Close
Enter your
text here

Proportionality

eDiscovery Trends: Ralph Losey of Jackson Lewis, LLP, Part Two
 

This is the sixth of the 2012 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year.

Today’s thought leader is Ralph Losey. Ralph is an attorney in private practice with the law firm of Jackson Lewis, LLP, where he is a Partner and the firm's National e-Discovery Counsel. Ralph is also an Adjunct Professor at the University of Florida College of Law teaching eDiscovery and advanced eDiscovery. Ralph is also a prolific author of eDiscovery books and articles, the principle author and publisher of the popular e-Discovery Team® Blog and founder and owner of an intensive online training program, e-Discovery Team Training, with attorney and technical students all over the world.

Our interview with Ralph had so much good information in it, we couldn’t fit it all into a single post.  Yesterday was part 1.  Here's the rest of the interview!

Are there any other key trends you see?  Is there anything else interesting in terms of the trends you see here at LegalTech, at least as far as the curriculum goes?

[Interviewed the first morning, before the show began]  In all candor, the show hasn't begun yet, so I haven't seen anything.  I'm doing four presentations on predictive coding and one with Craig Ball, which I'm looking forward to.  I hope I don't suffer too bad of a public humiliation by Master Ball. 

But, you know, the keynote speech that's getting ready to start is on ethics, and I see a lot of ethics in the curriculum.  I'm pleased by that.  I do lecture a lot on eDiscovery ethics, and I think it comes down to fundamentally what we are doing with discovery.  Are we, as legal practitioners, willing to stop playing “hide the ball”, stop all this nonsense and waste of money, and get down to actually finding the key facts and getting them out there quickly?  That's always been my attitude, but I was lucky – I was brought up in a firm that really put ethics first and money second.  But, there are a lot of people out there for which money's first, and ethics is a gray area.

Ethics is not a gray area.  We're supposed to try and get the case resolved and save money for our clients.  That's rule one.  Just do it speedy and inexpensively.  A lot of lawyers, say, “yeah, right” and that's how they make a living.  Well, shame on them.

You don’t make a living by exploiting your clients.  You make a living by winning cases, and sometimes the best way to win a case is to settle it when you realize the facts are against you – not to try to change the facts or hide the facts.  So that's ethics.  Most clients want ethical lawyers like that.

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

I'm doing a lot of law firm training.  I do that internally and, since my current law firm specializes in labor and employment only, we're not really a competitor to most law firms.  So, we actually can offer a service to help train other law firms in eDiscovery.

I'm also now doing a lot of training for our corporate clients.  We represent Fortune 500 type companies, and it's important for those companies to be prepared for eDiscovery.  Now that we’re coming out of the recession, companies can spend the money needed to get ready for litigation and eDiscovery that they put off before, because of other priorities.  Companies are now saying “I want to finally get my e-mail retention policy in order.  I want to figure out how to get a litigation hold implemented in my company without causing all kinds of disruption and chaos and confusion and expense.”

It just takes preparation.  It takes time.  The fundamental way to do that is to set up your own internal team, eDiscovery team.  That's one of the main ideas that I've been talking about for six years now when I started my blog, e-Discovery Team®, is the joint approach of people working together.  Get the IT people, the law people and the management people working together as teams for – in this case – litigation readiness.

It can cost a fair amount of money to do it right.  But, if you spend $100,000 now to get ready and get your systems in order, you can save yourself millions later on and also save yourself the embarrassment of making a mistake, of being found out to be a spoliator.  There are plenty of examples where it makes sense to spend a little money up front to save more money down the road.  So, I want to encourage companies to think about that, whether they use me or somebody else.  There are a number of attorneys that provide those services, and it's money well spent.  Pay me a little bit now or pay me a lot later.

Ten years ago, when Cisco was probably the first company in the country to form their own eDiscovery team, it was after they faced hundreds of investor law suits.  They found that by forming their own eDiscovery team, they reduced their litigation expenses by 90 percent because most of their litigation expenses were related to eDiscovery.  While I'm not promising you'll save 90 percent like Cisco did, I am saying it's a well-established fact that spending a little money up front to prepare will help you save costs in the long run.

I'd also like point out to people the other program that I've developed, which I call eDiscovery team training.  And you'll also find that on the web, at e-Discovery Team Training.  I took what I had developed in law school in teaching eDiscovery to law students for the past three or four years, and I developed an online program with the University of Florida, School of Law.  With their permission, I developed my own private version of that, which is actually much longer and harder than what I taught to law students.  Law students had to take it in two months.

