Close
Enter your
text here

Industry Trends

eDiscovery Best Practices: Cluster Documents for More Effective Review
With document review estimated to up to 80% of the total cost of the eDiscovery process and the amount of data in the world growing at an exponential rate, it’s no wonder that many firms are turning to technology to make the review process more efficient.  Whether using sophisticated searching capabilities of early case assessment (ECA) tools such as FirstPass®, powered by Venio FPR™ to filter collections more effectively or predictive coding techniques (as discussed in these two recent blog posts) to make the coding process more efficient, technology is playing an important role in saving review costs.  And, of course, review tools that manage the review process make review more efficient (like OnDemand®), simply by delivering documents efficiently and tracking review progress.

How the documents are organized for review can also make a big difference in the efficiency of review, not only saving costs, but also improving accuracy by assigning similar documents to the same reviewer.  This process of organizing documents with similar content into “clusters” (also known as “concepts”) helps each reviewer make quicker review decisions (if a single reviewer looks at one document to determine responsiveness and the next few documents are duplicates or mere variations of that first document, he or she can quickly “tag” most of those variations in the same manner or identify the duplicates).  It also promotes consistency by enabling the same reviewer to review all similar documents in a cluster (for example, you don’t get one reviewer marking a document as privileged while another reviewer fails to mark a copy of the that same document as such, leading to inconsistencies and potential inadvertent disclosures).  Reviewers are human and do make mistakes.

Clustering software such as Hot Neuron’s Clustify™ examines the text in your documents, determines which documents are related to each other, and groups them into clusters.  Clustering organizes the documents according to the structure that arises naturally, without preconceptions or query terms.  It labels each cluster with a set of keywords, providing a quick overview of the cluster.  It also identifies a “representative document” that can be used as a proxy for the cluster.

Examples of types of documents that can be organized into clusters:

  • Email Message Threads: Each message in the thread contains the conversation up to that point, so the ability to group those messages into a cluster enables the reviewer to quickly identify the email(s) containing the entire conversation, categorize those and possibly dismiss the rest as duplicative (if so instructed).
  • Document Versions: As “drafts” of documents are prepared, the content of each draft is similar to the previous version, so a review decision made on one version could be quickly applied to the rest of the versions.
  • Routine Reports: Sometimes, periodic reports are generated that may or may not be responsive – grouping those reports together in a cluster can enable a single reviewer to make that determination and quickly apply it to all documents in the cluster.
  • Published Documents: Have you ever published a file to Adobe PDF format?  Many of you have.  What you end up with is an exact copy of the original file (from Word, Excel or other application) in content, but different in format – hence, these documents won’t be identified as “dupes” based on a HASH value.  Clustering puts those documents together in a group so that the dupes can still be quickly identified and addressed.

Within the parameters of a review tool which manages the review process and delivers documents quickly and effectively for review, organizing documents into clusters can speed decision making during review, saving considerable time and review costs.

So, what do you think?  Have you used software to organize documents into clusters or concepts for more effective review?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Full disclosure: I work for CloudNine Discovery, which provides SaaS-based eDiscovery review applications FirstPass® (for early case assessment) and OnDemand® (for linear review and production).  CloudNine Discovery has an alliance with Hot Neuron and uses Clustify™ software to provide conceptual clustering and near-duplicate identification services for its clients.

eDiscovery Trends: Madoff Ponzi Scheme Case Documents May Be Turned Over to eData Rooms and Special Masters
The trustee responsible for coordinating the recovery of assets and data involved in Bernard L. (“Bernie”) Madoff’s $65 billion Ponzi fraud investigation is presently seeking to secure special masters and create an “eData room” to ensure that the enormous volume of data accumulated during this worldwide investigation is collected and retained.  For more on the increasing use of special masters to facilitate eDiscovery cases, click here).

Almost three years after Madoff’s arrest in December 2008, the massive fraud investigation has now spawned roughly 900 lawsuits worldwide involving 16,000 parties in 30 countries. The number of files and documents related to Madoff’s Ponzi scheme is equally astronomical – and as perhaps the most significant fraud case of the decade – or even the century – these documents and lawsuits contain information vital as precedent for future criminal cases.

