those messages, as well.

Judge’s Ruling

Regarding the latest activities by the plaintiff, Judge Wilkins stated that “The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Johnson destroyed, attempted to destroy, or caused to be destroyed files on her computer with potential relevance to this case”, noting that “under no circumstances should Ms. Johnson have contracted with a computer technician to ‘clean up’ a computer sought for forensic imaging, particularly without making a disk image or even informing the technician of ongoing litigation. That she chose to do so is very troubling.”  Judge Wilkins expressed similar concern by the plaintiff’s failure to produce Facebook messages from earlier than February 2013.

Summarizing the behavior by the plaintiff, Judge Wilkins stated “Over the course of this suit, Ms. Johnson has repeatedly obfuscated the truth. She has altered medical records, contradicted herself in depositions and testimony before the Court, and failed to preserve and produce relevant documents during discovery.”  Still, Judge Wilkins could not bring himself to dismiss the case, stating “Although it is an exceedingly close question, the Court concludes that Ms. Johnson’s conduct does not merit this most serious of remedies.”

As a result, Judge Wilkins awarded the defendant an adverse inference instruction sanction against the plaintiff, awarded the forensic expert’s fees spent by the defendant’s expert and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for negligence, battery, and defamation.

So, what do you think?  Should the repeated violations by the plaintiff have led to full dismissal?  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.

This Firm Marked Up Reviewer Billings Over 500 Percent and that’s Not the Worst Part: eDiscovery Trends

Remember when we asked the question whether a blended document review rate of $466 per hour is excessive? Many of you weighed in on that one and that post is still our most viewed of all time. Marking up the billing rate for reviewers over 500 percent may or may not also be unacceptable, depending on who you talk to. But, everyone agrees that billing more hours than you actually worked is a bad thing.

According to a new article by Gina Passarella in The Legal Intelligencer (Are Contract Attorney Markups Of Any Concern to Clients?), a former Drinker Biddle & Reath contract attorney received a two-year suspension last week for overbilling a client on document review. The attorney worked for the firm from 2011 through 2012, where he was paid $40 an hour and charged out to a client at $245 an hour.

If you’re whipping out your calculator, I’ll save you the trouble – that’s a 513 percent markup (rounded up).

But, that’s not why he was suspended. It turns out that the attorney logged more time into the firm’s time accounting system than he was logged into the firm’s eDiscovery system and had overbilled for the 12 months he was at the firm. Drinker Biddle terminated the attorney within days of discovering the discrepancy.

But, according to Passarella’s article, “the legal community’s reaction focused not so much on the behavior as on the lawyer’s billing rate… Some have described a 513 percent markup as ‘stratospheric’ while others have said a firm’s internal profitability is none of the client’s business as long as the client feels it is getting the perceived value from the business transaction.”

Drinker Biddle chairman Andrew C. Kassner defended the markup, citing overhead costs and said that the firm works hard to ensure value for the client and provided a lower-cost option to the client by using a contract lawyer rather than an associate.

Unlike Mark Antony (the Roman emperor, not the singer), I don’t come to bury Drinker Biddle in this article, many law firms mark review up considerably. And, as Passarella notes, “Drinker Biddle was certainly an early adopter of the value proposition espoused by the Association of Corporate Counsel and others, becoming one of the first law firms to create a chief value officer position in 2010 and forming an associate training program post-recession that didn’t charge clients for the first four months of a first-year’s time.”

However, Passarella’s article does quote three individuals who questioned the current billing model: 1) a former general counsel who, while he was in-house, “decoupled” the use of contract attorneys from outside counsel, 2) a former BigLaw attorney who became disenchanted with the large-firm business model and created his own firm which focuses on providing better value to clients, and 3) an Altman Weil consultant who questioned the $245 value for document review, noting that “if it were really important they wouldn’t be using a $40-an-hour lawyer”. Perhaps we should revisit the discussion as to whether it’s time to ditch the per hour model for document review?

As for the overbilling, Kassner said the firm paid back the client all that it was charged for the overbilled time as well as for any time the attorney charged on the matter.

So, what do you think? Is it time to ditch the per hour model for document review? Or, is marking up reviewer billing two to three times (or more) an acceptable practice? 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.