So, I've developed a program that built on that, which you can take up to two years to complete.  It's 75 hours of work to go through the training program and it's all online.  It has homework assignments at the end for additional reading and presents different essays, hypertext-type writings and videos.  It takes advantage of the power of online education, which I really think is more the future than these expensive, face-to-face education programs, like we have at LegalTech.

There are still a few events that I'll go to each year (like LegalTech and the Sedona Conference), and then I'll train inside corporations or in my own law firm.  The fact that most lawyers aren't doing eDiscovery is not because they're trying to do anything wrong or hide the truth.  They simply don't know how.  And if you teach them how to do it, they'll do it.  This is against a lot of vendors' models – they would rather serve a nice fish dinner.  I'm more into teaching people how to fish so that they can feed themselves, and that's what I go around trying to do.

Thanks, Ralph, for participating in the interview!

And to the readers, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic!

eDiscovery Trends: Ralph Losey of Jackson Lewis, LLP
 

This is the sixth of the 2012 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscoveryDaily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year.

Today’s thought leader is Ralph Losey. Ralph is an attorney in private practice with the law firm of Jackson Lewis, LLP, where he is a Partner and the firm's National e-Discovery Counsel. Ralph is also an Adjunct Professor at the University of Florida College of Law teaching eDiscovery and advanced eDiscovery. Ralph is also a prolific author of eDiscovery books and articles, the principle author and publisher of the popular e-Discovery Team® Blog and founder and owner of an intensive online training program, e-Discovery Team Training, with attorney and technical students all over the world.

Our interview with Ralph had so much good information in it, we couldn’t fit it all into a single post.  So, today is part one.  Part two will be published in the blog tomorrow!

Many people are saying that 2012 is the year of technology assisted review.  What do you think needs to happen for that to come true?

Well, many things.  First of all, we need to have better training for lawyers so that they'll know how to use the technology.  If you bring an advanced computer to anyone, they're going to need some kind of instruction on how to use it.  You have to have people trained to use the tools.  That's very important and I spend a lot of time focusing on training in my firm and around the country to other attorneys and bar groups.  The tool alone really can't do much or help you unless you fit in the use of it into a larger, legal methodology.

In other words, just bringing in technology in itself doesn't answer any questions.  It may answer some, but it doesn't give you the answers you need in order to use it in your practice.

I'm a legal practitioner.  I've been practicing law, for, I guess about 32 years now.  So, that's how I look at technology – as tools to practice law and represent clients.  And, the truth is most people don't know how to use predictive coding yet, so we're going to have a training and learning curve like you do with any new technology.

Vendors also need to start bringing the prices down so that it's more affordable and make it accessible to a large number of attorneys, rather than just a few attorneys that can afford to handle it in large cases.  I've been complaining about this to vendors for a while now.  The good news is I think that they're listening.  I'm beginning to see prices come down and I think this trend will continue.  It's in their own best interest to do that because in the long run, they are going to be more successful in bringing this technology to attorneys and making money for their companies if they look at more of a large scale, larger volume, lower profit as opposed to making larger amounts of profit and fewer projects.

I think most of the vendors are receptive to that.  The reason they probably just don't jump on it right away is the demand isn’t there yet.  Build it and they will come.  But, they're only coming in small numbers.  When they're only coming in small numbers in order to pay for their business, they have to charge a lot.

So, it's a circle.  It comes back again to training.  An educated consumer will want this.  I want this.  I like it, and I want it affordable.

Do you think that it's just merely a matter of bringing prices down?  Or is it being creative in how you price differently?

Well, it's both.  The bottom line is always the bottom line, but it’s important to get there in a way that's win-win for both the consumer (law firms and corporate law departments) and for the provider.  So, there needs to be creative solutions.  As a result, I think people are now “putting on their thinking caps” and coming up with new ways to price solutions because there are different needs.  I have my own ideas on how I want to use it, and so I want people to price accordingly.  I don't want there to be a “one-size-fits-all” type of solution.  I think the vendors are hearing that, too.

You had a recent blog post about bottom line proportional review and you noted that the larger cases have a lot at stake, so the budget is much higher.  How does it work for smaller cases?

It's going to take a legal method, and I think that the method I described (bottom line proportional review) is the way to make it happen.  In order to make bottom line driven review (where you're basically setting a budget up front) to be acceptable to the requesting party, they're going to want to make sure that this isn't just another way to “hide the ball”.  They're going to want to make sure that they can find the relevant evidence that they need to evaluate their case to either see that they've got a winning case (so they can move for a summary-judgment, establish a strong settlement position, or go to trial) or see that they have a weak case and value it accordingly.