As a result, trustee Irving Picard has determined to collect all of the ESI related to these cases in a single eData room with the help of special masters that would be appointed by US bankruptcy Judge Burton Lifland.  eData rooms are web-based review platforms that can support centralized access of the ESI in question for all approved parties.

As the use of technology becomes more of a key issue in fraud cases, discovery of ESI associated with that technology is becoming ever more important in the practice of law, making a historic case like Madoff’s vital as precedent. In November 2010, Picard created the first “e-discovery room”, but the new “eData room” would be a much bigger project, containing all the ESI related in any way to Madoff’s Ponzi scheme and making it available through a web-based platform for access and review. This new eData room, proposed in January 2011, would be limited to roughly 100,000 potentially responsive documents from 77 parties associated with a related case in which the defendant (J. Ezra Merkin) demanded production of every subpoenaed document in the initial bankruptcy proceeding as well as depositions in other proceedings.

The prospect of this eData room necessitates a complex series of discovery requests and confidentiality agreements, but Irving has already secured the tacit approval of all but 15 of the 16,000 parties, (large financial institutions, including UBS, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch International, Bank of New York Mellon and Sterling Equities, the investment group chaired by New York Mets owner Fred Wilpon) who objected to the prospect of pooling confidential documents where they could be accessed by thousands of parties including their business competitors. To address those concerns, Picard submitted a revised proposed order in September to exclude certain types of documents as confidential and give producing parties 60 days to object to the inclusion of “highly sensitive commercial information” in the eData room.  It will be interesting to see if the revisions pave the way for full acceptance to implement the eData room.

So, what do you think? Are eData rooms going to become commonplace in complex cases involving eDiscovery? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Special Masters Increasingly Used to Facilitate Complex eDiscovery Cases
Retired Washington DC superior court judge Richard Levie was recently appointed as a special master to oversee the eDiscovery demands of an ongoing high profile acquisition case. In the wake of several Department of Justice (DOJ) eDiscovery battles with Honeywell International in a recent high profile case, the DOJ and AT&T have jointly requested (and US district Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle appointed) Levie as special master to resolve any matters involving electronic evidence in the case focused on the $39 billion proposed acquisition of T-Mobile by AT&T.

The case is expected to benefit from the assistance of a special master because of the rapid pace as which it is expected to move forward: the case was filed on August 31 and the trial date is in February 2012 – very quickly for a case of this magnitude (and expected large data population) to begin in trial.

Due to the very fast-paced discovery schedule, the judge has set strict limits on the requests and submissions that both parties can make to the special master. Motions must be under 750 words and briefs 250 words or less – sheer torture for many attorneys(!).  Motions relating to discovery can only be submitted after a “substantive meet and confer” conference has been conducted between the parties.

This type of scenario is becoming more common in today’s legal environment.  With as many as 123,000 pending civil suits in the DOJ caseload, it is becoming increasingly common for overloaded attorneys and judges to rely on the oversight provided by qualified special masters. These special masters are charged with acting as liaisons and moderators to quickly resolve discovery disputes over ESI, and to provide guidance that judges usually follow closely in making their decisions.

In the present case regarding the AT&T proposed merger with T-Mobile, special master Levie is expected to aid both parties in agreeing on eDiscovery terms, meeting compliance requirements and in finding resolution for any disputes.

So, what do you think? Have you been involved in a case where a special master coordinated eDiscovery procedures?  Did that speed up the discovery process? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: SEC Orders Its Staff to Cease Document Destruction Pending Policy Review
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) recently ordered all of its enforcement staff attorneys to cease the destruction of documents from investigative files after criticism that the SEC wrongfully destroyed thousands of documents associated with high profile enforcement matters, including investigations into Wall Street banks.  The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and the SEC’s inspector general are currently examining whether the organization’s document destruction policy requires revision. This cease order comes in the wake of information provided by a SEC whistleblower, indicating that the SEC wrongfully destroyed thousands of documents from preliminary investigations referred to as “MUIs” (Matters Under Inquiry).
  • In the past, the SEC would destroy documents pertaining to “MUIs” that had been closed, including cases that never developed into formal investigations as well as those that had been decided.
  • Some of these destroyed documents pertained, either directly or peripherally, to what would later become high profile cases. Among them were documents relevant to the Madoff Ponzi scheme and several Wall Street bank fraud investigations.
  • Although private companies routinely destroy documents and files that are closed or no longer in use, the SEC is subject to federal laws and regulations that require federal agencies to retain more records than a private firm. The SEC has been criticized by members of Congress of violating these laws and avoiding its legal compliance burden, especially where destroyed documents could have proven crucial in later legal cases.
  • As a result, the present controversy has forced the SEC to work with NARA to reconsider its document retention policies and to suspend, for now, destruction of files and documents. Parties are still arguing whether a requirement to retain all documentation distracts resources from the SEC’s main objective of preventing, discovering and penalizing those involved in securities fraud.

So, what do you think? Has the SEC failed in a serious way to meet compliance standards, or is this controversy placing undue emphasis on documents that are unlikely to ever be needed? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Court Rules 'Circumstantial Evidence' Must Support Authorship of Text Messages for Admissibility

When are text messages admissible in court? Which text messages qualify as evidence, and what does it take to prove authorship of a text message?

A recent opinion from the Pennsylvania Superior Court, Commonwealth v. Koch, No. 1669-MDA-2010, 2011 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2716 (Sept. 16, 2011), addresses these very issues in an old yet new way, perhaps setting the precedent for future cases and opening what seems to be a potential Pandora’s Box of obstacles to the use of text messages as legal evidence.

  • In Commonwealth v. Koch, a transcript of thirteen SMS text messages were submitted by the prosecution and admitted into evidence. Although these text messages had been sent from a cell phone owned by the defendant, defense objected to their admission on the grounds that no evidence substantiated the defendant’s authorship of the text messages in question.
  • In fact, witnesses had testified that other people had been seen using the cell phone. Several of the thirteen text messages referred to the defendant in the third person, which substantiated the defendant’s claim that she had not written or sent the text messages.
  • The court concluded based on case history that “emails and text messages are documents and subject to the same requirements for authenticity as non-electronic documents generally” and found that the evidence that the defendant had authored these text messages was absent.
  • Ruling that the defendant’s ownership of the cell phone was not enough to prove that she had sent the messages in question, the court declared that parties seeking to introduce electronic materials, such as cell phone text messages and email, must be prepared to substantiate their claim of authorship with “circumstantial evidence” that corroborates the sender’s identity. That evidence may come in the form of testimony from the sender or recipient, testimony of witnesses to the creation of the correspondence, or even “contextual clues” in the message itself.

Where written correspondence may be subjected to questioning (e.g., signatures can be forged or letterhead copied), eDiscovery materials that clearly come from a given email account or cell phone source have been historically less open to scrutiny.  However, since cell phones and even email accounts may be shared (or hacked), this could leave room for argument, as in this case, that the correspondence in question did not originate with the party who appears to have sent it.

In one respect, applying the old standard of evidence to new ESI materials, such as text messages might make sense. On the other hand, doing so also opens the door for defense attorneys to use the same tactic to remove text messages and email correspondence from evidence – whether or not they are legitimately relevant in court – based on the extreme challenge of proving the issue of authorship.

So, what do you think? Was the court right in ruling against the admission of these text messages as evidence? Does this decision create more eDiscovery problems than it solves? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Why Predictive Coding is a Hot Topic
 Yesterday, we considered a recent article about the use of predictive coding in litigation by Judge Andrew Peck, United States magistrate judge for the Southern District of New York. The piece has prompted a lot of discussion in the profession. While most of the analysis centered on how much lawyers can rely on predictive coding technology in litigation, there were some deeper musings as well.

We all know the reasons why predictive coding is considered such a panacea, but it is easy to forget why it is needed and why the legal industry is still grappling with eDiscovery issues after so many years. Jason Baron, Director of Litigation at the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, recently won the 2011 Emmett Leahy Award for excellence in records and information management. He took the opportunity to step back and consider why exactly the problem won’t go away. He believes that technology can help solve our problems, if applied intelligently. “We lawyers types remain stuck in a paradigm that too often relies on people and not automated technologies,” he said.

But he also warns that electronically stored data may soon overwhelm the profession. By now, readers of this blog are familiar with the dire and mind-boggling predictions about the volume of discoverable electronic data being created every day. Litigators are obviously concerned that new types of information and growing volumes of data will swamp the courts, but the problem could affect all aspects of modern life. “At the start of the second decade of the 21st century, we need to recognize that the time is now to prevent what I have termed the coming digital dark ages,” Baron said. “The ongoing and exponentially increasing explosion of information means that over the next several decades the world will be seeing records and information growth orders of magnitude greater than anything seen by humankind to date. We all need better ways to search through this information.”