We all want to find out as quickly as possible how good a case it is.  We really don't want to spend all of our time and money just doing discovery.  The whole point of discovery is to discover how good your case is and then resolve it.

I'm very oriented to resolving cases.  That's really most of my life.  I wasn't an eDiscovery lawyer most of my career.  I was a trial lawyer, and I think that perspective is lacking from some of the vendors and some of the analysts and some of the other people in eDiscovery.  People seem to think discovery is an end in itself.  It's not.  It's just a way to prepare for trial.

So, there is no reason to get all of the relevant evidence.  That's an archaic notion of the past.  There's too much relevant evidence.  All that counts is the important relevant evidence.  The smoking guns are what counts.  The highly relevant or hot documents are what counts.

You do have to wade through some relevant documents to get there, but the point is to get there.  It gets back to my “seven plus or minus two” rule.  It's not my rule.  It's an old rule of persuasion.  That's never going to change.  People are never going to remember more than seven documents at a trial.  They just can't.  The juror's mind is not capable of it.

Lawyers can handle probably several hundred exhibits, and they can keep it in their head.  But, they don't make the decisions.  And, the several hundred exhibits are merely predicates or evidentiary foundations in order to get the key exhibits out there that you then use in your closing argument.

The point of discovery and litigation is to identify and locate these key documents.  When you understand that, then you'll accept and understand the fact that you don't need all relevant information, all relevant documents.  You just need the most highly relevant documents so that you can feel pretty confident you've got the handful of documents you need to try the case.

The thing that’s exciting about predictive coding is its ranking abilities.  You don't have to look at the junk that's not really that relevant.  You only look at the most relevant documents, whether it’s the most relevant 5,000, 50,000 or 100,000.  Whatever it is that's appropriate to your size case.  You're not going to look at 100,000 documents in a $250,000 dollar discrimination case.  It makes no sense.

That's where you get back to proportionality.  It's a somewhat long answer to your question, but people need to understand that this isn't a way to hide the truth.  It's really a way to get the truth out there in an efficient, economic manner.

So, based on the five dollar per document review cost example in your post, if you have $25,000 to spend, you can review the top 5,000 documents, right?

That's right.  And the five dollars is just like a working number that you use.  Some document collections can be even more expensive and difficult.  For example, a collection with a lot of 20-page spreadsheets (where you actually determine what's confidential and what's not in each sheet) can drive that number up.  Banking cases are a nightmare.  You've got all this financial information, where some of it's relevant and some of it's not.  For other cases, it can be a lot cheaper.  But, you also have to take some vendor claims with a big grain of salt.  “Oh, I'll do your whole thing for you for a buck a document.”  Will you?  Really?  What does that include?

Thanks, Ralph, for participating in the interview!

And to the readers, just a reminder that part two of our interview with Ralph Losey will be published tomorrow.  Don't miss it!  And, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic!

eDiscovery Trends: International Trade Commission Considers Proportionality Proposal
 

As eDiscovery costs continue to escalate, proposals to bring proportionality to the eDiscovery process have become increasingly popular, such as this model order to limit eDiscovery in patent cases proposed by Federal Circuit Chief Judge Randall Rader last year (which was adopted for use in this case).  In January, Chief Judge Rader and three members of the Council (Council Chairman Ed Reines of Weil, Tina Chappell of Intel Corporation, and John Whealan, Associate Dean of Intellectual Property Studies at the George Washington University School of Law) presented a proposal to the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) to streamline eDiscovery in section 337 investigations.

Under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1337), the USITC conducts investigations into allegations of certain unfair practices in import trade. Section 337 declares the infringement of certain statutory intellectual property rights and other forms of unfair competition in import trade to be unlawful practices. Most Section 337 investigations involve allegations of patent or registered trademark infringement.

The proposal tracks the approach of the district court eDiscovery model order that is being adopted in several district courts and under consideration in others. Chairman Reines described the proposal as flexible, reasonably simple, and easy to administer. Under the proposal, litigants would:

  • Indicate whether ESI such as email is being sought or not;
  • Presumptively limit the number of custodians whose files will be searched, the locations of those documents, and the search terms that will be used (if litigants exceed the specified limits, they would assume the additional costs);
  • Use focused search terms limited to specific contested issues; and
  • Allow privileged documents to be exchanged without losing privilege.

For more regarding the regarding the USITC proposal to streamline eDiscovery in section 337 investigations, including reactions from USITC members, click to see the USITC press release here.

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

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

eDiscovery Case Law: KPMG Loses Another Round to Pippins
 

As discussed previously in eDiscovery Daily, KPMG sought a protective order in Pippins v. KPMG LLP, No. 11 Civ. 0377 (CM)(JLC), 2011 WL 4701849 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2011) to require the preservation of only a random sample of 100 hard drives from among those it had already preserved for this and other litigation or shift the cost of any preservation beyond that requested scope.  Lawyers for Pippins won a ruling last November by Magistrate Judge James Cott to use all available drives and Judge Cott encouraged the parties to continue to meet and confer to reach agreement on sampling.  However, the parties were unable to agree and KPMG appealed to the District Court.

Last Friday, District Court Judge Colleen McMahon upheld the lower court ruling, noting:

"It smacks of chutzpah (no definition required) to argue that the Magistrate failed to balance the costs and benefits of preservation when KPMG refused to cooperate with that analysis by providing the very item that would, if examined, demonstrate whether there was any benefit at all to preservation.”

“KPMG could have established [that producing all the drives was unnecessary] by producing several hard drives to Plaintiffs and Magistrate Judge Cott. … But KPMG has established nothing of the sort,” McMahon added.

“Even assuming that KPMG’s preservation costs are both accurate and wholly attributable to this litigation — which I cannot verify — I cannot possibly balance the costs and benefits of preservations when I’m missing one side of the scale (the benefits).”

“I gather that KPMG takes the position that the only Audit Associates who are presently ‘parties’ are the named plaintiffs, and so only the named plaintiffs’ hard drives really need to be preserved. But that is nonsense,” she continued. “Under Zubulake IV, the duty to preserve all relevant information for ‘key players’ is triggered when a party ‘reasonably anticipates litigation.’ … At the present moment, KPMG should ‘reasonably anticipate’ that every Audit Associate who will be receiving opt-in notice is a potential plaintiff in this action,” McMahon concluded.

Outten & Golden partner Justin Swartz, representing Pippins, commented after the ruling: "All we're asking for is the chance to look at a few hard drives, find out what's on them, and negotiate a resolution."  Steven Catlett, representing Sidley Austin for KPMG, did not provide a comment.

So, what do you think?  Was this a ruling against proportionality in eDiscovery or is KPMG’s refusal to provide any hard drives defeating their proportionality argument?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

eDiscovery Trends: Small Cases Need Love Too!
 

There was an interesting article in Law Technology News from Tom O’Connor, a previous thought leader interviewee on this blog, regarding the dilemma associated with affordability of eDiscovery technology for small cases (entitled Pricing: The Small Case E-Discovery Dilemma).  Even though small cases make up the overwhelming majority of cases filed and there is ESI to manage in those cases just like there is in the big cases, eDiscovery technology has historically been cost prohibitive for the cases when compared to the amount at dispute.

To make technology work for the smaller cases, Tom makes some assumptions, including:

  • Typical ESI File Formats: The types of files you’re working with in the smaller cases are typical file formats for email and office functions.  If you get into the less common file formats, you’re more likely to need more expensive technology to handle those.
  • Host the Data Yourself: Tom assumes “that you want to host the data yourself, and that you have the equipment and skills to do so” and that small cases “demand applications that can be installed on one computer for processing and review”.  It’s an interesting assumption, the question is do many of the firms managing these small cases have both the equipment and the skills to do so? (I’m not sure that they do).
  • Smaller Volumes of ESI: Of course, it makes perfect sense that the small case would be dealing with less ESI.  As Tom notes, “[w]e're also assuming you are not dealing with terabytes of information.”  Of course not.  However, with each GB representing 50,000 pages of data (or more), it doesn’t take much volume to require technology to effectively manage the data.
  • Cooperative Relationship: Tom also states the assumption that “you have a cooperative relationship with the other side, at least in terms of dealing with EDD”.  When that’s the case, it’s a lot easier to keep eDiscovery at a proportional level.

The article goes on to look at a case starting with 800 GB that ultimately yields 200 GB of reviewable material and the potentially exorbitant costs (as much as $1 million) associated with managing a 200 GB case.  Yet, as Tom notes, “[b]ig EDD companies don't want this business — we've been told that directly by sales managers at two separate top-tier companies.”

Last year at LegalTech, several of the thought leaders that I interviewed indicated that they were seeing more technology alternatives suitable for the smaller cases and Tom mentions some of those toward the end of the article.  One of our 2012 predictions was a greater adoption of eDiscovery technology for smaller cases (as even those cases are no longer that small), attorneys are forced to embrace eDiscovery technology for these cases and, eDiscovery providers are taking note.