As one of the leaders of the TREC Legal Track, a research experiment into searching large volumes of data more effectively, Baron has an intimate understanding of the challenges ahead, and he has serious concerns. “The paradox of our age is information overload followed by future inability to access anything of important. We cannot let that future happen” he said, talking to a roomful of records management experts and litigators. “We all need to be smarter in preventing this future dystopia.”

eDiscovery blogger Ralph Losey linked to both Judge Peck’s article and Jason’s speech, and expanded on those thoughts. Losey prefers to believe, as he wrote in a post called The Dawn of a Golden Age of Justice, that lawyers will not only survive, but thrive despite the explosion in information. “We must fight fire with fire by harnessing the new (Artificial Intelligence) capacities of computers,” he says. “If we boost our own intelligence and abilities with algorithmic agents we will be able to find the evidence we need in the trillions of documents implicated by even average disputes.”

So, what do you think? Will Artificial Intelligence in the hands of truth-seeking lawyers save us from information overload, or has the glut of electronic information already swamped the world? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: A Green Light for Predictive Coding?
There are a handful of judges whose pronouncements on anything eDiscovery-related are bound to get legal technologists talking. Judge Andrew Peck, United States magistrate judge for the Southern District of New York is one of them. His recent article, Search, Forward, published in Law Technology News, is one of the few judicial pronouncements on the use of predictive coding and has sparked a lively debate.

To date there is no reported case tackling the use of advanced computer-assisted search technology (“predictive coding” in the current vernacular) despite growing hype. Many litigators are hoping that judges will soon weigh in and give the profession some real guidance on the use of predictive coding in litigation. Peck says it will likely be a long time before a definitive statement come from the bench, but in the meantime his article provides perhaps the best insight into at least one judge’s thinking.

Judge Peck is probably best known in eDiscovery circles for the March 19, 2009 decision, William A. Gross Construction Associates, Inc. v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co., 256 F.R.D. 134, 136 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (Peck, M.J.). In it, he called for “careful thought, quality control, testing and cooperation with opposing counsel in designing search terms or ‘keywords’ to be used to produce emails or other electronically stored information”.

Peck notes that lawyers are not eager to take the results of computer review before a judge and face possible rejection. However, he says those fears are misplaced, that admissibility is defined by content of a document, not how it was found. Peck also relies heavily on research we have discussed on this blog, including the TREC Legal Track, to argue that advanced search technology can provide defensible search methods.

While he stops short of green lighting the use of such technology, he does encourage lawyers in this direction. “Until there is a judicial opinion approving (or even critiquing) the use of predictive coding, counsel will just have to rely on this article as a sign of judicial approval,” he writes. “In my opinion, computer-assisted coding should be used in those cases where it will help ‘secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive’ (Fed. R. Civ. P. 1) determination of cases in our e-discovery world.”

Silicon Valley consultant Mark Michels agrees with Peck’s article writing in Law Technology News that, “the key to (predictive coding’s) defensibility is upfront preparation to ensure that the applied tools and techniques are subject to thoughtful quality control during the review process.”

But other commenters are quick to point out the limitations of predictive coding. Ralph Losey expands on Peck’s argument, describing specific and defensible deployment of predictive coding (or Artificial Intelligence in Losey’s piece). He says predictive coding can speed up the process, but that the failure rate is still too high. Losey points out “the state of technology and law today still requires eyeballs on all ESI before it goes out the door and into the hands of the enemy,” he writes. “The negative consequences of disclosure of secrets, especially attorney-client privilege and work product privilege secrets, is simply too high.”

Judge Peck’s article is just one sign that thoughtful, technology-assisted review be deployed in litigation. Tomorrow, we will review some darker musings on the likelihood that predictive coding will save eDiscovery from the exploding universe of discoverable data.

So, what do you think? Is predictive coding ready for prime time?  Can lawyers confidently take results from new search technology before a judge without fear of rejection? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Strategy: "Command" Model of eDiscovery Must Make Way for Collaboration

Last week’s article on Law Technology News summarizes the message put forward by several speakers at the fifth annual Colorado Association of Litigation Support Professionals E-Discovery Summit, held on October 7, 2011. In her article E-Discovery ‘Command’ Culture Must Collapse, Monica Bay discusses the old “command” style of eDiscovery, with a senior partner leading his “troops” like General George Patton – a model that summit speakers agree is “doomed to failure” – and reports on the findings put forward by judges and litigators that the time has come for true collaboration.

The highlights of the summit as far as a collaborative model of eDiscovery include thoughts by U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael Hegarty and Florida attorney William Hamilton, who say the time has come for adversarial, command-style eDiscovery to be replaced by a collaborative model, even with opponents, to result in a more effective discovery process.

Here is a brief summary of their opinions on the future of eDiscovery.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael Hegarty: Negotiation and Early Presentation of ESI are Key

Judge Michael Hegarty, of the U.S. District Court (Colorado), believes that minimal court intervention in discovery is best, but that mistakes are often made early on that cause discovery problems with respect to ESI.

  • He remarked on how common it is for litigators to neglect to mention discovery of electronic materials in early conferences, and how “detrimental” that can be to cases.
  • Judge Hegarty noted that a great deal of eDiscovery is unduly complicated because lawyers don’t understand the scope of what it is possible to do with electronic materials. “It’s easy for a party to say, ‘We can’t do that,'” he said, “but it’s hard to imagine that something can’t be done.” He noted the lack of understanding as a key source of friction, and finds that he often has to wade in and order parties to purchase software that will make it possible for them to conduct complete discovery.
  • The bottom line, according to Hegarty, is that the vast majority of cases never go to trial – surprisingly less than one percent of Colorado cases ever see a courtroom – and that’s the way it should be. “We can’t have discovery disputes sit around for months,” he said. It’s important to facilitate a communication process that includes ESI where appropriate in order to settle cases and move them along.

William Hamilton: Support Staff Make Like Possible for Attorneys

William Hamilton is a partner at Quarles and Brady in Tampa, Florida. He is also a professor at the University of Florida’s law school, Levin College, where he teaches “Electronic Discovery and Digital Evidence”. Hamilton is also dean of an online graduate certificate program in eDiscovery at Bryan University, and chair of the advisory board of the Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS).

  • Hamilton’s speech focused heavily on the role of support staff, the people who “make life possible for attorneys”. He says paralegals and technology staff have a larger role to play in discovery than ever before, but must be careful not to cross over into unauthorized legal practice as they assist litigators.
  • He pointed out a need for change in the very culture of legal practice, where “[h]ierarchy culture disenfranchises everybody”. Bad decision making results from choices made by: “1) habit, 2) reputation, 3) haste, and 4) ‘pure command decisions”, he noted.
  • “Only 10 percent of lawyers ‘get’ e-discovery,” says Hamilton. It’s time for that to change, he says, as a new paradigm for discovery of electronic materials is born.

Learn more about the Colorado Association of Litigation Support Professionals E-Discovery Summit on the Association’s website or read the complete article on Hamilton and Hegarty’s presentations at Law Technology News.

So, what do you think? Is a top-down approach to eDiscovery still viable, or is there a real need for the process to change to a more collaborative and communicative one? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Opinions…Everybody Has One
With the number of presidential candidacy polls already being conducted with over a year(!) before the 2012 presidential election, it’s no surprise that just about everyone is willing to express an opinion on just about anything.  With that in mind, one of the best eDiscovery blogs out there, Ralph Losey’s e-Discovery Team blog, is currently conducting a confidential poll of its readers related to various eDiscovery topics.

Using Polldaddy.com, Ralph asks questions related to various eDiscovery topics, including confidentiality orders, privacy rights, eDiscovery certification and new Federal Rules for eDiscovery.  He even asks a polling question of his readers as to whether they like these polls!  Amazingly, 13 people (10.48%) so far have responded ‘no’ to that question, which makes me wonder why they would take the time to respond when they don’t like polls?  Hmmm…  😉

Each of the polling questions not only provides a button to vote, but also provides a link to view results.  If there’s an end date to the poll at some point, Ralph doesn’t indicate one, so it appears that the ‘polls’ are open indefinitely.  The questions each have ‘yes’ and ‘no’ selections, along with an ‘other’ (with space to put in a comment and usually a fourth qualifying option (for example, question #2 below provides a choice for ‘Most of the time, but not always’).