In addition to the trends and technology alternatives that Tom writes about, I wrote an article that was published in LJN’s Legal Tech Newsletter in September entitled e-Discovery Technology for the $100,000 (Or Less) Case that discusses some of the trends that are starting to make technology more affordable for the smaller case.  These include SaaS applications in the cloud, pricing models that promote simplified and pay-as-you-go technology pricing, advanced data culling techniques and self-service functionality that enables the firm to “do it yourself” instead of paying the vendor for those services.  This article also identifies some technology alternatives that promote those concepts to make eDiscovery technology affordable even when the amount in dispute is no more than $100,000.

If you’re a subscriber to Legal Tech Newsletter, you can get that entire issue here.  If you’re not a subscriber, but would be interested in a reprint of that article, send me an email to daustin@ediscoverydaily.com and I’ll send you a copy.

So, what do you think?  Are you able to effectively use eDiscovery technology for smaller cases?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

eDiscovery Trends: Needing “Technology Assisted Review” to Write a Blog Post
 

Late on a Thursday night, with a variety of tasks and projects on my plate at the moment, it seems more difficult this night to find a unique and suitable topic for today’s blog post.

One thing I often do when looking for ideas is to hit the web and turn to the many resources that I read regularly to stay abreast of developments in the industry.  Usually when I do that, I find one article or blog post that “speaks to me” as a topic to talk about on this blog.  However, when doing so last night, I found several topics worth discussing and had difficulty selecting just one.  So, here are some of the notable articles and posts that I’ve been reviewing:

There’s plenty more articles out there.  I’ve barely scratched the surface.  When we launched eDiscovery Daily about 16 months ago, some wondered whether there would be enough eDiscovery news and information to talk about on a daily basis.  The problem we have found instead is that there is SO much to talk about, it’s difficult to choose.  Today, I was unable to choose just one topic, so, as the picture notes, “I have nothing to say”.  Therefore, I’ve had to use “technology assisted review” to provide a post to you, thanks to the many excellent articles and blogs out there.  Enjoy!

So, what do you think?  Are there any specific topics that you find are being discussed a lot on the web?  Are there any topics that you’d like to see discussed more?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

eDiscovery Trends: Our 2012 Predictions
 

Yesterday, we evaluated what others are saying and noted popular eDiscovery prediction trends for the coming year.  It’s interesting to identify common trends among the prognosticators and also the unique predictions as well.

But we promised our own predictions for today, so here they are.  One of the nice things about writing and editing a daily eDiscovery blog is that it forces you to stay abreast of what’s going on in the industry.  Based on the numerous stories we’ve read (many of which we’ve also written about), and in David Letterman “Top 10” fashion, here are our eDiscovery predictions for 2012:

  • Still More ESI in the Cloud: Frankly, this is like predicting “the Sun will be hot in 2012”.  Given the predictions in cloud growth by Forrester and Gartner, it seems inevitable that organizations will continue to migrate more data and applications to “the cloud”.  Even if some organizations continue to resist the cloud movement, those organizations still have to address the continued growth in usage of social media sites in business (which, last I checked, are based in the cloud).  It’s inevitable.
  • More eDiscovery Technology in the Cloud As Well: We will continue to see more cloud offerings for eDiscovery technology, ranging from information governance to preservation and collection to review and production.  With the need for corporations to share potentially responsive ESI with one or more outside counsel firms, experts and even opposing counsel, cloud based Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) applications are a logical choice for sharing that information effortlessly without having to buy software, hardware and provide infrastructure to do so.  Every year at LegalTech, there seems to be a few more eDiscovery cloud providers and this year should be no different.
  • Self-Service in the Cloud: So, organizations are seeing the benefits of the cloud not only for storing ESI, but also managing it during Discovery.  It’s the cost effective alternative.  But, organizations are demanding the control of a desktop application within their eDiscovery applications.  The ability to load your own data, add your own users and maintain their rights, create your own data fields are just a few of the capabilities that organizations expect to be able to do themselves.  And, more providers are responding to those needs.  That trend will continue this year.
  • Technology Assisted Review: This was the most popular prediction among the pundits we reviewed.  The amount of data in the world continues to explode, as there were 988 exabytes in the whole world as of 2010 and Cisco predicts that IP traffic over data networks will reach 4.8 zettabytes (each zettabyte is 1,000 exabytes) by 2015.  More than five times the data in five years.  Even in the smaller cases, there’s simply too much data to not use technology to get through it all.  Whether it’s predictive coding, conceptual clustering or some other technology, it’s required to enable attorneys manage the review more effectively and efficiently.
  • Greater Adoption of eDiscovery Technology for Smaller Cases: As each gigabyte of data is between 50,000 and 100,000 pages, a “small” case of 4 GB (or two max size PST files in Outlook® 2003) can still be 300,000 pages or more.  As “small” cases are no longer that small, attorneys are forced to embrace eDiscovery technology for the smaller cases as well.  And, eDiscovery providers are taking note.
  • Continued Focus on International eDiscovery:  So, cases are larger and there’s more data in the cloud, which leads to more cases where Discovery of ESI internationally becomes an issue.  The Sedona Conference® just issued in December the Public Comment Version of The Sedona Conference® International Principles on Discovery, Disclosure & Data Protection: Best Practices, Recommendations & Principles for Addressing the Preservation & Discovery of Protected Data in U.S. Litigation, illustrating how important an issue this is becoming for eDiscovery.
  • Prevailing Parties Awarded eDiscovery Costs: Shifting to the courtroom, we have started to see more cases where the prevailing party is awarded their eDiscovery costs as part of their award.  As organizations have pushed for more proportionality in the Discovery process, courts have taken it upon themselves to impose that proportionality through taxing the “losers” for reimbursement of costs, causing prevailing defendants to say: “Sue me and lose?  Pay my costs!”.
  • Continued Efforts and Progress on Rules Changes: Speaking of proportionality, there will be continued efforts and progress on changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as organizations push for clarity on preservation and other obligations to attempt to bring spiraling eDiscovery costs under control.  It will take time, but progress will be made toward that goal this year.
  • Greater Price/Cost Control Pressure on eDiscovery Services: In the meantime, while waiting for legislative relief, organizations will expect the cost for eDiscovery services to be more affordable and predictable.  In order to accommodate larger amounts of data, eDiscovery providers will need to offer simplified and attractive pricing alternatives.
  • Big Player Consolidation Continues, But Plenty of Smaller Players Available: In 2011, we saw HP acquire Autonomy and Symantec acquire Clearwell, continuing a trend of acquisitions of the “big players” in the industry.  This trend will continue, but there is still plenty of room for the “little guy” as smaller providers have been pooling resources to compete, creating an interesting dichotomy in the industry of few big and many small providers in eDiscovery.

So, what do you think?  Care to offer your own predictions?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

eDiscovery Trends: 2012 Predictions – By The Numbers

With a nod to Nick Bakay, “It’s all so simple when you break things down scientifically.”

The late December/early January time frame is always when various people in eDiscovery make their annual predictions as to what trends to expect in the coming year.  I know what you’re thinking – “oh no, not another set of eDiscovery predictions!”  However, at eDiscovery Daily, we do things a little bit differently.  We like to take a look at other predictions and see if we can spot some common trends among those before offering some of our own (consider it the ultimate “cheat sheet”).  So, as I did last year, I went “googling” for 2012 eDiscovery predictions, and organized the predictions into common themes.  I found eDiscovery predictions here, here, here, here, here, here and Applied Discovery.  Oh, and also here, here and here.  Ten sets of predictions in all!  Whew!

A couple of quick comments: 1) Not all of these are from the original sources, but the links above attribute the original sources when they are re-prints.  If I have failed to accurately attribute the original source for a set of predictions, please feel free to comment.  2) This is probably not an exhaustive list of predictions (I have other duties in my “day job”, so I couldn’t search forever), so I apologize if I’ve left anybody’s published predictions out.  Again, feel free to comment if you’re aware of other predictions.

Here are some of the common themes:

  • Technology Assisted Review: Nine out of ten “prognosticators” (up from 2 out of 7 last year) predicted a greater emphasis/adoption of technological approaches.  While some equate technology assisted review with predictive coding, other technology approaches such as conceptual clustering are also increasing in popularity.  Clearly, as the amount of data associated with the typical litigation rises dramatically, technology is playing a greater role to enable attorneys manage the review more effectively and efficiently.
  • eDiscovery Best Practices Combining People and Technology: Seven out of ten “augurs” also had predictions related to various themes associated with eDiscovery best practices, especially processes that combine people and technology.  Some have categorized it as a “maturation” of the eDiscovery process, with corporations becoming smarter about eDiscovery and integrating it into core business practices.  We’ve had numerous posts regarding to eDiscovery best practices in the past year, click here for a selection of them.
  • Social Media Discovery: Six “pundits” forecasted a continued growth in sources and issues related to social media discovery.  Bet you didn’t see that one coming!  For a look back at cases from 2011 dealing with social media issues, click here.
  • Information Governance: Five “soothsayers” presaged various themes related to the promotion of information governance practices and programs, ranging from a simple “no more data hoarding” to an “emergence of Information Management platforms”.  For our posts related to Information Governance and management issues, click here.
  • Cloud Computing: Five “mediums” (but are they happy mediums?) predict that ESI and eDiscovery will continue to move to the cloud.  Frankly, given the predictions in cloud growth by Forrester and Gartner, I’m surprised that there were only five predictions.  Perhaps predicting growth of the cloud has become “old hat”.
  • Focus on eDiscovery Rules / Court Guidance: Four “prophets” (yes, I still have my thesaurus!) expect courts to provide greater guidance on eDiscovery best practices in the coming year via a combination of case law and pilot programs/model orders to establish expectations up front.
  • Complex Data Collection: Four “psychics” also predicted that data collection will continue to become more complex as data sources abound, the custodian-based collection model comes under stress and self-collection gives way to more automated techniques.