I don’t want to “steal anyone’s thunder” and report current results, but you can use the link above to check out current results for each of the questions.  I will say that it appears that most of the questions have at least 100 responses so far, with some having a clear majority opinion and others being much more evenly distributed in responses.  Here are the questions Ralph asks in his blog post (excepting the aforementioned question about liking polls):

  1. Should courts routinely enter umbrella confidentiality protective orders during the discovery phase of the case?
  2. Should the public have a right to see all information filed with a court?
  3. Should all information accepted into evidence in a trial be disclosed to the public?
  4. Should Plaintiffs in civil suits have a right to protect from public disclosure any of their confidential information that is directly relevant to their case?
  5. Should Defendants in civil suits have a right to protect from public disclosure their confidential information that is directly relevant to the case?
  6. Should corporations have the same privacy rights as individuals?
  7. Is lack of privacy a problem in the United States?
  8. Are you concerned about your employer’s right to read your email?
  9. Would you like stronger U.S. privacy laws where no one can read your email and other personal communications without your permission? (multiple answers allowed)
  10. Would you like to see privacy protection on the Internet strengthened?
  11. Do you agree with Patrick Oot? (and his criticism of eDiscovery certification programs)
  12. Do you think there is a need for certification of expertise in the field of electronic discovery?*
  13. Do you think there is a need for extensive training programs in e-discovery law?
  14. Do we need to amend the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure again soon to address e-discovery issues?
  15. Do we need to amend the FRCP to add one or more new rules on preservation?
  16. Should the rules be amended to limit the scope of relevancy in discovery?

*I have a ‘bone to pick’ with one of the potential responses to question 12 (Yes, but only State Bar Associations should do it) as it implies that the only people who need certification are attorneys and other legal practitioners, when technologists and consultants need it too.

I encourage you to check out the post, vote and view current results.  Even if you don’t like polls.  😉

So, what do you think?  Can we learn anything from polls like this?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Law: Model Order Proposes to Limit eDiscovery in Patent Cases
A recent article in Texas Lawyer discussed the new model order proposed by Federal Circuit Chief Judge Randall Rader as a measure against the “excesses” of eDiscovery production. As noted at the 2011 Eastern District of Texas Bench Bar Conference in Irving last week, the “Model Order on E-Discovery in Patent Cases” was unanimously voted on by the Federal Circuit Advisory Council and, as a result, could significantly alter the way discovery materials are used in patent cases.

What’s Wrong with eDiscovery Now?

In his speech at the 2011 Eastern District of Texas Bench Bar Conference, “Thoughts on the Status and Direction of Patent Litigation in the United States,” Judge Rader accuses the courts of becoming “intolerantly expensive”, forcing “accused infringers to acquiesce to non-meritorious claims” therefore imposing “an unhealthy tax on innovation and open competition”.  He compared the model order to the current Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30, which limits cases to 10 depositions of 7 hours or fewer.

Rader said “the greatest weakness of the U.S. court system is its expense. And the driving factor for that expense is discovery excesses.” Hence, the proposed model order to save the participants in these cases time and money.

Model Order Proposes Limits on eDiscovery

Rader’s model order would create several limits on the production of electronically stored information in patent cases, including:

  • Exclusion of metadata from eDiscovery production requests without “good cause”;
  • Restrictions on email production requests to specific issues and “not general discovery of a product or business”;
  • Delaying of email production requests until after disclosures about the patents, the accused uses of the invention, relevant financial information and the prior art;
  • A maximum of five custodians per party in email requests, and only five search terms each, unless courts specifically allow in excess of that number (if litigants submit requests that exceed those court orders, they must pay for the extra production);
  • Receiving parties cannot use materials asserted by producing parties as attorney-client or work product privileged;
  • Prohibitions on the use of privileged information produced as part of a mass production or other inadvertent release.

For more information about this model order and its implications, see Model Order Would Limit E-Discovery in Patent Cases.

So, what do you think?  Will the model order “catch on” as a way to limit the eDiscovery possible in patent cases?  Will other jurisdictions adopt the model order? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.