The “others receiving votes” category (three predicting each of these) included cost shifting and increased awards of eDiscovery costs to the prevailing party in litigation, flexible eDiscovery pricing and predictable or reduced costs, continued focus on international discovery and continued debate on potential new eDiscovery rules.  Two each predicted continued consolidation of eDiscovery providers, de-emphasis on use of backup tapes, de-emphasis on use of eMail, multi-matter eDiscovery management (to leverage knowledge gained in previous cases), risk assessment /statistical analysis and more single platform solutions.  And, one predicted more action on eDiscovery certifications.

Some interesting predictions.  Tune in tomorrow for ours!

So, what do you think?  Care to offer your own “hunches” from your crystal ball?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

eDiscovery Case Law: Defendants Not Required to Share Costs for Plaintiff’s Third Party Request
 

After recapping 2011 case law over four days last week, it seems appropriate to move on to new cases, starting with a couple of stragglers from last year.

In Last Atlantis Capital LLC v. AGS Specialist Partners, No. 04 C 0397, 2011 WL 6097769 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 5, 2011), the plaintiffs proposed that the defendants share in the cost of obtaining data that Plaintiffs subpoenaed from third parties.  The court noted that all parties “involved herein are aware that the linchpin of this entire matter” was to obtain this audit trail data for analysis.  The court had also previously suggested (at a September status conference) “in an effort to accelerate this protracted litigation” that it would be “reasonable” for Defendants to aid in half the costs.  Nonetheless, the court rejected the plaintiff’s proposal for cost-sharing in this case, rejecting the plaintiff arguments for doing so.  Here are the arguments and the court’s rejection of each:

  • Court's comments during the September Status Conference as evidence that costs should be shared: While the court admitted to suggesting to Defendants that Plaintiffs' proposal of cost sharing sounded “reasonable”, those comments “were made to encourage movement within this stagnant litigation”.  Once the Court was able to further research the precedent surrounding cost-sharing, it found no basis for accepting the Plaintiffs' cost-sharing proposal.
  • Plaintiffs' reliance upon the Sedona Conference Commentary on Non–Party Production & Rule 45 Subpoenas, 9 Sedona Conf. J. 197 (2008): The court felt that this Sedona Conference Commentary was “almost entirely irrelevant” to the matter at hand  as it “is largely concerned with the burden being placed on a non-party to produce information”.  Despite the fact that the Commentary “includes a suggestion that parties meet and confer to ‘address’ cost-sharing, amongst other things, in their initial Rule 26(f) conference”, it did not dictate such an arrangement; rather, the Commentary declares that “[c]ost-shifting or cost-sharing are inconsistent with the so-called ‘American Rule’ that each party bears its own litigation costs”.
  • Other Court Opinions: The plaintiffs cited several court opinions – such as Wiginton v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 229 F.R.D. 568, 573 (N.D.Ill.2004) and Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309, 320 (S.D.N.Y.2003) – to attempt to bolster their argument.  However, the court noted that all of the court opinions “miss the mark as they each address the issue of cost-sharing amongst the requesting party and the producing party, not between a requesting party and a non-requesting, non-producing opponent in the underlying litigation, such as with Defendants.”

The court acknowledged that the defendants had “substantially more resources,” but noted that was a fact it could not consider.  Therefore, the court ruled that “it would not force Defendants to pay for the evidence that Plaintiffs need in order to prove their case against Defendants” and the plaintiffs’ proposal for cost-shifting was denied.

So, what do you think?  Should the defendant have been required to share in the costs?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

eDiscovery Year in Review: eDiscovery Case Law, Part 2
 

As we noted yesterday, eDiscovery Daily has published 65 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 50 unique cases!  Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to eDiscovery cost reimbursement, form of production and international discovery issues.  But, there’s many more cases to recap.  As Lt. Col Frank Slade would say, “I’m just getting warmed up”.  Whoo Ah!

We grouped those cases into common subject themes and will review them over the next few posts.  Perhaps you missed some of these?  Now is your chance to catch up!

PRIVILEGE / INADVERTENT DISCLOSURES

Decisions regarding what information is privileged and whether privilege is waived when inadvertent disclosures occur is always a hot issue for debate.  That was no different in 2011.  And, if you receive an inadvertent disclosure and don’t disclose it, you can get kicked off the case.  Here are five cases related to privilege and inadvertent disclosures:

Privilege Waived for Produced Servers.  Fontainebleau Resort, LLC (FRLLC) produced two servers without conducting any review of the materials, at least one of which had previously been produced to other banks involved in the underlying litigation.  Would they be required to waive privilege on those servers?

When is Attorney-Client Communication NOT Privileged? One answer: When it’s from your work email account, and your employer has a written policy that company email is not private and subject to audit. Oh, and you’re suing your employer.

Read Inadvertent Email, Get Disqualified from Case.  Lesson of the day: When you receive an inadvertently sent privileged email, read it and don’t disclose receipt of it, you can get kicked off the case. In this case, the court disqualified defendant's in-house and outside counsel for their handling of a disputed privileged email that was inadvertently sent by the plaintiffs' counsel to the defendant and shared with defendant’s outside counsel.

Defendants' Privilege Waived for "Completely Ineffective" Discovery Procedures.  In a case over purported building and zoning code violations, an Illinois District Court has found the defendants responsible for inadvertently producing several privileged documents during discovery and for a failure to correct the problem in a timely manner, and has ordered the privilege to be waived.

Court Rules Against Exclusion of Privileged Email. A District of Columbia court has ruled against exclusion of a privileged email that was inadvertently produced by the defendant, ruling that the defendant's actions before and after the discovery of the email's production pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B) were not sufficient to ensure protections under Federal Rule of Exclusion (FRE) 502(b)(3), in a case involving alleged violations of the District of Columbia Whistleblower Act.

PROPORTIONALITY

With the explosion of data in the world and rising costs for preserving, collecting, reviewing and producing that data, it’s not surprising that eDiscovery costs are spiraling upward, causing many to cry “uncle” and making the word “proportionality” become quite trendy, with parties and even courts.  Here are four cases where proportionality of eDiscovery was an issue.  Oh, and if you can’t complete production until after the trial is over, that’s probably too late.

Completing Production AFTER Trial is Too Late.  In this case, Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the defendant’s request for consideration that the District had waived all objections, including privileges, and ordered production within one week of the close of trial. In denying the motion, the court likened the proposed production to “a plane with landing gear that deploys just after touchdown, or a stick of dynamite with a unique fuse that ignites only after it explodes.”

KPMG Denied in Request for “Proportionality Test” to Preservation.  In this case, KPMG sought a protective order to narrow its preservation obligation scope to only a random sample of 100 hard drives from among those it had already preserved for this and other litigation or shift the cost of any preservation beyond that requested scope. With that request in hand, the court considered KPMG's request for proportionality as it applied to its preservation obligations.

Court Grants Adoption of Model Order for Patent Case.  Model orders to limit discovery for patent cases have gained popularity in various jurisdictions, including a recent order proposed in Texas. Here’s one patent case where the defendant sought to adopt such a model order.

Plaintiff Not Required to Review Millions of Pages of Unallocated Space.  In this case, the court affirmed the Magistrate Judge’s order which excused plaintiff from having to review and produce millions of pages of documents recovered from unallocated space files due to the extreme burden and cost to do so.

EDISCOVERY SERVICE DISPUTES

It’s a darn shame when law firms can’t get along with their corporate clients or with the vendors they hired.  Perhaps the most discussed case of the year was the eDiscovery malpractice case involving McDermott, Will & Emery, with posts in eDiscovery Daily here, here and here.  Here are two cases where the actual eDiscovery services being provided were in dispute:

eDiscovery Malpractice Case Highlights Expectation of Higher Standards.  Having noted in eDiscovery Daily that competency ethics are no longer just about the law and that competency in eDiscovery best practices is expected from the attorneys and any outside providers they retain, this case may be the first eDiscovery malpractice case ever filed against a law firm (McDermott Will & Emery) for allegedly failing to supervise contract attorneys that were hired to perform the client’s work and to protect privileged client records.

Sometimes the Vendor Sues the Law Firm – And Wins!  The eDiscovery malpractice case involving McDermott, Will & Emery associated with inadvertent production of 3,900 privileged documents has captured considerable interest in the industry and this blog.  Sometimes, the “shoe is on the other foot”, so to speak.

Tune in tomorrow for more key cases of 2011 and see the topic that continues to generate more case law related to eDiscovery than any other!

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